Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Rangers going all in....


mnfireman
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, John Bonnes said:

I .... don't get it. Maybe they just have a lot more young talent than I'm aware of, but this feels like they're jumping the gun, or trying to load up on a loaded market for flipping purposes, but still ending up paying full price. 

 

Well they have Gray for four years, Semian for seven and Seagar for 10. This doesn't need to be THE year.

In fact, I think it's poor judgment to try to time going big in free agency at the very moment you expect your team to be ready. I know that's how many teams do it, but I don't think that's the way it usually ends up working out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing Seager makes sense to me, given his age. And Gray was cheap. But paying big money to Semien looks even stranger now.

I imagine that Kiner-Falefa would shift to a utility role, but maybe they would look to trade him. He might not be the worst 'cheap' SS option, being similar to Iglesias and Simmons but much younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, John Bonnes said:

I .... don't get it. Maybe they just have a lot more young talent than I'm aware of, but this feels like they're jumping the gun, or trying to load up on a loaded market for flipping purposes, but still ending up paying full price. 

 

I said this elsewhere but it seems that some teams (Rangers, Mets) have no strategy and are just buying to buy, while other teams have no strategy and are just sitting and watching ... 🤷‍♂️

And I'm sure teams have their strategies, but from my pov, it just is weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lecroy24fan said:

No chance they trade him. He goes back to 3B, where he won a Gold Glove in 2020.

I don't know, even with big production out of SS and 2B (you pick who's who), his production seems very light for a 3B. The glove does play though (Story and Correa are still available though...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

There really needs to be revenue sharing and a salary floor within spitting distance of the luxury cap. This game can't make it if only a handful of teams each year are able to load up on the top end talent.

Considering every single team in the Twins' division, even those in much smaller markets than the twin cities have debuted larger season payrolls than the Twins, I'm not sure I agree with you.

If Kansas City can afford a $141MM opening day payroll when they're all in, I just don't see the problem. Kansas City's stadium is old, it's not downtown, the local market is 1/2 the size of Minneapolis and they were traditionally a team who didn't play well.

The Texas Rangers play in Arlington. Population, 400k. 99sq/mi. Density 4.1k per square mile. Now, Dallas and Fort Worth are 20mi and 15mi away, respectively which would add about 2.0 million people.

The Twins play in Minneapolis. Population 420k. 57sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. St.Paul, Population 311k adds 56sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. Effectively, together, 731k, 113sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. The twin cities metro 3.6MM people in 1,000 square miles. DFW is 7.6MM, but in an area nearly 10x larger at 9,200 square miles. 

Bottom line, the Pohlads are cheap and choose not to compete at a level many other teams in their income bracket choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Considering every single team in the Twins' division, even those in much smaller markets than the twin cities have debuted larger season payrolls than the Twins, I'm not sure I agree with you.

If Kansas City can afford a $141MM opening day payroll when they're all in, I just don't see the problem. Kansas City's stadium is old, it's not downtown, the local market is 1/2 the size of Minneapolis and they were traditionally a team who didn't play well.

The Texas Rangers play in Arlington. Population, 400k. 99sq/mi. Density 4.1k per square mile. Now, Dallas and Fort Worth are 20mi and 15mi away, respectively which would add about 2.0 million people.

The Twins play in Minneapolis. Population 420k. 57sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. St.Paul, Population 311k adds 56sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. Effectively, together, 731k, 113sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. The twin cities metro 3.6MM people in 1,000 square miles. DFW is 7.6MM, but in an area nearly 10x larger at 9,200 square miles. 

Bottom line, the Pohlads are cheap and choose not to compete at a level many other teams in their income bracket choose.

Well, maybe the Rangers Cable Channel has figured out how to get their channel further out than a couple of miles from the stadium, so that larger metro area isn't such a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Well, maybe the Rangers Cable Channel has figured out how to get their channel further out than a couple of miles from the stadium, so that larger metro area isn't such a big deal.

Maybe Bally Sports has figured out how to get their broadcasts out further than a couple miles from Minneapolis, too? You know, since all of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and parts of Wisconsin are all in the Twins' blackout area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Bonnes, this feels premature. I'm not saying teams should wait until they have a bunch of young players ready to contend then go trying to spend, but they now have 2 stud middle infield bats and nothing else. Well Garcia looked good last year so they have 3 bats and nothing else? Gray is good, but he's not an ace and the rest of their staff is just as bad as the Twins, but I'm not aware of a stable of arms ready to contribute. 

They're not the yanks or dodgers. They aren't going to blow past the luxury tax. This feels a lot like the Arod deal when they went and got him then had to trade him 3 years later after they won 73, 72, and 71 games. Or maybe the Angels with Trout, Hamilton, and Pujols is a better, more recent example.

I'm certainly not saying teams shouldn't spend. It's way better for the sport to have teams like the Rangers out there taking a swing, but I'm not going to put money on them in 2022. Padres and Rangers making these splashes is good for the game, but isn't great for their teams getting Ws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Considering every single team in the Twins' division, even those in much smaller markets than the twin cities have debuted larger season payrolls than the Twins, I'm not sure I agree with you.

If Kansas City can afford a $141MM opening day payroll when they're all in, I just don't see the problem. Kansas City's stadium is old, it's not downtown, the local market is 1/2 the size of Minneapolis and they were traditionally a team who didn't play well.

The Texas Rangers play in Arlington. Population, 400k. 99sq/mi. Density 4.1k per square mile. Now, Dallas and Fort Worth are 20mi and 15mi away, respectively which would add about 2.0 million people.

The Twins play in Minneapolis. Population 420k. 57sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. St.Paul, Population 311k adds 56sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. Effectively, together, 731k, 113sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. The twin cities metro 3.6MM people in 1,000 square miles. DFW is 7.6MM, but in an area nearly 10x larger at 9,200 square miles. 

Bottom line, the Pohlads are cheap and choose not to compete at a level many other teams in their income bracket choose.

This is the answer, yet somehow people still scratch their heads when we flounder year in and year out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Maybe Bally Sports has figured out how to get their broadcasts out further than a couple miles from Minneapolis, too? You know, since all of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and parts of Wisconsin are all in the Twins' blackout area.

Fort Worth alone is bigger than either Dakota. The Dallas market and the Minneapolis market aren’t remotely close in size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Squirrel said:

I said this elsewhere but it seems that some teams (Rangers, Mets) have no strategy and are just buying to buy, while other teams have no strategy and are just sitting and watching ... 🤷‍♂️

And I'm sure teams have their strategies, but from my pov, it just is weird.

They had a tiny payroll. They could just pocket money, or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Fort Worth alone is bigger than either Dakota. The Dallas market and the Minneapolis market aren’t remotely close in size.

The Twins' contract ends in 2023 and is $43MM vs. $66MM annually for the Rangers who have that same contract through 2034. The difference in TV contract revenue is here:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

Texas peaked its opening day payroll at $176MM - $23MM = $153MM, assuming ticket revenues, etc were similar. MLB stadiums must be located downtown in a heavily urban area like Target Field for best results, but Globe Life Park isn't. The Twins and Rangers have similar attendance, but Target Field has been far and away more expensive to attend.

  Twins Rangers
  Price $ Att. x 1k Price $ Att. x 1k
2010 31 40 21 31
2011 33 39 19 36
2012 33 34 20 43
2013 33 31 23 39
2014 33 28 24 34
2015 33 27 24 31
2016 33 24 24 33
2017 33 25 28 31
2018 33 24 27 26
2019 33 28 26 26
         
 Average  32.8          30,000 23.6      33,000

 

  Twins Rangers
  Act. Gate Rev Max Gate Rev. Act. Gate Rev Max Gate Rev.
2010            100,440,000            100,440,000               52,731,000               73,143,000
2011            104,247,000            106,920,000               55,404,000               66,177,000
2012               90,882,000            106,920,000               69,660,000               69,660,000
2013               82,863,000            106,920,000               72,657,000               80,109,000
2014               74,844,000            106,920,000               66,096,000               83,592,000
2015               72,171,000            106,920,000               60,264,000               83,592,000
2016               64,152,000            106,920,000               64,152,000               83,592,000
2017               66,825,000            106,920,000               70,308,000               97,524,000
2018               64,152,000            106,920,000               56,862,000               94,041,000
2019               74,844,000            106,920,000               54,756,000               90,558,000
Total            795,420,000         1,062,720,000            622,890,000            821,988,000
Average               79,542,000            106,272,000               62,289,000               82,198,800

 

As you can clearly see, the Twins have brought in approximately $17MM more revenue in ticket sales per season on average than the Rangers. That virtually wipes out the difference in TV contract revenue. In fact, actual Twins revenues have exceeded the theoretical maximum Rangers revenues (assuming max attendance at average ticket price) from 2010-2013. Rangers attendance, on average is 10% higher than Twins attendance, but the Twins' ticket price has been nearly 40% higher.

So if TV and attendance revenues are essentially the same... why do the Twins lag behind the Rangers 20% in average and 30% in peak payroll?

  Twins Rangers
  Payroll $MM Payroll $MM
2010 98 55
2011 113 92
2012 94 121
2013 76 114
2014 86 136
2015 109 142
2016 108 144
2017 108 176
2018 132 144
2019 101 104
Total 1025 1228
Average 102.5 122.8

Maybe more fans buy Rangers merchandise because the Rangers have spent way more and won, on average, 7 more games per season? Btw, I'm using 2010-2019 because there isn't a lot of data available after 2019.

  Twins Rangers
  Wins Wins
2010 94 90
2011 63 96
2012 66 93
2013 66 91
2014 70 67
2015 83 88
2016 59 95
2017 85 78
2018 78 67
2019 101 78
Total 765 843
Average 77 84

Sources: Statista, Baseball Reference, Stevetheump

The Twins have every ability to compete and every single time a person sits down to do an analysis, they'll see that fact. The Twins' ownership just chooses to run their franchise very conservatively. Expanding revenue sharing to help the poor Twins or placing some hard cap right next to the salary floor just makes money hand over fist for owners like the Pohlad family and hamstrings owners who are actually dedicated to putting a high quality product on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, lecroy24fan said:

But they just signed two major FA's so why not give him more time at AAA?

The Rangers can certainly wait out the new CBA, to see what kind of service time manipulation they can do with Jung. But it would seem pretty foolish to keep him at AAA longer than necessary, now that they've made major immediate MLB investments and Kiner-Falefa can be exchanged for another asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

The Rangers can certainly wait out the new CBA, to see what kind of service time manipulation they can do with Jung. But it would seem pretty foolish to keep him at AAA longer than necessary, now that they've made major immediate MLB investments and Kiner-Falefa can be exchanged for another asset.

Sure but also Jung has only played a season and a half or pro ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...