The Twins could still spend more and fans should demand it

[Flyover Steve]

While the Twins have established a sad record of playoff futility for twenty years now, they have a record of remarkable accomplishment in another area: they have conditioned their most devoted fans to accept that the team will operate in a way that is likely to perpetuate that futility. That is, the Twins will continue to be cheap spenders. 

I already know well the eye-roll this complaint elicits among many of the Twins’ most devoted and intelligent fans: How can anyone say that now? Look at the money the Twins shelled out to bring Carlos Correa back (with more than a little help from some extraordinarily bizarre events). Look at the other big name free agents the Twins have brought in in recent years: Nelson Cruz and Josh Donaldson, for example. Look at how they secured Byron Buxton through the prime of his career. Carl Pohlad is not with us anymore. This isn’t 2000. Thank your lucky stars the current Pohlads aren’t the cheap hucksters like those who currently run the Pirates, Athletics, or Orioles, to name a few of the truly poor unfortunate souls. 

Certainly I’m glad the Twins aren’t being run like those ponzi schemes, but if we love this team, we shouldn’t let being better than the absolute worst be our standard for satisfaction. 

Right now the poster child for small-market teams spending like high rollers is the San Diego Padres. They are stacking their roster with talent by writing checks so large that even the late George Steinbrenner might’ve hyperventilated to write them. This is despite San Diego being ranked by Sports Media Watch as one of the smallest markets in Major League baseball, with only three markets (Kansas City, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee) being ranked as smaller. San Diego ranks 30th of all sports markets. Minneapolis ranks #15, But San Diego is not actually a brand new outlier and unique case in this. 

According to Spotrac.com, in 2012 the 5th-highest payroll in baseball belonged to the Detroit Tigers. Detroit is ranked as the #14-sized U.S. sports market, just ahead of Minneapolis. Do you know what else the 2012 Detroit Tigers did? They made the World Series. Check any sources about MLB payroll history and you’ll find other examples of teams in markets close to the size of Minneapolis or smaller making appearances among the highest spenders. The St. Louis Cardinals are in a much smaller market than the Twins and they consistently outspend the Twins and are very often in or near the top 10. They are also consistently making the postseason, with two World Series victories and two other World Series appearances in the span of time that the Twins’ playoff losing streak covers. 

This brings up another favorite rebuttal for Twins commentators who defend the Twins’ spending habits as reasonable: spending guarantees nothing. This is certainly true. Until Mets owner Steve Cohen came along, the Yankees were the poster-children of big-market big-spenders, yet they haven’t reached the World Series since 2009. Spending is never a guarantee of anything, but being among the bigger spenders is a bigger advantage than most fans seem to realize. Take a look at recent history (information I compiled using payroll information from Spotrac.com):

 

Looking at these trends (and going back at least until the mid-90s shows similar correlations), it’s not much of an oversimplification to divide MLB teams into two tiers: the Top 12 spenders and the Bottom 18 spenders. The large majority of playoff game victories and World Series game victories- the kinds of things that produce the most fan excitement- tend to go to the teams in the Top 12 club. The teams in the Bottom 18 club are generally fighting for scraps. And before you get too starry-eyed that MLB’s expanded playoffs will change this dynamic, you should know that last year’s World Series teams were 2022’s #4-spending Phillies and #8-spending Astros. 

Every season, the Twins and most of their fans seem to hold this idea that since the Twins play in the weak AL Central, all they have to do is win the division and then get to the playoffs where it’s all a crapshoot and anything can happen. Well, look at that table again. The World Series is the last round of the playoffs, and World Series game victories are still heavily clustered in the Top 12 club. In fact, from 2016 through 2022, the only team to win the World Series that was not among that season’s top 12 spenders? The 2017 Houston Astros. Know anything about them? Maybe the playoffs are a crapshoot but going deep in the playoffs still tends to be reserved for the high rollers. 

There are exceptions to this, of course. The Cleveland Baseball Team famously reached that classic 2016 World Series against the Cubs and the notoriously cheap-but-scrappy Tampa Bay Rays have been perpetual contenders since they reached the 2008 World Series. But note one thing about those two small-spending scrappy organizations: they haven’t actually won a World Series in recent history (or ever, in the Rays’ case). Same thing was true for the much-revered Moneyball A’s of the aughts. This is not to say a cheap team can’t win the World Series. The 2003 Marlins ranked around #22 in payroll that year. You might also have stopped reading this already to tell me about the 2014 & 2015 Kansas City Royals. Well the Royals were out of the Top 12 club both seasons but even they- the microscopic-market Royals- bumped up to #13 in MLB payroll the year they won their World Series in 2015. Just one spot out of the Top 12.

So it can happen, but the odds are stacked heavily against any team trying to win a ring while spending with Bottom 18 club. A person with weights strapped to their ankles can also still win a race. 

The Twins have been in the Bottom 18 every season this century save for the first two seasons in Target Field, and even in those years they were near the bottom of the Top 12 club (around #9-#11 depending on your source).

Looking at the success trends in that table, it really should be no surprise that a team consistently in the Bottom 18 club would be the team to suffer a record playoff losing streak. They perfectly fit the spending profile of a team whose ceiling is an early-round exit in the playoffs. 

For 2023, I think the Twins have put together a roster that could win the AL Central. I also think their absolute ceiling looks like a divisional round exit, much like last season’s AL Central champs. I also don’t think anyone should be surprised if the Twins miss the playoffs for a 3rd straight season. Their offense needs a lot of things to go right and very little to go wrong. And Emilio Frickin’ Pagan is likely to be on the team. 

If the Twins want to get past the likes of the Astros or Yankees or any team of a similar caliber, they need a lineup that can put up a couple big innings against elite aces. But the Twins lineup only has two truly established elite bats, and both of them have well-publicized injury risk. While nearly every other bat has potential, it’s just not the kind of established potency that a team can rely on to deliver in October. I am more hopeful about the Twins pitching, but still think they would have to be regarded as underdogs against the elite lineups they would see in the playoffs. 

The Twins have an outline in place to build a deep-run contender. Every dimension of the team only looks one or two pieces away from looking very formidable. And I mean playoff formidable, not AL Central formidable. Maybe just one true-ace kind of starting pitcher, like a Justin Verlander, Jacob DeGrom, or Carlos Rodon. Maybe two more established, reliable bats in the lineup like Josh Bell and Mitch Haniger (whom Nash Walker of Locked On Twins said would’ve been a “perfect match”). All those players I named were free agents this past winter. 

Let’s imagine the Twins had outbid the teams that signed Rodon, Haniger, and Bell and landed those three. That probably adds about $60 million to the Twins payroll. Sounds absurd, but it would still only place the Twins around #8 in 2023 MLB payrolls. And it sounds even less egregious when you consider that the Twins are dropping $19 million on just Max Kepler and Joey Gallo in 2023, two much bigger gambles even with less money at stake. 

Even if you have quibbles with Bell, Haniger, and/or Rodon, the point is that spending some money on three or four more big pieces could take them from looking like a 2nd-tier playoff team at best to a much more serious contender. And the Twins don’t even have to spend like the much-smaller-market San Diego Padres to get there. They don’t even necessarily need to spend like the 2012 Tigers did. 

Given that the Twins have now locked up Carlos Correa and Byron Buxton for the rest of their prime ages, that they have 6 or more potential quality starting pitchers on their roster, an improved bullpen, and a lot of young offensive talent potentially on the rise like Jose Miranda, Royce Lewis, Edouard Joulien, Alex Kiriloff, Brooks Lee, and Matt Wallner, the time to make a big push for a World Series is very soon, Twins fans should not be content with starting the next 4 or 5 seasons thinking “we have a decent shot to win the AL Central.” They should take Carlos Correa’s mindset about building a championship culture seriously and demand that mindset be adopted all the way up to the Pohlad family. In a superb article for The Ringer in November, 2022, which I highly encourage you to read in full, Dan Moore wrote:

“Over the past 40 years or so, every single team in all four of the United States’ major sports has increased exponentially in value—inexorably through all manner of catastrophe, and at an average rate that far outpaces that of both inflation and the S&P 500…

Today pro sports teams rank among the most reliably lucrative, rabidly coveted investment opportunities there are. They’ve proved practically impervious to the busts, recessions, foreclosure crises, and plagues that have at the very least stalled growth in other industries.”

The Pohlad family, like all owners, are sitting on a gold mine. All major sports teams, even the crappy ones, have continuously grown exponentially in value for decades, and Moore’s excellent article goes into great detail about the many conditions that make it likely that teams will continue to grow in value for the foreseeable future. I’m not even saying the Twins need to be a top 5 spender for decades to come. But I am definitely saying that they should be making a strong push for the World Series for the next 5-6 years and at minimum that probably means pressing into the top 10 spenders to make it happen. Twins fans should be content with no less. 

It is certainly a risk to spend so much money on a handful of players. If one or two suffers a serious injury that is a lot of resources flushed away. It could very well fail. But you know what else is a pretty well-established risk if your goal is to make it back to the World Series for the first time in over 30 years? Being in MLB’s Bottom 18 spenders club. The Twins have been trying that for over two decades now. An entire generation of Twins fans have now reached adulthood with no memory of their team even winning a playoff game. It’s time to take some different risks. 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

Market size does not equal actual revenue.  I wonder what kind of TV/Streaming deals the Padres and Cards have, among other revenue streams. 

[specialiststeve]

The Twins consistently put a good product out on the field and have had a quality minor league system for a long time. That is the standard that you should be looking at not money spent. If we were on the bottom of both and not "trying" I would be yelling but throwing money at things doesn't work.. proven over and over again. 

We all want the same thing and I get frustrated as do many but realistically the team has put a good product out there.. 

[twinsfaninsaudi]

Everything this guy said is correct! Thank you for putting this together. We need more of it on here. 

[gunnarthor]

3 hours ago, specialiststeve said:

The Twins consistently put a good product out on the field and have had a quality minor league system for a long time. That is the standard that you should be looking at not money spent. If we were on the bottom of both and not "trying" I would be yelling but throwing money at things doesn't work.. proven over and over again. 

We all want the same thing and I get frustrated as do many but realistically the team has put a good product out there.. 

I would disagree with that. The last couple years have been both disappointing and, worse, boring. This is not a fun team to watch. It has constantly been a bad product - stupid base running mistakes, defensive miscues, lots of pitching changes, etc. 

But the main point is right - spending money doesn't guarantee success but it is so obviously relevant that fans should demand more and Twins fans have been conditioned to worry about costs far more than they should. 

[Azviking101]

Thanks for doing this research! I've been pointing out for years that the bottom half of the league's payroll teams rarely make and even more rarely win the WS. And of course, TF opening were the only two years they were in the top half. What an absolute lie that was to the fanbase.

Still, I am excited about this season, but I also recognize that winning a playoff game is most important right now. Sounds pathetic; and it is, but that's the sad life of a MN fan.

Also, spending $0 on Major League pitching in an offseason after only spending money the previous season on Bundy, Archer, Smith who are all still unemployed is NOT ok.

[tony&rodney]

Welcome to Twins Daily.

The post has some fair points. The article was well done for what it wanted to say.

A couple of quick reactions came to mind. The fans do speak through their attendance and viewing numbers. The Twins reaction this recent offseason was an attempt to address the foundational issues, whether that is better baseball or winning. The Pohlads and Dave St. Peter hope for much better numbers this season.

Also, it feels like this post belongs to a November discussion related to spending and which players should be potentially added to the team. March is a time to speculate on the best hopes for the coming year and discussions of roster, playing time, and the typical anticipation of the coming games. 

[rv78]

IMO, this is probably one of the best articles written on this site since I started visiting it. A short recap of everything that was said could simply be stated that "you get what you pay for" and the Twins have done that for the last 20 years. Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts and the Pohlads, St. Peter and the FO of the last 2 decades are the only ones responsible. I can't envision that they don't know these exact numbers now or what they have looked like in the past. It seems they have chosen to ignore them all the while being cheap and instilling in the fanbase that, that is the Twins way, and how it HAS to be done. I think another part that wasn't covered that contributes to the Twins lack of success is the foolish spending of money on players like a Gallo or Kepler that don't produce and on players that are injury prone and only play part-time. I look back to the day when Puckett, Gladden, Hrbek, Gaetti, Brunansky, Viola, and the gang of the late 80's and early 90's and compare them to todays players and all I see now is injury prone non-productive players of which many are over-paid.

[twinsfaninsaudi]

In a just world this article would start a revolution!!!!!!

[Flyover Steve]

6 hours ago, PseudoSABR said:

Market size does not equal actual revenue.  I wonder what kind of TV/Streaming deals the Padres and Cards have, among other revenue streams. 

I see no reason to assume that a market only about 60% the size of Minneapolis as San Diego is has figured out some way to glean TV revenue way beyond what Minnesota’s market is capable of generating. Even if those markets have figured something like that out, that’s almost my point. If a market smaller than Minneapolis can do something to generate that kind of revenue why can’t Minnesota? Why are Twins fans so accepting of this?

[Rosterman]

Over on MLBtrade rumors, we actually got a report on the public-held Braves revenue stream. Of course, would like to see a better breakdown, and would like to know what they get for TV money et al. But a good example of how much money a franchise generates, and still manages to lose money.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/03/liberty-media-releases-braves-financials-for-2022.html

You realize that a baseball team spends much beyond their player payroll. Take into considering signing draft choices, paying minor league players and facilities, front office costs, stadium maintenance, any foreign training camps.

Yes, we do consider the Twins cheap. But, I think, they are doing a record payroll this year. And last season they were right in the middle, 15th according to some listings (with perhaps $10 million keeping them from being a bit higher or much lower on either side of their payroll).

Still consider baseball coming out of some tough times. The Twins did pay all minor league players and staff for the COVID year. Attendance was down. Advertising dollars had to be pro-rated, and now they can sell - finally again - 2023 correct costs for signage, jumbotron advertising, yearbook ads and all.

Of course, the worth of a franchise continues to grow.

And, looking ahead, the Twins still have a young roster, and a line of players that could replace (internally) up to 75% of the roster itself in the next two seasons, if need be (which I hope doesn't happen and the Kirilloffs, Larnachs, Lewis, Ryan, Duran, Wallners and more continue with the organization for 4-5-6 or mroe seasons.)

[Brock Beauchamp]

52 minutes ago, Flyover Steve said:

I see no reason to assume that a market only about 60% the size of Minneapolis as San Diego is has figured out some way to glean TV revenue way beyond what Minnesota’s market is capable of generating. Even if those markets have figured something like that out, that’s almost my point. If a market smaller than Minneapolis can do something to generate that kind of revenue why can’t Minnesota? Why are Twins fans so accepting of this?

San Diego isn't doing it with TV revenue. Their TV contract isn't very good.

They're doing it by:

• Siedler is a crazy person in a delightful way
• He bought up a ton of real estate around Petco and then developed the hell out of it

Why do you think San Diego is 60% the size of Minneapolis? The San Diego and Twin Cities markets are damned near identical in population size.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As for being "cheap", I follow a lot of baseball. The Pohlads are 100% mediocre, middle of the pack owners. They're neither great nor awful. In an offseason that saw the Twins bring back Correa, I don't feel I have a lot to complain about.

Are they as good as, say, Milwaukee? I'd argue no but realize there's a huge contingent of Brewers fans that hate Attanasio for being "cheap" despite the Brewers having a payroll $10-15m less than the Twins in a vastly smaller market.

On the other hand, the Pohlads are miles better than the Nuttings and Ricketts of the world, who are just awful.

[Flyover Steve]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

San Diego isn't doing it with TV revenue. Their TV contract isn't very good.

They're doing it by:

• Siedler is a crazy person in a delightful way
• He bought up a ton of real estate around Petco and then developed the hell out of it

Why do you think San Diego is 60% the size of Minneapolis? The San Diego and Twin Cities markets are damned near identical in population size.

So what can the Twins do?? Who can be the crazy-in-a-good-way owner they need? Joe Pohlad isn’t giving me those vibes. He ran a radio station that failed, that’s not crazy-in-good-way enough for me. 🤔🧐

[Flyover Steve]

Just now, Flyover Steve said:

So what can the Twins do?? Who can be the crazy-in-a-good-way owner they need? Joe Pohlad isn’t giving me those vibes. He ran a radio station that failed, that’s not crazy-in-good-way enough for me. 🤔🧐

and I wanna be clear: to me the ultimate answer is to abolish owners and have all sports teams run for public benefit sorta a la the Green Bay Packers but that’s a hippie utopia unlikely to be accomplished before Carlos Correa is past his prime. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

13 minutes ago, Flyover Steve said:

So what can the Twins do?? Who can be the crazy-in-a-good-way owner they need? Joe Pohlad isn’t giving me those vibes. He ran a radio station that failed, that’s not crazy-in-good-way enough for me. 🤔🧐

I don't know but you also need to realize 28 teams are asking the same question. Literally the only two owners in baseball who are throwing caution to the wind are Cohen and Siedler.

Would it be fun to be a Padres fan right now? YES, because I'm an actual Padres fan (went to high school in SD). It's wildly fun! I love it!

But I'm also pragmatic enough to realize the Padres are an outlier. If every team behaved that way, it only sets the bar further for teams to operate in a financially viable way.

And objectively speaking, the Pohlads are middle of the pack. They're fine. They're not amazingly delightful but they're fine.

[Brock Beauchamp]

15 minutes ago, Flyover Steve said:

and I wanna be clear: to me the ultimate answer is to abolish owners and have all sports teams run for public benefit sorta a la the Green Bay Packers but that’s a hippie utopia unlikely to be accomplished before Carlos Correa is past his prime. 

Absolutely, sure, fine. I'm all on board with cities owning franchises but it's also wildly out of the perspective of reality.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And before we praise San Diego too much, I lived there while they were fighting over Petco. It wasn't awesome. For Petco to be built, they had to level the downtown arts district full of amazing people who gave life to the downtown area.

So all the area that Petco consumes and all those high-rise condominiums that exist around it came at the expense of the people who made San Diego such an awesome place to live.

It's not really a formula to be emulated or trumpeted.

[Flyover Steve]

29 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Absolutely, sure, fine. I'm all on board with cities owning franchises but it's also wildly out of the perspective of reality.

 

26 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

And before we praise San Diego too much, I lived there while they were fighting over Petco. It wasn't awesome. For Petco to be built, they had to level the downtown arts district full of amazing people who gave life to the downtown area.

So all the area that Petco consumes and all those high-rise condominiums that exist around it came at the expense of the people who made San Diego such an awesome place to live.

It's not really a formula to be emulated or trumpeted.

All very good points. So do you find it unrealistic to call for the Twins to spend big? Is it only through socially-destructive business practices that a team in Minneapolis is capable of being, say, a top 8 spender for 3-5 years in MLB? As I wrote, not even asking that they spend like the Padres. How about the facts from The Ringer article I cited that all sports teams are exponentially gaining value? Is it unrealistic to simply say, “Okay your product is constantly gaining value, can you put a healthy chunk of your money into it to try to push for a World Series, and if the returns are truly that disappointing, you can always sell the team to get your money back?”

[Flyover Steve]

40 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Absolutely, sure, fine. I'm all on board with cities owning franchises but it's also wildly out of the perspective of reality.

yes that’s why i called it a hippie utopia

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, Flyover Steve said:

and I wanna be clear: to me the ultimate answer is to abolish owners and have all sports teams run for public benefit sorta a la the Green Bay Packers but that’s a hippie utopia unlikely to be accomplished before Carlos Correa is past his prime. 

I'm not opposed to public ownership of a sports team. Do you likewise believe all salaries  should be the same with the public owning all entities. Or are sports different? Just wondering. As far as hippy utopia ... I also wondered if you were an adult in 1969? Only curious but now we are off topic. Way off.

[Riverbrian]

I realize that it's popular and seemingly the only source ever used... However:

I'd like to caution against using Neilsen defined DMA (Designated Market Area) to support a baseball market size argument.

I'd like to caution against using it and I'd also like to caution against reading it and thinking its accurate.  

 

 

[dxpavelka]

Get over it and  get ready for the future which is now closer than ever and will likely include YOU paying a not insignificant fee for locally televised games.......

[laloesch]

10 hours ago, Flyover Steve said:

and I wanna be clear: to me the ultimate answer is to abolish owners and have all sports teams run for public benefit sorta a la the Green Bay Packers but that’s a hippie utopia unlikely to be accomplished before Carlos Correa is past his prime. 

Reality check: Not gonna happen.

[laloesch]

44 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

Get over it and  get ready for the future which is now closer than ever and will likely include YOU paying a not insignificant fee for locally televised games.......

BINGO.  Half your cable bill goes to sports franchises in your market (that is if you still have cable).

[Trov]

I do not like the comparing markets as a reason Twins should spend more.  First, there is more than just the size of the media market, like is there other competing teams, not just baseball, but other sports in that area to draw money from.  What is the TV deal like?  What is the gate number like?  Spending does not equal winning, it is the right spending.  

You point out Detroit, they have spent plenty over the last several years, how have they done?  They spent on the wrong guys the last several years.  Even the Padres, who the owner has basically said he does not care if he is losing money on the team, has spent poorly at times, example Hosmer.  It is not like the Twins have acted like TB, Oakland, Baltimore, or Pittsburg and spend nothing, they are around league average each year.  

I also attack the premise that once a team makes the playoffs they cannot win.  Very rarely does the clearly better team win every playoff series.  It very often comes down to who is hot.  Even the best made rosters do not win a WS.  Both of the Twins WS wins they were underdogs at every round.  

Back to the Padres comparison.  I hate how fans wanting the Twins owners to dip into their personal accounts to spend big because an owner has done so.  Owning a team is a business, and it should not be expected by fans that the team operate at a loss.  I do not know the exact numbers on how much the Twins make, but do not forget it is more than just MLB payroll that goes into the budget.  Maybe they are making hundred million or more each year, or maybe they are making just a little.  

The Padres owner has basically said, he is losing money and does not care, he cannot take it with him and wants to win baseball games.  Great for their fans, they have an owner that is find losing money in his business, do not expect any owner to lose money.  

Finally, I have said to fans all along, if you are upset at the spending, or lack their of, stop watching.  Stop giving them your money in any way.  Start watching teams like the Padres that spend money.  Be fans of teams that will do that.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

9 hours ago, Flyover Steve said:

 

All very good points. So do you find it unrealistic to call for the Twins to spend big? Is it only through socially-destructive business practices that a team in Minneapolis is capable of being, say, a top 8 spender for 3-5 years in MLB? As I wrote, not even asking that they spend like the Padres. How about the facts from The Ringer article I cited that all sports teams are exponentially gaining value? Is it unrealistic to simply say, “Okay your product is constantly gaining value, can you put a healthy chunk of your money into it to try to push for a World Series, and if the returns are truly that disappointing, you can always sell the team to get your money back?”

No, it's not unreasonable. I'm only saying that the Pohlads are middle of the pack in this regard. They spend right in line with their market size. Could they do better? Sure! Do I get upset they don't punch above their weight class? Not really.

[BobAzar]

To play devils advocate, how much would you want them to spend in 2023? what moves would you have made this offseason?

[Peter]

With the additions twins made this year I think they won division. It will be war but we have better team than last year. Can’t wait for season to start!!!!

[USAFChief]

15 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

No, it's not unreasonable. I'm only saying that the Pohlads are middle of the pack in this regard. They spend right in line with their market size. Could they do better? Sure! Do I get upset they don't punch above their weight class? Not really.

I think it's fair to say recent Twins spending  has been better, with 2023 completely ok. While acknowledging the Twins rather long history of spending NOT being OK, and in fact a definite factor in their inability to compete at the highest levels. This is a team that ran Jason Tyner out at DH and Randy Dobnak as a starter in a postseason game.

 

I'd be fine with 2023 level relative spending...if it continues.