Setting the Stage for the 2023-24 Twins Offseason

[TopGunn#22]

I open enough room on the 40-man to protect Camargo, Martin, E-Rod and Severino and leave one more spot open if there is a rule 5 guy I just gotta have if opportunity presents itself.  The others I expose and if someone takes them that's O.K.  We've got plenty of young talent looking for a promotion.  Move 'em up!

I see the Twins exercising the options on both Polanco and Kepler.  But with what we have on the roster and the pipeline I see Polanco getting traded.  I also don't see any of Gray, Taylor or Solano coming near what they did in 2023.  I consider them a win for 2023,  but I'm reloading.  With the uncertainty with Kirilloff, I'm looking for a better RH hitting alternative who maybe could play some OF as well. 

Farmer can be packaged in a trade for SP depth or a decent bullpen arm.  I'm moving on from Theilbar.  He's our most expensive arm in the pen at $3 million and he can be counted on for 2-3 trips to the I.L. for sure.  I'm using that money for a bullpen upgrade and leaning more heavily on Funderburk (I liked what I saw) and Moran if he can improve his command.

Finally for that additional SP, before I make any trades, I'm looking at Eduardo Rodriguez and Trevor Bauer.  E-Rod would finally give us a LH in the rotation and he won't be as costly as Snell, Gray or Nola.  Bauer is still a talented pitcher and he could be very affordable as well.  He got a raw deal from MLB and the league needs to figure out how to handle situations like this in the future.  The man is not a Saint, but now that the real story has come out, he's certainly not the arch villain he was made out to be. 

The Twins are in a great position with all the youth on the team and some truly interesting talent in the pipeline.  After they set their starting rotation priorities, and if they signed E-Rod and Bauer they could be looking at a staff of Lopez, E-Rod, Bauer, Ober, Ryan and Paddock---you have to have six because injuries are just too predictable.  Only Lopez didn't have issues or an I.L. stint in 2023, THEN you have to figure out CF.  That could be where Polanco and/or Farmer come into play with the possibility of a minor league arm as well in a trade.  No plan for 2024 should include counting on anything from Buxton.  Whatever we get from him is pure gravy.  Castro and Martin would be the last resort fallback if no trade is made.   

 

[Brandon]

41 minutes ago, umterp23 said:

not sure what the love affair is with Gordon, but do we really need $1MM 5th/6th type of outfielder when you have the following if they are retained:

Buxton (may never see OF again), Wallner, Castro, Larnach, Kepler.  

Gordon is a lefty swinger which we have many already and has a pretty weak outfield arm.  

Martin, Lewis can man CF when Lee is ready or we keep Taylor.  DFA Gordon and see what club takes a swing on a guy who really hasn't played since he broke his leg

I agree with what you say but think Gordon should remain an option due to lowest cost option among the backup options.  Budgets

 

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not a Gordon believer (swing rate just isn't conducive to success), but are we really sure Castro and Larnach are better than him? Castro is certainly faster, and a better defender, but are we sure he's a better hitter? Or that Castro is even a major league hitter moving forward? Are we sure Larnach is better than him at anything? I'm not suggesting Gordon be handed a starting job. Not even suggesting he be handed a roster spot. But is $1 million really so much that we don't think it's worth at least keeping him around until we have someone we know is better than him to take his 40-man spot?

I would say bring him to spring training to compete for a roster spot.  if he doesn't make the team he is owed the title X 100k big deal.  better to push the ones who do make the team and have injury insurance on hand at that cost.  

[JD-TWINS]

11 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

It better not be. The Twins are in way too big of a market to be in the bottom 10 in payrolls in baseball. 153 mil landed them at 17th this year. They are in too big of a market to be 17th, let alone start cutting payroll now and drop into the 20-30 range. They knew this was coming and should be prepared for it by now. There's no excuse for cutting payroll.

Loss of $20-$30M from lack of TV revenue seems pretty valid to me. Hope they can solve this issue but, unsolved, leads to lower or for sure, an unchanged payroll.

If we don’t have a new signing outside of ‘23 rostered guys, we can be really aggressive at the deadline. Prior to that we’d be between $120 - $130M……annualized.

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, JD-TWINS said:

Loss of $20-$30M from lack of TV revenue seems pretty valid to me. Hope they can solve this issue but, unsolved, leads to lower or for sure, an unchanged payroll.

If we don’t have a new signing outside of ‘23 rostered guys, we can be really aggressive at the deadline. Prior to that we’d be between $120 - $130M……annualized.

The point is that they shouldn't be losing TV revenue. This issue didn't sneak up on them. They've known this situation was coming and they shouldn't be losing any revenue because they should have a plan in place to replace it. The only acceptable time for them to have lost TV revenue was this season when Diamond was attempting to not pay them. "Our TV contract ran out and we couldn't figure out how to solve that problem" isn't an acceptable excuse for cutting payroll. Their market doesn't shrink because their contract ran out.

[JD-TWINS]

22 hours ago, minman1982 said:

Since I think it is likely Sonny Gray does not return, I think the first order of business is to get another top end SP to complement Pablo Lopez. Let's also assume that Shohei Ohtani, Julio Urias, and Blake Snell are all out of reach for the Twins too. What about a guy like Lucas Giolito or Jordan Montgomery? Both guys have been decent over the last few years and could be solid additions. They could also go with someone like Aaron Nola who is going to eat a ton of innings and protect the bullpen.

The second order of business is finding an everyday center fielder since Byron Buxton is in all likelihood not it. I am in favor of seeing if Michael A. Taylor would be willing to come back next season if the deal is right. Maybe Willi Castro fills in. Could this be a place for Austin Martin? Could we trade Larnach for someone who can play CF? Is there someone else lurking in the minors that could maybe fill in here? 

The third order of business would be to see if they can find a trade partner for Kepler or Polanco, particularly if they could solve the SP problem in first order of business through this path. I like both of these guys but if you can reallocate $10M through a trade to solve another need, why not do it? There is no need to salary dump, so the deal has to be good.

Gotta say I see a bit of a chasm between Jordan Montgomery & Lucas Giolito!

Montgomery had thrown 188 innings in 32 starts during regular season with a 3.20 ERA (10-11 record).

Giolito threw 184 innings in 33 starts during regular season with a 4.88 ERA (8-15 record).

That said, I think the best thing we could do as an organization is offer Montgomery $85-$90M for 4 years……it would make our staff elite. 6’6” & 230lb with a 9 year career ERA of 3.68 - he’s 30 yrs old v. Gray at 33. Durable lefty with playoff success!!!

[tony&rodney]

12 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

I think the best thing we could do as an organization is offer Montgomery $85-$90M for 4 years……it would make our staff elite. 6’6” & 230lb with a 9 year career ERA of 3.68 - he’s 30 yrs old v. Gray at 33. Durable lefty with playoff success!!!

Every time I look over these lists I keep landing on Montgomery as the only guy to add for big money and Montas or Severino as guys on a one year prove-it deal. The playoffs have changed the numbers perhaps. I would be surprised if Snell, Nola, and Montgomery aren't looking for $25M per year and 6 years too. The month of November should set in motion what the current market will bear. The idea of adding a top starting pitcher is so appealing but the numbers may be prohibitive for the Twins. 

[jmlease1]

13 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The point is that they shouldn't be losing TV revenue. This issue didn't sneak up on them. They've known this situation was coming and they shouldn't be losing any revenue because they should have a plan in place to replace it. The only acceptable time for them to have lost TV revenue was this season when Diamond was attempting to not pay them. "Our TV contract ran out and we couldn't figure out how to solve that problem" isn't an acceptable excuse for cutting payroll. Their market doesn't shrink because their contract ran out.

No, but the TV market has changed a fair bit as well and sports packages like this are struggling to command the same kind of rates from cable companies that they used to. It's not that the market size has changed but the delivery methods and control that cable used to have to command bigger fees is falling apart. Look at the number of people who are "cutting the cord", because the cable companies sure are when Bally or the equivalent demands a kicker for being on a certain tier. Now, if they properly manage their streaming rights as part of this contract, it could make up for significant drops in fees for the cable rights...but streaming fees have been pretty volatile lately. And beyond that it means they're adding an additional channel that doesn't really generate more revenue, but instead is trying to make up for losses in old revenue.

Again, I still think the Twins generate enough revenue and are backed by a substantially wealthy ownership that can easily afford to maintain a payroll in the $150M range. But the collapse of the RSNs through colossal mismanagement by Sinclair (and some seriously shady business moves) is a real problem for any team that was generating TV revenue this way. (going to be very interesting to see how the Wolves and Wild navigate out of this as well)

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

No, but the TV market has changed a fair bit as well and sports packages like this are struggling to command the same kind of rates from cable companies that they used to. It's not that the market size has changed but the delivery methods and control that cable used to have to command bigger fees is falling apart. Look at the number of people who are "cutting the cord", because the cable companies sure are when Bally or the equivalent demands a kicker for being on a certain tier. Now, if they properly manage their streaming rights as part of this contract, it could make up for significant drops in fees for the cable rights...but streaming fees have been pretty volatile lately. And beyond that it means they're adding an additional channel that doesn't really generate more revenue, but instead is trying to make up for losses in old revenue.

Again, I still think the Twins generate enough revenue and are backed by a substantially wealthy ownership that can easily afford to maintain a payroll in the $150M range. But the collapse of the RSNs through colossal mismanagement by Sinclair (and some seriously shady business moves) is a real problem for any team that was generating TV revenue this way. (going to be very interesting to see how the Wolves and Wild navigate out of this as well)

And they knew this was coming. This didn't sneak up on them. That's my point. They're a massive, billion dollar organization. They had to pivot. They had years to work on this pivot. If they aren't prepared to handle this situation it's a failure on their part. This is how businesses work. Either they've done their jobs or they haven't. If they haven't figured out how to continue to grow their business the new head Pohlad better start making changes in the business department.

This wasn't an overnight, out of nowhere surprise. Cord cutting has been happening for a long time. The shift away from cable is something the Pohlads should absolutely be expecting their business department to have multiple plans to combat. MLB itself has had a team working on this for years. The Twins have options. The Twins have known this was coming. We should expect that the Twins are a well run business and thus they're prepared to adjust their business models as the times change. I won't accept a payroll cut because of lost TV revenue when they've had ample time to prepare for this moment and not lose revenue. They have handsomely paid business employees who's jobs it is to secure these sorts of revenue streams. They should have a plan for this even though they're going to milk all the pity they can out of fans for how hard it is to not just be handed a contract extension from Bally's.

[DJL44]

18 hours ago, umterp23 said:

not sure what the love affair is with Gordon, but do we really need $1MM 5th/6th type of outfielder

Do people realize $1M is almost as little as you can possibly pay a player? The league minimum is $740,000.

[DJL44]

14 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The point is that they shouldn't be losing TV revenue. This issue didn't sneak up on them. They've known this situation was coming and they shouldn't be losing any revenue because they should have a plan in place to replace it. The only acceptable time for them to have lost TV revenue was this season when Diamond was attempting to not pay them. "Our TV contract ran out and we couldn't figure out how to solve that problem" isn't an acceptable excuse for cutting payroll. Their market doesn't shrink because their contract ran out.

Not to mention the Twins previous TV contract was well below average in MLB

Let’s Update the Estimated Local TV Revenue for MLB Teams | FanGraphs Baseball

I don't think this is an issue as much as it is an opportunity. The downside is being overestimated and the upside is being minimized. The Twins WILL HAVE A TV CONTRACT next summer and it will make them between 75% and 150% of their previous contract.

[umterp23]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Do people realize $1M is almost as little as you can possibly pay a player? The league minimum is $740,000.

But how many folks complain that we have way to many LH hitters playing in the outfield.  Gordon isn't needed regardless of $1MM vs league minimum of Wallner, Larnach and potential a Martin next year.  Gordon really was a one year wonder and was to a horrific '23 season.  Not sure he is a fit anymore

[DJL44]

17 hours ago, umterp23 said:

But how many folks complain that we have way to many LH hitters playing in the outfield.  Gordon isn't needed regardless of $1MM vs league minimum of Wallner, Larnach and potential a Martin next year.  Gordon really was a one year wonder and was to a horrific '23 season.  Not sure he is a fit anymore

I'm on board with finding a RH hitting outfielder to take Gordon's spot in the outfield but his salary is not of any concern. They have needed a RH bat since before they signed Gallo last year.

[Brandon]

On 10/23/2023 at 6:21 PM, chpettit19 said:

The point is that they shouldn't be losing TV revenue. This issue didn't sneak up on them. They've known this situation was coming and they shouldn't be losing any revenue because they should have a plan in place to replace it. The only acceptable time for them to have lost TV revenue was this season when Diamond was attempting to not pay them. "Our TV contract ran out and we couldn't figure out how to solve that problem" isn't an acceptable excuse for cutting payroll. Their market doesn't shrink because their contract ran out.

Just because they knew about the issue doesn't mean they had options to pivot to for a same or better TV contract.  We just have to wait for this to play out and the Twins don't usually sign their players till late in the offseason anyways.  Sonny Gray will likely sign before the Twins are able to offer anything.  

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

Just because they knew about the issue doesn't mean they had options to pivot to for a same or better TV contract.  We just have to wait for this to play out and the Twins don't usually sign their players till late in the offseason anyways.  Sonny Gray will likely sign before the Twins are able to offer anything.  

Is it your belief that MLB teams are suddenly all going to start making payroll cuts as their TV deals run out because there's just no TV contracts available for them anymore? Their TV contract ran out. I can promise you the Pohlad's expectations are that the Twins don't lose a single penny in revenue. There's no professional sports team that is ever ok with revenue going down year over year. They know it may happen due to unforeseen circumstances (that's the nature of doing business), but no team owner is going to sit in a conference room with their business departments and accept "our TV contract ran out and we just couldn't replace that revenue, sorry." The whole room would be fired.

[DJL44]

15 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Is it your belief that MLB teams are suddenly all going to start making payroll cuts as their TV deals run out because there's just no TV contracts available for them anymore? Their TV contract ran out. I can promise you the Pohlad's expectations are that the Twins don't lose a single penny in revenue. There's no professional sports team that is ever ok with revenue going down year over year. They know it may happen due to unforeseen circumstances (that's the nature of doing business), but no team owner is going to sit in a conference room with their business departments and accept "our TV contract ran out and we just couldn't replace that revenue, sorry." The whole room would be fired.

One interesting tidbit - the national TV money went up enough in the most recent contract to cover whatever decrease in local TV money they might see. There's no way their 2024 TV revenue is less than their 2020 TV revenue.

[dxpavelka]

On 10/23/2023 at 8:36 AM, chpettit19 said:

It better not be. The Twins are in way too big of a market to be in the bottom 10 in payrolls in baseball. 153 mil landed them at 17th this year. They are in too big of a market to be 17th, let alone start cutting payroll now and drop into the 20-30 range. They knew this was coming and should be prepared for it by now. There's no excuse for cutting payroll.

MSP is the 16th largest market in the US.  Two of the markets that are larger have two teams but are also far more than twice the size of the MSP market so it's almost like 17th is right where we should be in payroll.  And the RSN money IS gonna be an issue whether you want it to be or not.  Sorry.

[dxpavelka]

On 10/23/2023 at 12:03 AM, ANDREW WEBSTER said:

Playoff money may be like blood in the water. I assume the Twins made 10 to 20 million in pre selling playoff strips, add a few million per game in single game tickets, throw in 4 games of concessions and merch, and don't forget the added sales in September for pennant race baseball compared to a team just playing out an average season; If the Twins were poised, and expected, to be a third place plus team in the central, then I might also agree that $150 M would be a stretch. I believe, and my Twins fan fingers are crossed here, that spending will be within +/- 3.5% of 150M.

Keep dreaming that dream if the RSN money dries up.

[chpettit19]

11 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

MSP is the 16th largest market in the US.  Two of the markets that are larger have two teams but are also far more than twice the size of the MSP market so it's almost like 17th is right where we should be in payroll.  And the RSN money IS gonna be an issue whether you want it to be or not.  Sorry.

The Twins should never be below 17th in payroll, so we can agree on that. But we will not agree on the TV revenue. Dave St Pete and the folks in the business department have the best boss in the corporate world if they're able to go to the Pohlads and say "we've lost the largest revenue stream we're responsible for and we just can't replace it, sorry" and have the Pohlads be ok with that.

The Padres and Diamondbacks business departments may have an argument for having to cut payroll because they had their contracts ended in the middle. The Twins contract was already set to end after 2023. Dave and the business department already knew that, and knew the state of Ballys/Diamond/Sinclair, and should have been talking about possible options for years in preparation for the end of the Ballys deal. Not a lot of corporate owners who just shrug their shoulders and accept their largest revenue stream going away without heads rolling. The end of this TV deal was a known problem, and the Pohlads absolutely expect the business department to have a plan to replace that revenue. So why shouldn't we expect the payroll to stay the same?

[IaBeanCounter]

On 10/23/2023 at 12:03 AM, ANDREW WEBSTER said:

Playoff money may be like blood in the water. I assume the Twins made 10 to 20 million in pre selling playoff strips, add a few million per game in single game tickets, throw in 4 games of concessions and merch, and don't forget the added sales in September for pennant race baseball compared to a team just playing out an average season; If the Twins were poised, and expected, to be a third place plus team in the central, then I might also agree that $150 M would be a stretch. I believe, and my Twins fan fingers are crossed here, that spending will be within +/- 3.5% of 150M.

The Twins played in 6 games, 5 of which the Twins received 12.5% of the ticket sales (60% to players poll, 15% to MLB and 25% split between the participating teams).  On the 6th game the would receive 42.5% as no tickets are allocated to the players pool.   At $5 million per game, the Twins take would have have been $5.25 million for all six games.  They would receive a percentage of the concessions and merchandise sales.  It's to bad the don't have set up like KC for parking.

[dxpavelka]

On 10/30/2023 at 10:33 AM, chpettit19 said:

The Twins should never be below 17th in payroll, so we can agree on that. But we will not agree on the TV revenue. Dave St Pete and the folks in the business department have the best boss in the corporate world if they're able to go to the Pohlads and say "we've lost the largest revenue stream we're responsible for and we just can't replace it, sorry" and have the Pohlads be ok with that.

The Padres and Diamondbacks business departments may have an argument for having to cut payroll because they had their contracts ended in the middle. The Twins contract was already set to end after 2023. Dave and the business department already knew that, and knew the state of Ballys/Diamond/Sinclair, and should have been talking about possible options for years in preparation for the end of the Ballys deal. Not a lot of corporate owners who just shrug their shoulders and accept their largest revenue stream going away without heads rolling. The end of this TV deal was a known problem, and the Pohlads absolutely expect the business department to have a plan to replace that revenue. So why shouldn't we expect the payroll to stay the same?

Big difference between having a plan to replace that revenue and actually having someone to stroke that check.  Until someone does all bets are off.

 

[Major League Ready]

On 10/25/2023 at 2:09 PM, chpettit19 said:

Is it your belief that MLB teams are suddenly all going to start making payroll cuts as their TV deals run out because there's just no TV contracts available for them anymore? Their TV contract ran out. I can promise you the Pohlad's expectations are that the Twins don't lose a single penny in revenue. There's no professional sports team that is ever ok with revenue going down year over year. They know it may happen due to unforeseen circumstances (that's the nature of doing business), but no team owner is going to sit in a conference room with their business departments and accept "our TV contract ran out and we just couldn't replace that revenue, sorry." The whole room would be fired.

My firm had several clients over the years where their industry / market changed and it simply was not possible to generate the same level of revenue for a given revenue stream.  We don't know exactly what how the alternatives are going to shape up or exactly how long it will take to develop a new distribution channel.  Simply pounding your fist saying this is not acceptable has little value.  

The key would appear to be raising viewership through providing a wider range of options to get coverage and then capitalizing on advertising.  I am sure a plan is in place but that pan could take 2 or 3 years to fully develop.  The Pohlad's are not going to have a problem with a plan that loses 30% of revenue this year but provides a sustainable increase in revenue by year 2 or 3.

[Vanimal46]

32 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

My firm had several clients over the years where their industry / market changed and it simply was not possible to generate the same level of revenue for a given revenue stream.  We don't know exactly what how the alternatives are going to shape up or exactly how long it will take to develop a new distribution channel.  Simply pounding your fist saying this is not acceptable has little value.  

The key would appear to be raising viewership through providing a wider range of options to get coverage and then capitalizing on advertising.  I am sure a plan is in place but that pan could take 2 or 3 years to fully develop.  The Pohlad's are not going to have a problem with a plan that loses 30% of revenue this year but provides a sustainable increase in revenue by year 2 or 3.

It’s going to be fascinating over the next 5-10 years what alternatives are out there to recapture the revenue from bloated cable TV contracts which will be a thing of the past. I’m glad the Twins are going to be ahead of other mid market teams with the next step. The RSN model as we know it is collapsing on the sport. 

[chpettit19]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

My firm had several clients over the years where their industry / market changed and it simply was not possible to generate the same level of revenue for a given revenue stream.  We don't know exactly what how the alternatives are going to shape up or exactly how long it will take to develop a new distribution channel.  Simply pounding your fist saying this is not acceptable has little value.  

The key would appear to be raising viewership through providing a wider range of options to get coverage and then capitalizing on advertising.  I am sure a plan is in place but that pan could take 2 or 3 years to fully develop.  The Pohlad's are not going to have a problem with a plan that loses 30% of revenue this year but provides a sustainable increase in revenue by year 2 or 3.

What would cause a loss of 30% of revenue in 2024 while providing a sustainable increase in revenue by year 2 or 3 in this situation? Going more over the air to bring in more fans by being able to provide their product for free this year while partnering it with a streaming option through MLB? Do we think that plan works well if they cut payroll at the same time and piss off the fan base?

Is the hope just that the older generation being able to get their product for free while cord cutters pay to stream it balances out with the anger you'd get from the fan base when you say "thanks for packing our stadium for the playoffs, but we're going to take a step back in payroll now?" The teams that have made these sorts of moves haven't cut payroll to do it, they've simply bet on the idea of losing now to win over time. The story I'm getting around here is that the Twins will cut payroll and that's OK and fans shouldn't be upset. I don't buy it. If you cut payroll at this point you're going to destroy all the goodwill you just built up. They finally have momentum and destroying it by slashing payroll sure sounds like a horrible business decision if you're making your way towards a subscription based revenue stream.

[chpettit19]

9 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Big difference between having a plan to replace that revenue and actually having someone to stroke that check.  Until someone does all bets are off.

 

Totally fair, but slashing payroll very likely doesn't help with whatever plan they've come up with. Pohlads may have to eat it in 2024, but taking the momentum from your first playoff win in 2 decades and destroying it by significantly reducing payroll to below your market size is just tying your other hand behind your back in the process. Twins games are going to be broadcast next year. They should already have checks lined up to be stroked, or the Pohlads should already know they're taking it in the wallet this year.

Twins Daily is a much more tuned in segment of the fanbase than the general population. Telling the people around here they're going youth movement so cutting payroll isn't that big of a deal would actually excite a large number of people here because they're tuned into the org and follow prospects. But telling the general fanbase you're cutting payroll and going youth movement after having signed the biggest FA contract in team history and finally winning a playoff game wouldn't go over well at all. That's how you turn yourself into a playoff regular who can't sell tickets like Cleveland.

[Major League Ready]

59 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

What would cause a loss of 30% of revenue in 2024 while providing a sustainable increase in revenue by year 2 or 3 in this situation? Going more over the air to bring in more fans by being able to provide their product for free this year while partnering it with a streaming option through MLB? Do we think that plan works well if they cut payroll at the same time and piss off the fan base?

Is the hope just that the older generation being able to get their product for free while cord cutters pay to stream it balances out with the anger you'd get from the fan base when you say "thanks for packing our stadium for the playoffs, but we're going to take a step back in payroll now?" The teams that have made these sorts of moves haven't cut payroll to do it, they've simply bet on the idea of losing now to win over time. The story I'm getting around here is that the Twins will cut payroll and that's OK and fans shouldn't be upset. I don't buy it. If you cut payroll at this point you're going to destroy all the goodwill you just built up. They finally have momentum and destroying it by slashing payroll sure sounds like a horrible business decision if you're making your way towards a subscription based revenue stream.

I too hope that the Pohlads "eat it".  That however is a very different argument than insisting there is no reason revenue should go down because they knew it was coming which was your original argument.

The market has changed.  Will it be possible for them to regain this revenue and how long will it take?  The industry experts MLB brought in probably have a good blueprint by now but we don't have the benefit of the information and planning they have been working on.  Spending is going down if the decrease in revenue generated by local TV is permanent.  What we can hope for is the Pohlads take it in the shorts for at least a year while the team and the league work on a new model.  Who knows, it's possible that new model will generate even more revenue through advertising that actually puts the first teams with cancelled contracts at an advantage.