The Twins Payroll Meltdown: Six Crummy Ways It Affects Their Future

[Schmoeman5]

 Ok

[chpettit19]

Kind of a side note to this that a couple people have kind of touched on is the timing of this news. I have to think the people in the season ticket offices are not at all happy with Falvey for giving Dan Hayes those quotes. You're coming off your most successful season in 2 decades and the sales teams finally have some real ammunition for trying to bring in new season ticket holders, upsell existing ticket holders, etc. and you come out and tell the fan base on November 7th/8th that you're cutting payroll? I don't get that move at all. Why not let us fools on TD bicker with each other while we try to guess the payroll all offseason and let your sales team do their thing to raise revenue for 2024 instead of dumping a bucket of water on the fire before the offseason really even gets going?

[Nashvilletwin]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins were just in the ALDS for the first time in some poster's lifetime and you want people to accept that '24 is a "transition year?" Transition from what? You don't transition after a trip to the ALDS and having won your first playoff game in 19 years. 2023 was the transition year, and the next few are supposed to be the building on top years.

Sorry, but this team is undergoing a significant transition.  In 2024 we will have Lewis, Julien, Wallner and Kiriloff (and even Jeffers could start and go 2/3rds) hopefully moving to full time starting position players.  We very well could have Martin and Lee join them.  In 2025, Jenkins and Rodriguez and maybe Rosario and others could join that description. That’s 8-10 players who were not in those roles at the beginning of ‘23.

Meanwhile, Gallo, Farmer, Solano, Martin, Polanco, Kepler and possibly Buxton (hopefully not) will have already played , or will, in ‘24, play their last game for the Twins. Vasquez may also be in that category.  The old guys are moving on and the young guys are replacing them.  It’s happening.  

My point is that we should remain highly competitive throughout - I called for us winning 90 games next year and having a run at an ALCS.  That’s 100% doable. But what I’m also saying is that given likely budget constraints (I.e, no top starter coming in via FA) and the influx of talent on the way, I’m not all doom and gloom about this team’s prospects in ‘24 and beyond   In fact, I’m incredibly optimistic.  Let’s pick up talent where we can, but if the pickings aren’t great, I certainly wouldn’t sell out ‘25-27 to go all in ‘24.

 

[Jocko87]

36 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

I appreciate the discussion.

I am finding it hard to be passionate about whether the pay roll is 130 million or 160 million. My joy for the game of baseball is not correlated to the level of payroll. I think there is a lot more joy that comes when a kid you have been following over the years comes up and hits a walk off home run or makes his debut as a starter in Yankee stadium. It is that connection of following the careers of these players that keeps me a Twins fan 48 years after leaving Minnesota. 

I will be listening to or watching nearly every game no matter the payroll. I will look forward to opening day and the debuts during the season of the prospects.

I also enjoy that back and forth in this site. One thing I won’t enjoy is when every thread evolves into the same discussion about payroll that so many are rigidly passionate about. I just don’t share the same passion.

This is it, 100%. They didn’t say they weren’t trying to win a championship.  If they show up at spring training with a group they like and think can win I don’t care what the payroll is. 

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't see Polanco/Kepler/Farmer as guys at the top of a playoff lineup. Never saw Farmer there, you had just included him in the other post. But Polanco and Kepler hit 2/4 in their playoff lineup this year. They're not good enough to do that, but they're still guys at the top of this team. It wasn't egregious at all to have them hitting there based on their performance this year (where Polanco OPS'd .789 which is pretty darn close to .800). My problem is that it's far more likely Polanco has an .800 OPS in 2024 than Brooks Lee or Martin or Severino or whatever other AAA guy people want in there. 

You replaced Kepler and Polanco with Hoskins and Teoscar in another post. Teoscar is a year older than Polanco and OPS'd 50 points lower in 2023. Rhys Hoskins OPS'd .794 in his last MLB season. I think .825-.850 is a more likely spot for him, though. I think Kepler and Teoscar are probably pretty similar in terms of OPS moving forward. Teoscar will K way more, and be way worse defensively. Hoskins is probably 25-50 points of OPS better than Polanco, but plays a lower defensive position. So you've gained probably 25-50 points of OPS over those 2 roster spots while worsening your defense and K numbers. That's no better than a push in my book. So you're still relying on young guys taking jumps, or maintaining partial season production, to take this team to the next level. I don't want that. I want building, not rearranging. 

I don't want Teoscar as I mentioned. I just was using that as a blueprint to show that getting rid of the Kepler/Polanco/Farmer group will still allow them to fit significant free agent additions onto the roster, even if the payroll is lower than last year. Blueprint whomever you like with that money. Get a pitcher if you want.

You already said you don't want the mid level free agents like Gallo and Vazquez, but that's EXACTLY what Kepler and Polanco are, both in price and in ability. They shockingly still have value after a late season surge and a sparse infield free agent class, so flip them now for cheaper and controllable players and consolidate the savings and sign someone better with it. They're largely redundant and less use to this team than they are to others. They should be doing this if the payroll was 200M or  20M.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

 

What is the over/under wins on that team in your opinion? I'd put it at 82.5

I was just using those free agents and trades to show the payroll isn't going to be an issue. 

 

[Riverbrian]

35 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Kind of a side note to this that a couple people have kind of touched on is the timing of this news. I have to think the people in the season ticket offices are not at all happy with Falvey for giving Dan Hayes those quotes. You're coming off your most successful season in 2 decades and the sales teams finally have some real ammunition for trying to bring in new season ticket holders, upsell existing ticket holders, etc. and you come out and tell the fan base on November 7th/8th that you're cutting payroll? I don't get that move at all. Why not let us fools on TD bicker with each other while we try to guess the payroll all offseason and let your sales team do their thing to raise revenue for 2024 instead of dumping a bucket of water on the fire before the offseason really even gets going?

A softening of the ground?

Because he was asked by Dan Hayes?

I tend to agree with you. Because Colonel Jessup was right when he said "We Can't Handle the Truth". Honesty will be punished.

It probably would have been best to tell Dan Hayes that you are in the Azores with limited cell phone availability.  

[DocBauer]

A lot to unpack here, but oh well.

1] If you subscribe to the theory that ownership is cheap, there is nothing I or anyone else, can say to convince you otherwise. If paying all milb players and coaches and all team personnel through covid, laying no one off, keeping payroll at almost exactly 17%...which is right about their rank as a market...and raising payroll for just about every season since this FO took over doesn't convince you to at least re-consider your opinion, then we are just going to disagree and call it a day.

2] If we want to discuss any sort or natural or expected regression in payroll based on the past few years, I'm going to either disagree with you, or state you might be saying the right thing for the wrong reasons. For instance, if a group of FA heading out the door, a bunch of payroll coming off the books, and another group of prospects about ready for a job in 2024 simply lowers the payroll floor in a natural way, we are in agreement. That's what happened/is happening. But that also brings us to #3....

3] We can, have, and probably will, debate about the FO/ownership being prepared to see a pending issue with the end of the Bally deal. Knowing it was going to happen has given them opportunity for some time to look at other options. However, that doesn't mean those options are necessarily lined up and ready to go at this point. It still takes that 2nd or 3rd party to sign on with the Twins. To our collective knowledge, I would think, we are unaware that any sort of agreement is pending.

If you don't see a trend across the country of people cutting the cord and cable TV, as we've known it, changing or going away, you aren't paying attention. I work for a telecommunications company in the Midwest and I can assure you things are changing rapidly. So the $55M being lost by the end of the Bally deal is real money. The money doesn't just magically appear from someone else when that contract expired. 

The issue, IMO, is not how prepared the Twins are or aren't, it's about the deal...with whoever...when the dust settles. It would be very doubtful the Twins suddenly find another $55M deal on their doorstep tomorrow. I would think something as low as $25M is possible, but it could be as high as $35M, either in A solo deal, or perhaps a combination of broadcast and streaming. For the sake of argument, let's split the difference and call it $30M.

The generally accepted amount of income to be used for payroll is 52%, give or take a little. That's $28M the Twins just lost. Now, 52% of $30M is approximately $15M, to partially replace what was lost. That's $13M NET lost, which might lower payroll from the $155M spend in 2023, but isn't enough to doom the team, OR account for some low end $120M payroll.

If it does, someone in charge of the Twins should be fired for not finding a better option for broadcast agreements and revenue streams to offset losses and grow the financial structure of the organization.

4] If the Twins drop the payroll to, oh, IDK, $135-140M but find a solid arm, grab a CF option to help cover there, maybe a decent RH bat and win 88-92 games because they still have a lot of talent, and young talent, growing and developing I couldn't care less about the actual payroll. And I'm just not going to freak out, today, November 7th, until I see how things play out.

5] I'm also in the camp that says holding on to the prospects is generally more important as payroll drops, even if it's just a year or two. I'm not saying DON'T trade. I'm just saying a young player or arm might be trusted a little sooner than initial plans might have been laid for. 

I do think one of Polanco or Farmer might have to go. But there are options to help replace them. Kepler would be much harder to find a replacement for as there isn't a ready made one at this time, so I think he stays.

Might see Martin, Lee, and guys like Prato earlier than initially anticipated. That's not necessarily a bad or debilitating thing. 

Going to be a very, very interesting offseason.

 

[howeda7]

7 hours ago, JDubs said:

The Pohlads had finally, finally started to shed the image of cheapskates who never spend and now the second there is the slightest adversity, they chuck it all and go back to being miserly bums. Way to destroy all of the goodwill and optimism, not to mention kneecapping a team that was on the rise and will now go back to mediocrity.

Pretty much this. If they were just cutting $10-15 million off, I don't think anyone would be up in arms, but they wouldn't even need to leak anything about it. Just let the payroll land at $140-145. The fact they're leaking this tells me they intend to cut deep to $120 million or so and it makes them look terrible.

[Twinsrtheworst]

Ya..2023 narrative was "punt on the season".. 2024 inarrative is "payroll meltdown"..

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Sorry, but this team is undergoing a significant transition.  In 2024 we will have Lewis, Julien, Wallner and Kiriloff (and even Jeffers could start and go 2/3rds) hopefully moving to full time starting position players.  We very well could have Martin and Lee join them.  In 2025, Jenkins and Rodriguez and maybe Rosario and others could join that description. That’s 8-10 players who were not in those roles at the beginning of ‘23.

Meanwhile, Gallo, Farmer, Solano, Martin, Polanco, Kepler and possibly Buxton (hopefully not) will have already played , or will, in ‘24, play their last game for the Twins. Vasquez may also be in that category.  The old guys are moving on and the young guys are replacing them.  It’s happening.  

My point is that we should remain highly competitive throughout - I called for us winning 90 games next year and having a run at an ALCS.  That’s 100% doable. But what I’m also saying is that given likely budget constraints (I.e, no top starter coming in via FA) and the influx of talent on the way, I’m not all doom and gloom about this team’s prospects in ‘24 and beyond   In fact, I’m incredibly optimistic.  Let’s pick up talent where we can, but if the pickings aren’t great, I certainly wouldn’t sell out ‘25-27 to go all in ‘24.

 

That is very likely what is going to happen, yes. The point is that relying on Lewis and Kirilloff to stay healthy for an entire year while also maintaining heart-of-the-order type production is quite a gamble. Expecting Julien (I believe in him) and Wallner to maintain their production over a full season after the league makes adjustments to them is quite a gamble. Expecting Martin, Lee, Severino, Rodriguez, and maybe Rosario to be average, let alone above average, or star, MLB players is quite a gamble. Yes, we have young guys coming that look like they could be very nice players, but a team coming off an ALDS appearance shouldn't be jettisoning veterans while also not bringing in any above average veterans because they hope they'll get another historic (for the Twins) rookie class again in the next handful of years. The truth is that most prospects fail. Even the top 100 guys. Forcing this "significant transition" is not the best bet for improving on an ALDS team, and no FO would make that decision if it wasn't forced upon them with a payroll cut.

I have great hopes for the young guys, too. But you talk (type) like these kids are sure things. They aren't. Yes, if they all hit their ceiling the Twins will be absolutely loaded and many of us will look like cry baby fools. But the far more likely outcome is that most of those young guys don't even touch their potential. Very few turn into stars, and only some turn into everyday players. Relying almost completely on prospects to not only maintain an ALDS run, but build on it, is a massive bet that almost never pays off. It's not all doom and gloom, but frustration is certainly warranted.

[howeda7]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Do you have information we are not aware of?  Has something with substantive information been published that illustrates how that revenue will be replaced or are you just making an assumption with nothing to support it?   

I think the point is that the local TV $$ is not going to from $55 million to $0. It's probably going to go from $55 million to say $30-40 million. That's not an excuse to cut the payroll from $155 to $120 million. At 50% of revenue spent on payroll, it's a reason so cut from $155 to $145. If that's what they were planning, they wouldn't be leaking out articles about it on November 7th though.

[chpettit19]

39 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I don't want Teoscar as I mentioned. I just was using that as a blueprint to show that getting rid of the Kepler/Polanco/Farmer group will still allow them to fit significant free agent additions onto the roster, even if the payroll is lower than last year. Blueprint whomever you like with that money. Get a pitcher if you want.

You already said you don't want the mid level free agents like Gallo and Vazquez, but that's EXACTLY what Kepler and Polanco are, both in price and in ability. They shockingly still have value after a late season surge and a sparse infield free agent class, so flip them now for cheaper and controllable players and consolidate the savings and sign someone better with it. They're largely redundant and less use to this team than they are to others. They should be doing this if the payroll was 200M or  20M.

I don't want mid level free agents because this team is already mid level. The goal isn't to trade those 3 and replace them with equal talent. The goal is to improve upon the team. Polanco and Kepler aren't good enough to be top of the order guys, but they're still better than the rest of the guys they have. Taking away from the top is not how you improve the team. You need to replace the Gallo and Solano guys with guys that slot in above Polanco and Kepler. 

I don't see Kepler as redundant. I don't see anyone in house who's likely to produce as much as him in RF. Assuming Wallner already has a corner spot, I don't see Larnach, Castro, Gordon, Martin, or Hellman being a likely bet to beat out Kepler's production in 2024. I don't love Kepler, and want him hitting 6-9 in the order, but replacing him with someone who should be hitting 8-bench in the order isn't an answer to me. And that's ignoring that they are also going to get worse in CF simply because of MAT's defense.

I don't believe in the prospects as much as others do, clearly. I think there's a bunch of major leaguers in there, but I think people are putting way too much faith in them. And I don't think replacing your 2 and 4 hole hitters and your #2 pitcher from your playoff roster while reducing payroll is likely to improve upon the team. They could maintain it, but I'm not interested in maintaining (I mean I'll take maintaining over getting worse). The goal shouldn't be to maintain, it should be to improve. I don't see how trading out Gray, Polanco, and Kepler's 2023 production for a bunch of unproven guys who aren't star type prospects in the first place and guys who's best bet is to duplicate those 3's production gets the Twins closer to the World Series.

[howeda7]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm going to do something irresponsible here and something I hate doing because it is irresponsible.

I'm going to float a plausible theory that exists in my head (Maybe my head alone) with no inside information at all. 

Take it all with a grain of salt but I can't help but wonder if the club didn't sail over budget last year and a correction was coming regardless of the TV revenue situation.  

Here are the clues that lead to my theory: 

1. The team from the beginning was always in on signing Correa as a free agent. 

2. For a team like the Twins... the money for a free agent in this price range would have to be part of budget plans... Perhaps 35M AAV. He ended up signing for 33.3M AAV but at the time... 35M AAV would have to be part of budget plans if you are trying to sign him and they were trying to sign him by all reports. 

3. December 13, 2022 - Correa signs with the Giants for 13 years.  

4. December 16, 2022 - 3 Days later... The Twins sign Christian Vazquez for 10 Million AAV and Joey Gallo for 11 Million. This takes 21M out of the 35M that they were using to get Correa signed. I find it interesting that Vazquez and Gallo were signed very quickly once Correa was off the table. 

5. December 22, 2022 - Giants have concerns with his medical and back out of the deal. 

6. January 11, 2023 - After the Mets signed him to a deal and attempted to lower his contract because of the same medical concerns. Carlos Signs with the Twins... AAV 33.3.  

7. Assuming that the twins spent Carlos Correa ear marked money to sign Vazquez and Gallo. His sudden availability may have required an over budget conversation with ownership which of course was approved because he is here.  

8. August 1, 2023 - The Twins do not acquire ANYONE at the trade deadline. Is it OK to assume... over budget was a consideration. 

Irresponsible food for thought from me. Take it for what it's worth. 

 

It's not really a "theory". Forbes estimated they lost $27 million or so in 2022. They probably lost at least that much in 2023 even with higher ticket sales/play-off revenue due to the increase in payroll. So let's say they lost $35 million. I still can't get a violin out for them because the value of the franchise goes up more than that every year. They should be willing to lose $ when they are in a win now window and make it back when they're in a rebuilding window.

[chpettit19]

41 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

A softening of the ground?

Because he was asked by Dan Hayes?

I tend to agree with you. Because Colonel Jessup was right when he said "We Can't Handle the Truth". Honesty will be punished.

It probably would have been best to tell Dan Hayes that you are in the Azores with limited cell phone availability.  

I just don't get why he didn't do what everyone always does and say some bland PR nonsense about building the best team they can with the resources given to them by the great team owners. It's what he's done every other year even as they increased payroll. Weird to finally get honest now.

But perhaps it was his way of putting public pressure on the Pohlads to increase the payroll? Maybe he's being sly. Maybe he knows the Pohlads are on the fence about the payroll and if they see the fanbase threatening to burn down Target Field they'll hand him another 10 mil? I'm going to hope that's the case.

[nicksaviking]

19 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't want mid level free agents because this team is already mid level. The goal isn't to trade those 3 and replace them with equal talent. The goal is to improve upon the team. Polanco and Kepler aren't good enough to be top of the order guys, but they're still better than the rest of the guys they have. Taking away from the top is not how you improve the team. You need to replace the Gallo and Solano guys with guys that slot in above Polanco and Kepler. 

I don't see Kepler as redundant. I don't see anyone in house who's likely to produce as much as him in RF. Assuming Wallner already has a corner spot, I don't see Larnach, Castro, Gordon, Martin, or Hellman being a likely bet to beat out Kepler's production in 2024. I don't love Kepler, and want him hitting 6-9 in the order, but replacing him with someone who should be hitting 8-bench in the order isn't an answer to me. And that's ignoring that they are also going to get worse in CF simply because of MAT's defense.

I don't believe in the prospects as much as others do, clearly. I think there's a bunch of major leaguers in there, but I think people are putting way too much faith in them. And I don't think replacing your 2 and 4 hole hitters and your #2 pitcher from your playoff roster while reducing payroll is likely to improve upon the team. They could maintain it, but I'm not interested in maintaining (I mean I'll take maintaining over getting worse). The goal shouldn't be to maintain, it should be to improve. I don't see how trading out Gray, Polanco, and Kepler's 2023 production for a bunch of unproven guys who aren't star type prospects in the first place and guys who's best bet is to duplicate those 3's production gets the Twins closer to the World Series.

Sorry, but this all sounds like you think the Kepler we saw the last three months is the Kepler that's here to stay.

I don't buy his late career turnaround for a minute. By all rights he should have been DFA'd. As it turns out, the Twins were wise not to, and the luck paid off but they'd be foolish to double down on it instead of cashing out way up.

But whatever, it doesn't matter how one feels about Kepler. Keep him, Polanco and Farmer. If you do that, you'd only have room for a couple of free agents at most outside of the bullpen. In that scenario, what do you care about the reduced payroll? You can still go get something significant unless you're aiming for Ohtani or Bellinger.

[Riverbrian]

8 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I just don't get why he didn't do what everyone always does and say some bland PR nonsense about building the best team they can with the resources given to them by the great team owners. It's what he's done every other year even as they increased payroll. Weird to finally get honest now.

But perhaps it was his way of putting public pressure on the Pohlads to increase the payroll? Maybe he's being sly. Maybe he knows the Pohlads are on the fence about the payroll and if they see the fanbase threatening to burn down Target Field they'll hand him another 10 mil? I'm going to hope that's the case.

From what Cereal we buy to who elect for office and everything in between. We are more than willing participants for manipulation. 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

You hope it's a step forward. Lee or Severino being able to do what Jorge Polanco can do is a massive bet. Julien, Wallner, and Lewis being able to maintain their production over a full season is a massive bet. Young guys are the lifeblood of every MLB team, but taking an ALDS team and stripping it of it's #2 starter, 2 hole hitter, and/or 3/4 hole hitter from your playoff roster and just assuming they can be replaced by young guys is not taking a step forward. I don't believe for 1 second that if Falvey was given $150 mil payroll for 2024 he'd say "eh, let's trade Polanco and Kepler while losing Gray anyways." 

There's a difference between needing young guys to provide cheap, quality talent, and forcing your team to rely on an almost entirely cheap lineup for success. You need young guys to succeed to sustain success. But a team truly putting their best foot forward to try to win a World Series does not swap out Gray for a lesser pitcher, and Polanco and/or Kepler for young players when they don't have to.

I am not at all suggesting what you are saying.  I have said on several occasions that Polanco is the only player among Polanco/Farmer/Kepler that should/will be traded.  If he is the only one of the three traded, they have enough payroll room to resign or replace Gray and I have been very consistent with that being a top priority and it's in the plan I posted. 

Given I said they only need to trade one guy I have no idea where you are coming up with trading the 2 hole hitter and the 3/4 hole hitter.  Plus, Polanco is no longer a primary player.  Julien and Lewis have taken those roles.  He will still get a lot of playing time and Lee/Severino will have a hard time filling his shoes but trading players like Polanco (assuming value comes back) has proven to be a very effective practice for other teams.

[Major League Ready]

18 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I just don't get why he didn't do what everyone always does and say some bland PR nonsense about building the best team they can with the resources given to them by the great team owners. It's what he's done every other year even as they increased payroll. Weird to finally get honest now.

But perhaps it was his way of putting public pressure on the Pohlads to increase the payroll? Maybe he's being sly. Maybe he knows the Pohlads are on the fence about the payroll and if they see the fanbase threatening to burn down Target Field they'll hand him another 10 mil? I'm going to hope that's the case.

$10M buys one win in free agency.  Is this really the most pivotal aspect of developing a strategy/plan to get to the next level?

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Sorry, but this all sounds like you think the Kepler we saw the last three months is the Kepler that's here to stay.

I don't buy his late career turnaround for a minute. By all rights he should have been DFA'd. As it turns out, the Twins were wise not to, and the luck paid off but they'd be foolish to double down on it instead of cashed out.

But whatever, it doesn't matter how one feels about Kepler. Keep him, Polanco and Farmer. If you do that, you'd only have room for a couple of free agents at most outside of the bullpen. In that scenario, what do you care about the reduced payroll? You can still go get something significant unless you're aiming for Ohtani or Bellinger.

I think Kepler is more likely to sustain that late season surge for 1 more season than any of the internal options. You called him redundant. Unless you have other options likely to be as good he's not redundant. Maybe you think Martin can immediately out perform him. Or Larnach is suddenly going to figure it out. It's not that I have great faith in Kepler, it's that I don't trust the current internal options that would replace him, thus making him redundant. 

I'm fine with moving them if you're going to maintain payroll. In that situation you have real room to aim higher. If you're going to cut payroll you've lost your ability to aim higher. I have no interest in rearranging the talent while keeping it at the same level (your example of trading them and then signing guys who are basically equal). Cutting payroll absolutely matters when it comes to this team's ability to take the best shot at raising their ceiling over the next few years. Yes, if you trade them you can replace them with equally mid level talent whether you cut payroll or not. My point is that's not what I think the goal should be, I think the goal should be to raise the ceiling. I don't think anyone has shown the ability to raise this team's ceiling if they cut payroll beyond hoping the kids become stars. 

[Major League Ready]

32 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

I think the point is that the local TV $$ is not going to from $55 million to $0. It's probably going to go from $55 million to say $30-40 million. That's not an excuse to cut the payroll from $155 to $120 million. At 50% of revenue spent on payroll, it's a reason so cut from $155 to $145. If that's what they were planning, they wouldn't be leaking out articles about it on November 7th though.

The percentage of revenue is a very rough guideline.  I have always wondered does that mean salary plus benefits and taxation like every other business or is that a measure against salary only.

If revenue decreases by $25M, how much do they need to reduce spending to net the same result.  Obviously, the answer is $25M.  How that equates to percentage of revenue is nothing more than an approximation.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I am not at all suggesting what you are saying.  I have said on several occasions that Polanco is the only player among Polanco/Farmer/Kepler that should/will be traded.  If he is the only one of the three traded, they have enough payroll room to resign or replace Gray and I have been very consistent with that being a top priority and it's in the plan I posted. 

Given I said they only need to trade one guy I have no idea where you are coming up with trading the 2 hole hitter and the 3/4 hole hitter.  Plus, Polanco is no longer a primary player.  Julien and Lewis have taken those roles.  He will still get a lot of playing time and Lee/Severino will have a hard time filling his shoes but trading players like Polanco (assuming value comes back) has proven to be a very effective practice for other teams.

Ok, just trading the 2 hole hitter. Polanco is absolutely still a primary player. He would start everyday for this team. And he'd hit in the 2 hole. Other teams trading their 2 hole hitter as their window for contention is opening while hoping to replace them with a young player that's never stepped foot on a major league field (Lee, Severino, pick your guy) has proven to be a very effective practice for other teams? I disagree. Don't just point to Tampa as an example either. The outlier is not a strong selling point. If you think Polanco was just going to be some bench bat who played 3 times a week and hit 7 hole we'll just never agree on this one.

You said you saw the handing of jobs to young players, including replacing Polanco, as being a step forward. I responded that you hope it's a step forward. I retract my statement about also losing their 3/4 hole hitter from the playoffs, but remain steadfast in the idea that this "transition" to an incredibly young lineup is any sort of obvious step forward. It's a massive gamble that Lewis can finally stay healthy for a full year while also maintaining his numbers (you know I think he has star talent), Julien can maintain his production for a full year after the league makes adjustments to him, Wallner can maintain his production for a full year after the league makes adjustments to him, Jeffers can maintain his production for a full year as "the guy" behind the plate, and, on top of those 4 things, the other young guys can not only come up and reproduce what Polanco does, but actually be better than him and Kepler, and the other vets. Because "a step forward" suggests improvement. 

This team just made the ALDS with a historic rookie trio, and Jeffers making a massive jump. Those 4 things maintaining is no sure thing at all, but actually taking a step forward by replacing Polanco with any of the youngsters in the everyday lineup is a bridge too far for me. Thus my statement about you "hoping" it's a step forward.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

Take. a. deep. breath. everyone (almost).  This is not a black and white situation where one way we are a powerhouse and the other we are a cellar dweller. It's much more gray than that.

Most of the people in hysterics on this are reading something into the statements that just isn't directly there.  It is likely they will pull back a little, but it seems pretty unlikely that we're talking about 25% or more.  They just aren't that foolish. We don't know exactly what Falvey's intent was with the statement.  He could be softening the blow, or he could be setting the fan base up to be impressed when the payroll doesn't drop that much.  As stated by another poster, he could also be putting external pressure on ownership to NOT cut payroll.  

Let these people do their job and see what they put together.  They've done pretty well so far (your mileage may vary!). We weren't signing Ohtani anyway, and probably none of the other big bucks pitchers.  That doesn't mean the Twins can't be a good team. We just need to trust some of the people we already have and add judiciously from the outside world, either through trades or sneaky good signings in free agency.  OK. . . .now you can breathe again.

[chpettit19]

36 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

$10M buys one win in free agency.  Is this really the most pivotal aspect of developing a strategy/plan to get to the next level?

At this stage of their team development, yes, I believe adding proven, veteran, top line talent is the most pivotal aspect of the strategy/plan to get to the next level.

Did Houston develop Correa, Bregman, Altuve, Tucker, and Alvarez (not all at the same time mind you) and say "we should be good, let's just call up a bunch of ok prospects?" Or did they go get Verlander, Grienke, Brantley, Abreu, Pressly, etc. (not all at the same time mind you) to put them over the top?

Did Texas see their young core coming and say "this'll do?" Or did they go get Seager, Semien, deGrom (that one didn't work), Scherzer, Eovaldi, etc. to put them over the top?

Atlanta, the Dodgers, the Nationals, the Red Sox, the Cubs all had young cores coming, or established, and supplemented them with proven MLB talent. The Twins have taken 1 step there with Correa. I love it. But the teams that win championships mix their young core with paid for talent. So, yes, I believe that when you have a young, cheap core the most pivotal aspect of the strategy/plan to get to the next level is to add to it with proven, likely expensive, MLB talent to fill the gaps. The idea that teams are built just around calling up young talent is false. Even Tampa brings in free agents. Cleveland brought in bats last year (granted those didn't work out so swell). The Twins have a window opening, and 5 years of super controllable assets. The best bet for getting to the next level is to at least maintain payroll and supplement the cheap talent with the best proven players you can find.

[Craig Arko]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Kind of a side note to this that a couple people have kind of touched on is the timing of this news. I have to think the people in the season ticket offices are not at all happy with Falvey for giving Dan Hayes those quotes. You're coming off your most successful season in 2 decades and the sales teams finally have some real ammunition for trying to bring in new season ticket holders, upsell existing ticket holders, etc. and you come out and tell the fan base on November 7th/8th that you're cutting payroll? I don't get that move at all. Why not let us fools on TD bicker with each other while we try to guess the payroll all offseason and let your sales team do their thing to raise revenue for 2024 instead of dumping a bucket of water on the fire before the offseason really even gets going?

I don’t notice any fools refraining from bickering anyway. This will still be a pretty good team. Not a great one, but then the Rangers weren’t a great team either.

[howeda7]

49 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The percentage of revenue is a very rough guideline.  I have always wondered does that mean salary plus benefits and taxation like every other business or is that a measure against salary only.

If revenue decreases by $25M, how much do they need to reduce spending to net the same result.  Obviously, the answer is $25M.  How that equates to percentage of revenue is nothing more than an approximation.

Yes. But it's their guideline that they  have always cited. They should have at least somewhat increased attendance/suite sales/in stadium advertising next year.

[Major League Ready]

13 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

Yes. But it's their guideline that they  have always cited. They should have at least somewhat increased attendance/suite sales/in stadium advertising next year.

People keep saying this but I have not heard anyone from the Twins FO use this metric in 10 years and I heard it a total of one time.  Regardless, it makes absolutely no sense for anything other than a rough guideline which is evident in this case.  If revenue goes down by 50% their spending capacity does not go down by 50% of the decrease.  I have had many clients over the years that used very ill-conceived metrics.  Even if the Twins still use this measure which I highly doubt, it still makes no sense for us to use a measure we know is very flawed.

[howeda7]

4 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

People keep saying this but I have not heard anyone from the Twins FO use this metric in 10 years and I heard it a total of one time.  Regardless, it makes absolutely no sense for anything other than a rough guideline which is evident in this case.  If revenue goes down by 50% their spending capacity does not go down by 50% of the decrease.  I have had many clients over the years that used very ill-conceived metrics.  Even if the Twins still use this measure which I highly doubt, it still makes no sense for us to use a measure we know is very flawed.

The assumption is not that they're pocketing 50% but spending 50% things other than player payroll and it makes sense. Beyond obvious non-player payroll, travel etc. to their credit they've spent tens of millions per year on average on Target Field upgrades etc. If they're taking a big revenue hit from TV, it doesn't all have to come out of player payroll. Perhaps the 2024 Target Field upgrades will be scaled down or delayed.

[Major League Ready]

40 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

At this stage of their team development, yes, I believe adding proven, veteran, top line talent is the most pivotal aspect of the strategy/plan to get to the next level.

Did Houston develop Correa, Bregman, Altuve, Tucker, and Alvarez (not all at the same time mind you) and say "we should be good, let's just call up a bunch of ok prospects?" Or did they go get Verlander, Grienke, Brantley, Abreu, Pressly, etc. (not all at the same time mind you) to put them over the top?

Did Texas see their young core coming and say "this'll do?" Or did they go get Seager, Semien, deGrom (that one didn't work), Scherzer, Eovaldi, etc. to put them over the top?

Atlanta, the Dodgers, the Nationals, the Red Sox, the Cubs all had young cores coming, or established, and supplemented them with proven MLB talent. The Twins have taken 1 step there with Correa. I love it. But the teams that win championships mix their young core with paid for talent. So, yes, I believe that when you have a young, cheap core the most pivotal aspect of the strategy/plan to get to the next level is to add to it with proven, likely expensive, MLB talent to fill the gaps. The idea that teams are built just around calling up young talent is false. Even Tampa brings in free agents. Cleveland brought in bats last year (granted those didn't work out so swell). The Twins have a window opening, and 5 years of super controllable assets. The best bet for getting to the next level is to at least maintain payroll and supplement the cheap talent with the best proven players you can find.

Who is saying they should not bring in free agents.  This whole discussion is exceptionally exaggerated.  You are not your normal rational self when it comes to spending.  Defending a position that the twins won't spend on elite talent with Cleveland and Tampa as examples makes zero sense.  Tampa and Cleveland literally never go after that type of free agent EVER.  

[Major League Ready]

3 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

The assumption is not that they're pocketing 50% but spending 50% things other than player payroll and it makes sense. Beyond obvious non-player payroll, travel etc. to their credit they've spent tens of millions per year on average on Target Field upgrades etc. If they're taking a big revenue hit from TV, it doesn't all have to come out of player payroll. Perhaps the 2024 Target Field upgrades will be scaled down or delayed.

You are absolutely right.  It does not all have to come from player payroll and it's a pretty good bet they will cut in other areas.  Let's see what happens before we assume the worst.