Why the Twins Should Reconsider Cost Cutting

[old nurse]

41 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

If you think any MLB team is losing money that's absolutely hilarious.  Your arms must hurt terribly from carrying water for this organization.  I truly don't understand defending stingy billionaires who have nothing but contempt for fans like you.  

There are plenty of sources that show revenue of baseball teams. The notion that is being propagated is that that they should be spending more than they take in as they are billionaire owners. Nice retreat on your part from that proposal. Pretty much other people of a loyal fan base say that people only come out if they are winning consistently , Considering that 4 playoff appearances in 7 years is considered less than mediocre the bar is set pretty high. So what incentive is there to add beyond when there isn’t a consistent core?  If you want to be rude an insult others, go right ahead. When you have to resort to insults it shows you for who you are 

[chpettit19]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

Then you build as Atlanta has done with a solid core of homegrown players augmented with cost controlled players, discounted free agents.

Cost controlled players like Matt Olsen who they traded top prospects for and then signed to a massive deal? I'm more than happy to lock up a few of our young guys to longterm deals. Austin Riley is "cost controlled" at 21 mil next year. Acuna at 17. Iglesias and Ozuna 16 a piece. They just signed Reynaldo Lopez for 3 years and 30 mil. Where are all these discounted free agents?

[chpettit19]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Do you have a link to this source?  It sounds like MLB has evaluated markets as to their potential.  You have somehow concluded that team spending should be based on potential as opposed to actual revenue which is fanatical logic.  I am not sure I can illustrate how vehemently this premise would be rejected in any major corporation in America.  I would guess most people who post here have the potential to make more money than they do presently.   Do you suppose posters here base their budget on potential or what they actually earn?

Which source? The front office lists for Atlanta and MN, MLB CBA and Atlanta's books are all publicly available documents. Google them.

Again, I'm asking them to run the team to the market's potential. Do you think they've maximized revenue in the Minneapolis market? I don't. I responded to you and openly said I'm mad they're not making what they could. Them failing at their jobs isn't acceptable to me. Do you think having the best atmosphere in the short history of target field while finally getting some playoff wins and within weeks telling your fan base you're slashing payroll is a high quality business decision? I get emails and calls weekly from the ticketing department about season ticket packages. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one. Do you think they've maximized their chances to sell season ticket packages by releasing that information? 

Yes, if they have to eat it for a year to maintain momentum to continue to grow attendance and viewership I think they should. I'm not asking them to eat 100 mil, but I do believe it's a sound business decision to invest in this particular team at this particular time to grow revenue moving forward. I can't imagine you'd advice many businesses to finally get consumers excited about their product and then immediately announce you're going to actively make it worse while asking them to buy the worse product. Especially a year after your president or ceo or whatever St Peters is blamed the fans for not being excited about a team that couldn't stay above .500 for a week before completely collapsing. 

I'm asking them to run their business better so they can afford to run out higher payrolls while the Pohlads still take home a nice happy chunk of change. You seem to think they're doing a bang-up job of running this organization. We just don't agree. 

[Major League Ready]

6 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Cost controlled players like Matt Olsen who they traded top prospects for and then signed to a massive deal? I'm more than happy to lock up a few of our young guys to longterm deals. Austin Riley is "cost controlled" at 21 mil next year. Acuna at 17. Iglesias and Ozuna 16 a piece. They just signed Reynaldo Lopez for 3 years and 30 mil. Where are all these discounted free agents?

No doubt Atlanta has shelled out for some free agents.  They also have guys they extended for what is well below market rate.  They got 3 extra years control of Acuna for $17M/year which is half his market rate.  What do you think Austin Riley would get if he were a free agent?  Probably closer to 30M/year?  Ozuna had the same potential but has not worked out as well.  They got 3 extra years control of Albies for $7M a year which is incredible value, right?  $22m/year for Matt Olson looks far better than $33M for Correa.  Olson was worth over 6 war this year and the contract is through his age 36 season.  The Braves have not done these ridiculous deals with guys through their age 40 season.  They let Donaldson walk because he wanted a contract through his age 38 season. 

The Braves have been damn smart in how they spend!

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

No doubt Atlanta has shelled out for some free agents.  They also have guys they extended for what is well below market rate.  They got 3 extra years control of Acuna for $17M/year which is half his market rate.  What do you think Austin Riley would get if he were a free agent?  Probably closer to 30M/year?  Ozuna had the same potential but has not worked out as well.  They got 3 extra years control of Albies for $7M a year which is incredible value, right?  $22m/year for Matt Olson looks far better than $33M for Correa.  Olson was worth over 6 war this year and the contract is through his age 36 season.  The Braves have not done these ridiculous deals with guys through their age 40 season.  They let Donaldson walk because he wanted a contract through his age 38 season. 

The Braves have been damn smart in how they spend!

And, as I said, I'm more than happy for the Twins to lock up some of their young guys. But I get the same responses in the threads where we discuss that idea "the Twins are a small market team and just can't afford that. They're doomed to never be able to afford anyone. How can we expect them to spend in such a tiny market?" 

The Braves are run incredibly well, yes. And I've literally spent this whole thread saying I want the Twins to be run like them but you've spent the whole thread telling me they can't.

[Major League Ready]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Which source? The front office lists for Atlanta and MN, MLB CBA and Atlanta's books are all publicly available documents. Google them.

Again, I'm asking them to run the team to the market's potential. Do you think they've maximized revenue in the Minneapolis market? I don't. I responded to you and openly said I'm mad they're not making what they could. Them failing at their jobs isn't acceptable to me. Do you think having the best atmosphere in the short history of target field while finally getting some playoff wins and within weeks telling your fan base you're slashing payroll is a high quality business decision? I get emails and calls weekly from the ticketing department about season ticket packages. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one. Do you think they've maximized their chances to sell season ticket packages by releasing that information? 

Yes, if they have to eat it for a year to maintain momentum to continue to grow attendance and viewership I think they should. I'm not asking them to eat 100 mil, but I do believe it's a sound business decision to invest in this particular team at this particular time to grow revenue moving forward. I can't imagine you'd advice many businesses to finally get consumers excited about their product and then immediately announce you're going to actively make it worse while asking them to buy the worse product. Especially a year after your president or ceo or whatever St Peters is blamed the fans for not being excited about a team that couldn't stay above .500 for a week before completely collapsing. 

I'm asking them to run their business better so they can afford to run out higher payrolls while the Pohlads still take home a nice happy chunk of change. You seem to think they're doing a bang-up job of running this organization. We just don't agree. 

I am asking for the link to the source that provides market scores.  You maintain this shows what the twins spending.  I believe what I will find is that it shows market potential but does this source suggest spending should be linked in anyway to this market score.  

IDK about the market potential especially given the current climate for broadcast revenues.  It would generally take my firm a month just to gather information and conducting interviews to gain the base knowledge to begin to put together this type of assessment so I think you are assuming a great deal to think you are prepared to project what this market can produce at this given moment.

[Major League Ready]

8 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

And, as I said, I'm more than happy for the Twins to lock up some of their young guys. But I get the same responses in the threads where we discuss that idea "the Twins are a small market team and just can't afford that. They're doomed to never be able to afford anyone. How can we expect them to spend in such a tiny market?" 

The Braves are run incredibly well, yes. And I've literally spent this whole thread saying I want the Twins to be run like them but you've spent the whole thread telling me they can't.

The Braves have roughly double the revenue of the Minnesota Twins.  So, no, the Twins can't run their organization the same way.  Would you "operate" the same way with half or double your current income?  Obviously, I share in your desire for the team to generate more income.  However, I expect them to generate that income before they spend it.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I am asking for the link to the source that provides market scores.  You maintain this shows what the twins spending.  I believe what I will find is that it shows market potential but does this source suggest spending should be linked in anyway to this market score.  

IDK about the market potential especially given the current climate for broadcast revenues.  It would generally take my firm a month just to gather information and conducting interviews to gain the base knowledge to begin to put together this type of assessment so I think you are assuming a great deal to think you are prepared to project what this market can produce at this given moment.

It's in the MLB CBA. You can look up the MLB CBA. Yes, it is absolutely the market potential. I don't maintain that. This is now the 3rd time I've said I want them to run their business in a way that allows them to maximize their market so they can spend to those levels. I don't know how else to say this. I am mad that they're running their organization in such a way that they can't spend to those levels. For 2024 I am asking them to make the long-term decision to not absolutely slaughter their momentum and increasing revenue by doing things like announcing they're cutting payroll. I have never, and will never, ask them to maintain a payroll equal to their market score if they're losing money hand over fist to do it. I am asking for a 1 year business decision so that they are able to maintain those levels moving forward because they've reengaged their consumers. They're actively taking the opposite approach and torpedoing their own revenue streams. I won't be responding to your claims that I'm asking something I'm not. I am asking that they run their team to maximize the market. You seem content with just shrugging our shoulders and saying "I guess this is the best this market can possibly do."

You don't think MLB spent a month doing that research? You think they just made up numbers and owners were good with that considering it has direct ramifications for revenue sharing? Your firm the only people in the world that can figure out market potentials? The $11 billion MLB juggernaut made up of 30 orgs I believe all of which are valued at over 1 billion each, run by some pretty wealthy and successful people couldn't figure out accurate market potentials? You're totally fine assuming forbes, etc. outside numbers are good even though they have no access to MLB books, but you can't possibly trust that MLB, and the 30 owners, invested time and resources to figure out which markets can do what? I sure hope John Fisher called you before he decided to move his team to Vegas. Apparently he couldn't possibly figure out that market's potential.

[chpettit19]

17 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The Braves have roughly double the revenue of the Minnesota Twins.  So, no, the Twins can't run their organization the same way.  Would you "operate" the same way with half or double your current income?  Obviously, I share in your desire for the team to generate more income.  However, I expect them to generate that income before they spend it.

See above comment about your repeatedly saying I'm saying things that I'm not saying. We've come to the end of this road. We're taking over this thread so it's time for us to just move on our separate ways.

[old nurse]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Cost controlled players like Matt Olsen who they traded top prospects for and then signed to a massive deal? I'm more than happy to lock up a few of our young guys to longterm deals. Austin Riley is "cost controlled" at 21 mil next year. Acuna at 17. Iglesias and Ozuna 16 a piece. They just signed Reynaldo Lopez for 3 years and 30 mil. Where are all these discounted free agents?

Atlanta has had 6 years in a row of playoffs. When it started their payroll was 115 million, which maybe was league average. They drew about 2.5 million fans which was about their usual numbers. They did not go to the higher payroll overnight . It built through that accumulation of talent. The talent came first, then the money and attendance. The first winning team was mostly homegrown talent. Continued winning allowed them to do more. And more. There are no shortcuts to the top. 

Austin Riley at 21 million is cost controlled compared to a Betts or Correa contract  Acuna at 17 million is an even bigger bargain 

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, old nurse said:

There are plenty of sources that show revenue of baseball teams. The notion that is being propagated is that that they should be spending more than they take in as they are billionaire owners. Nice retreat on your part from that proposal. Pretty much other people of a loyal fan base say that people only come out if they are winning consistently , Considering that 4 playoff appearances in 7 years is considered less than mediocre the bar is set pretty high. So what incentive is there to add beyond when there isn’t a consistent core?  If you want to be rude an insult others, go right ahead. When you have to resort to insults it shows you for who you are 

My proposal is that the Twins should generally spend at or just above its market size, and that if the "window is open", the team should increase its investments accordingly to try to win a World Series when the stars are aligned.  These increased investments can come from higher-than-anticipated profits from previous years (how come we never, ever hear the Twins say they're increasing payroll because revenues were higher than anticipated?), the enormous gains in franchise value that the wealth-hording Pohlads have realized since they bought the team, or, yes, pocket change.  I don't think you realize how much fricking money a billion dollars is, much less 5bil or whatever the Pohlads are worth.  Chipping in $30mil out of pocket to capitalize on a decent 2023 to take advantage of the AL Central window being open is the equivalent of someone worth $50k spending $375.  It's absolutely absurd to suggest that the owner of a professional baseball team, one of the richest families on the planet, shouldn't be expected to pony up some pocket change to make the team better, especially when fans gifted the Pohlads with a half billion dollar cash cow.  

[chpettit19]

7 minutes ago, old nurse said:

Atlanta has had 6 years in a row of playoffs. When it started their payroll was 115 million, which maybe was league average. They drew about 2.5 million fans which was about their usual numbers. They did not go to the higher payroll overnight . It built through that accumulation of talent. The talent came first, then the money and attendance. The first winning team was mostly homegrown talent. Continued winning allowed them to do more. And more. There are no shortcuts to the top. 

Austin Riley at 21 million is cost controlled compared to a Betts or Correa contract  Acuna at 17 million is an even bigger bargain 

It went from 115 to 130 overnight after 1 NLDS appearance. The Twins are going from 155 to 140 or lower (according to the reports) overnight after 1 ALDS appearance. Do you see the difference? 

The Braves after 4 straight playoff appearances, after having increased, instead decreased their payroll at the opening of their window, jumped from 130ish to 190ish and over 200 this last year. It's almost like they did exactly what I'm asking for and invested in their team which then lead to long-term financial gain so it was a maintainable model. I don't know why it's crazy to suggest the Twins invest in their product as their competitive window opens in order to increase their revenue moving forward. But maybe I really just don't understand how any of this works.

[old nurse]

16 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

It went from 115 to 130 overnight after 1 NLDS appearance. The Twins are going from 155 to 140 or lower (according to the reports) overnight after 1 ALDS appearance. Do you see the difference? 

The Braves after 4 straight playoff appearances, after having increased, instead decreased their payroll at the opening of their window, jumped from 130ish to 190ish and over 200 this last year. It's almost like they did exactly what I'm asking for and invested in their team which then lead to long-term financial gain so it was a maintainable model. I don't know why it's crazy to suggest the Twins invest in their product as their competitive window opens in order to increase their revenue moving forward. But maybe I really just don't understand how any of this works.

Which way did thier revenue go?  

[old nurse]

16 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

My proposal is that the Twins should generally spend at or just above its market size, and that if the "window is open", the team should increase its investments accordingly to try to win a World Series when the stars are aligned.  These increased investments can come from higher-than-anticipated profits from previous years (how come we never, ever hear the Twins say they're increasing payroll because revenues were higher than anticipated?), the enormous gains in franchise value that the wealth-hording Pohlads have realized since they bought the team, or, yes, pocket change.  I don't think you realize how much fricking money a billion dollars is, much less 5bil or whatever the Pohlads are worth.  Chipping in $30mil out of pocket to capitalize on a decent 2023 to take advantage of the AL Central window being open is the equivalent of someone worth $50k spending $375.  It's absolutely absurd to suggest that the owner of a professional baseball team, one of the richest families on the planet, shouldn't be expected to pony up some pocket change to make the team better, especially when fans gifted the Pohlads with a half billion dollar cash cow.  

The Twins rank team wise as the 17th largest market as there are multiple teams in the large markets. Payroll amounts they have slotted 16th.  OOOPs that would appear as the Twins do as you ask. 

[old nurse]

16 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

It went from 115 to 130 overnight after 1 NLDS appearance. The Twins are going from 155 to 140 or lower (according to the reports) overnight after 1 ALDS appearance. Do you see the difference? 

The Braves after 4 straight playoff appearances, after having increased, instead decreased their payroll at the opening of their window, jumped from 130ish to 190ish and over 200 this last year. It's almost like they did exactly what I'm asking for and invested in their team which then lead to long-term financial gain so it was a maintainable model. I don't know why it's crazy to suggest the Twins invest in their product as their competitive window opens in order to increase their revenue moving forward. But maybe I really just don't understand how any of this works.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193673/average-ticket-price-in-the-mlb-by-team/

Perhaps the Twins should boos ticket prices to march Atlanta. On a 2 million attendance that should more than cover what you think they should be making. 

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, old nurse said:

Which way did thier revenue go?  

 

1 hour ago, old nurse said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193673/average-ticket-price-in-the-mlb-by-team/

Perhaps the Twins should boos ticket prices to march Atlanta. On a 2 million attendance that should more than cover what you think they should be making. 

Crazy that you can charge more for a better product, huh? After they invested in their team their revenue went through the roof. Crazy that a company has to actually invest in their product to earn customer dollars, huh?

Do you buy a lot of other products where the company selling it tells you they're actively going to be investing less in their product until their customers buy more of it and then they'll maybe invest more and make a better product? Isn't the general approach to business that the company actually invests in their product so it's worth the customer buying it, and then as they make more revenue they continue to improve their product so the customer buys the new version and they make more revenue and the cycle continues? You seem to think the correct way for a baseball franchise to be run is to force the customers to pay for a worse product with the hopes that the company will someday improve their product. Why are the fans the ones who need to be investing in this product instead of the Pohlads?

[Fatbat]

19 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

It went from 115 to 130 overnight after 1 NLDS appearance. The Twins are going from 155 to 140 or lower (according to the reports) overnight after 1 ALDS appearance. Do you see the difference? 

The Braves after 4 straight playoff appearances, after having increased, instead decreased their payroll at the opening of their window, jumped from 130ish to 190ish and over 200 this last year. It's almost like they did exactly what I'm asking for and invested in their team which then lead to long-term financial gain so it was a maintainable model. I don't know why it's crazy to suggest the Twins invest in their product as their competitive window opens in order to increase their revenue moving forward. But maybe I really just don't understand how any of this works.

I have really enjoyed this thread. The twins seem to have an open window to compete for a WS. You are 200% correct in your criticism of their marketing mistakes and the appearance that they don’t care about winning or gaining market share/revenue/profits. A market study has already been done 5 weeks ago when target field was packed with fans. We will spend $$$ if the twins don’t suck. Screw the TV revenue issue talk. There will be revenues. They won’t NOT be streamed so fans can watch games. As the 16/18th market, we should be spending accordingly which is in the $160+M range. It’s absurd that they don’t employ smart enough people to figure it out. 

[Woof Bronzer]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

The Twins rank team wise as the 17th largest market as there are multiple teams in the large markets. Payroll amounts they have slotted 16th.  OOOPs that would appear as the Twins do as you ask. 

Lol, they're not going to be 16th this year!  Thanks for proving my point!  And you must have missed the part about investing when you have an open window.  Show me a World Series winner who slashed payroll and made their team worse the previous offseason.  I'll wait.  And again, even if they were 16th, it isn't good enough.  1 team ranked that low has won a Series in the past 3 decades.  Even Kansas City upped their spending when their window was open.  As a fan I'd like to see the team make a serious run at a World Series.  I've been waiting 30 years for it.  But it hasn't happened, because the Pohlads aren't intelligent enough to understand that investing in their product - investing in winning - will actually make them more profits and build long-term customers than the short-sighted penny-pinching they've done for decades.  

Look, I get it, you're a Pohlad fanboy and you think your job as a fan is to blindly defend everything the team does.  That's your right as a fan.  Enjoy the mediocrity!

[old nurse]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

 

Crazy that you can charge more for a better product, huh? After they invested in their team their revenue went through the roof. Crazy that a company has to actually invest in their product to earn customer dollars, huh?

Do you buy a lot of other products where the company selling it tells you they're actively going to be investing less in their product until their customers buy more of it and then they'll maybe invest more and make a better product? Isn't the general approach to business that the company actually invests in their product so it's worth the customer buying it, and then as they make more revenue they continue to improve their product so the customer buys the new version and they make more revenue and the cycle continues? You seem to think the correct way for a baseball franchise to be run is to force the customers to pay for a worse product with the hopes that the company will someday improve their product. Why are the fans the ones who need to be investing in this product instead of the Pohlads?

Ticket prices tend to be a very capitalistic thing. Your question at best is weird considering the Twins are entertainment not a product you use. 

[Woof Bronzer]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

Which way did thier revenue go?  

hahahahhaha they invested in their product and their revenues went up!  What a concept!  

 

[old nurse]

5 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Lol, they're not going to be 16th this year!  Thanks for proving my point!  And you must have missed the part about investing when you have an open window.  Show me a World Series winner who slashed payroll and made their team worse the previous offseason.  I'll wait.  And again, even if they were 16th, it isn't good enough.  1 team ranked that low has won a Series in the past 3 decades.  Even Kansas City upped their spending when their window was open.  As a fan I'd like to see the team make a serious run at a World Series.  I've been waiting 30 years for it.  But it hasn't happened, because the Pohlads aren't intelligent enough to understand that investing in their product - investing in winning - will actually make them more profits and build long-term customers than the short-sighted penny-pinching they've done for decades.  

Look, I get it, you're a Pohlad fanboy and you think your job as a fan is to blindly defend everything the team does.  That's your right as a fan.  Enjoy the mediocrity!

You don’t know where they will rank until everyone is done with their rosters Revenue uncertainty will cause the clubs in the middle to be more cautious. The White Sox are shedding payroll. Milwaukee shed payroll   Kansas City added payroll when they were a player or two away from contention. The Twins right now do not have what KC had when they added 

[old nurse]

6 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

hahahahhaha they invested in their product and their revenues went up!  What a concept!  

 

Revenue went up before they added. Sorry that ou can’t look before you mouth off 

[Woof Bronzer]

Just now, old nurse said:

Revenue went up before they added. Sorry that ou can’t look before you mouth off 

hahahahahahahahahahahahah you know you're arguing a solid position when you have to distort the truth in order to fit your narrative.  Seriously, I think you would benefit from a basic understanding of economics.   Check out your local library.  All this would make much more sense for you.  

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, old nurse said:

Ticket prices tend to be a very capitalistic thing. Your question at best is weird considering the Twins are entertainment not a product you use. 

I don't care what you want to label the Twins, a product or whatever other term you want to use. The question isn't weird. The Pohlads want to make more revenue. You keep telling me over and over that they can't/shouldn't invest in their team until they have more revenue. That's not how business works. The Pohlads need fans to invest their money and time in order to make revenue. You're arguing that the fans should do that regardless of the team on the field, or the investment the Pohlads make.

Your argument, at it's core, is that if the fans want a better Twins team they should spend their time and money on the bad team so the Pohlads can make money and then hopefully invest in the team and make it better. What other businesses run that way? What other businesses tell you that if you want the company to spend you have to spend first? 

[Riverbrian]

Personally... I don't care about payroll. The Twins are going to be in a grouping of teams that are going to spend around the same ballpark. 

We ranked 17th last year... I don't care. We spent 154 Million... around 75.5 million of that was spent on players that didn't really significantly produce what the money suggests they should have produced. Correa, Buxton, Gallo, Mahle is 67 million spent. I don't really believe Vazquez and Kepler were worth what we paid them.  

I care about players and the production that we get out of the players. This team made the playoffs because of minimum salary players that did the majority of the producing. 

I understand that money increases your odds of success but that's for the big boys. I'm not going to care about payroll... I'm going to care about production. How Gallo stayed on the roster for as long as he stayed on the roster is beyond me. 

 

[Jocko87]

On 11/20/2023 at 7:47 AM, roger said:

Got the biggest smile of the day out of this comment, thanks.

Didn't like Cohen when he was in Washington, hated him when he opened his checkbook after buying the Mets (and yes, my 6-year old granddaughter says that I shouldn't use that word).  Checked the standings several times a week to see how the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox and Padres were doing.  Always felt good after seeing the results.

Checkbook is quite the outdated word, agreed.  By the time she's spending money it will be completely out of date.

[DJL44]

On 11/21/2023 at 10:55 AM, chpettit19 said:

Do you think they've maximized revenue in the Minneapolis market? I don't.

I don't either, but they have the conundrum that if they are able to fully exploit this market they'll be paying into revenue sharing rather than receiving it. The CBA discourages the Twins from maximizing revenue through subsidies and draft picks. Do they want to earn a few million dollars more each season or get a free 2nd round draft pick and more international bonus money?

I'm hopeful the trends in television contracts lead to sharing ALL broadcast and streaming dollars into the central pool (like the NFL) and ending (or limiting) revenue sharing of locally generated revenue like ticket sales and concessions. That incentivizes MLB to get the best media deal they can get for all teams and gives them more bargaining power. It would incentivize the Twins to put teams on the field that attract fan interest. If they want to attract fans by winning or by copying the Saints formula that is up to the Twins.

BTW - this source shows a 0.58 correlation between payroll and winning

The MLB Has a Competitive Balance Issue, and It’s Related to Money and Payroll Inequalities - The Georgetown Voice

another good article

MLB’s revenue sharing problem, and how to solve it - Bless You Boys

 

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Your argument, at it's core, is that if the fans want a better Twins team they should spend their time and money on the bad team so the Pohlads can make money and then hopefully invest in the team and make it better. What other businesses run that way? What other businesses tell you that if you want the company to spend you have to spend first? 

Excellent summary of the issue and the Pohlad mindset.  They truly believe there are only two types of fans:  good fans, who spend piles and piles of cash every single year regardless of the product on the field, and terrible fans, who don't. Never forget Dave St Peter blaming fans for the September 2021 meltdown.  Never forget Jim Pohlad's "aw shucks, we're getting contracted" letter in which he literally says he can't come up with an answer to the question: "Why shouldn't the Twins be contracted?"  (I dunno Jim, maybe the fans?)

Also the suggestion that if the Pohlads magically make more revenue without investing first, they're going to turn around an re-invest in the team is just hilarious. 

 

[roger]

53 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Checkbook is quite the outdated word, agreed.  By the time she's spending money it will be completely out of date.

The word she says I shouldn't use is the 'H' word.  Do most people, other than us old guys, still have checkbooks?  

[Jocko87]

On 11/20/2023 at 10:03 AM, chpettit19 said:

Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc is a public company that owns the Braves and The Battery (the area around their stadium). Because of this we can see what their financials are. The MLB CBA includes a "Market Score" ranking of all 30 teams. The Braves are a 97 and rank 14th compared to the Twins at 17th and a 79 (like OPS+ it compare to the league as a whole). The Braves payroll for 2023 was about 203 million compared to the Twins at 156ish. According to MLB's own numbers on what teams should be able to make in their markets the Twins were 10 mil below the number they should be able to hit for payroll based on the Braves publicly released information.

I'm not asking the Pohlads to dig into their personal fortune to keep the Twins competitive, I'm asking them to run their business to the mark the CBA they signed says they should be able to. The Braves brought in $271,824,000 in revenue in Q3 2023. $15,558,000 of that was from The Battery. So their total baseball revenue was $256,266,000 for Q3 which included 37 home games. The Twins should be 18% lower ($46,127,880) than that so they should be at $210,138,120 in baseball revenue for Q3. They claim they spend 50-52% of baseball revenue on payroll. So Q3 alone should put them at $105,069,060 in payroll (50%). Q3 covers July, August, and September. So March, April, May, June, and October games aren't even included.

The Twins very clearly aren't hitting those numbers. And it's all rough math lacking a lot of context. But the Braves are the team that we can actually see the real numbers on. Are they significantly out producing their market score, or are the Twins underperforming theirs? One team has spent and built a team that looks like a juggernaut for the foreseeable future and watched their YoY baseball revenue increase by 11%. The other is slashing payroll. I'm sure one, or two, or three, of the much more educated business folks on these threads will slice these numbers up and tell me my expectations aren't realistic. But from the actual numbers we have we know that Atlanta is expected to be a basically average (3% below) market for producing baseball revenue while the Twins are supposed to be solidly below (21%) average market for producing baseball revenue. We know the Braves actual revenue. We know the Twins payrolls don't match the marks they're supposed to compared to the Braves. We know the Braves are publicly speaking about adding payroll while the Twins publicly speak about cutting it. I think it's pretty fair that we ask the Twins to step it up and improve their numbers.

Whats the difference between a 97 OPS+ and a 79 OPS+ in a player?  One is a solid major leaguer and the other is a DFA/AAAA guy.  Its a big difference.

I agree with your thesis of spending to the market.  Your methodology is incorrect though.  You cannot use the best three month period of the year to tell you anything.  If you try to apply for a loan based on the best three months of any seasonal business you will get laughed out of the bank.  There is a large issue with only having one teams data avalible in that small sample size distorts everything and lots of people try to read the data incorrectly.  Just check out this Sports Illustrated article where the call it 272M "profit!!!" instead of revenue.  That kind of misreading of the data causes all kinds of issues.

https://www.si.com/mlb/braves/analysis/atlanta-braves-holdings-2023q3-financial-results

When we pull the lens back on the actual data the 6 month view is enlightening.  The previous 3 months, Jan Feb and March include much of spring training (loss leader) only brings an additional 20-30m in revenue.  Over that 6 month period, including the period you reference, they operated at a loss.  Year over year, they performed significantly worse.  ie lost money.  The largest difference is baseball operating costs, most likely player salary. 

 

Stepping back to a 9 month view, (full year won't be available until late January at the earliest) we can see most of revenue for the year.  It will be interesting to come back and see playoff impact but this is pretty close to full year revenue.  The playoffs are very conveniently scheduled so we can see the value of a playoff game.  Regardless, almost no revenue in November or December but the bills keep coming.  The final numbers will certainly be worse than these. 

 

From a quick review of the reports, I can see where the Twins TV deal was 10m less.  That plus attendance at 1m or so less feels like a lot more than 18% difference.  18% less revenue than the Braves at 52% of baseball revenue would work out to a $225m payroll to the Twins.  That's not close to correct and the missing information makes it an impossible equation to solve.  The Braves have to service half a billion in debt, how much do the Twins have?  The Twins almost certainly have a different expense structure as well. 

Heck, the Braves aren't even spending 50% of baseball revenue on salary and they are operating at a loss.  What should we expect the Twins to do?  While there will be significant differences between the two teams we can reasonably assume some similarities.  If the Twins are actually at 50-52% of baseball revenue they should be commended as they probably are operating at a loss yearly already.  It's quite obvious that the Correa spend over the last two years pushed the comfort level.  The investment you are asking for has already happened, unfortunately.  If they can't get back to 3m attendance they can't spend much more.

Focus on product instead of payroll.

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Jocko87
misspelling