The Twins Should Be Embarrassed to Be Outspent by the Royals

[chpettit19]

Just now, Major League Ready said:

No.  I measured payroll against total revenue to show what percentage of revenue they spent.  The ratio speaks for itself and the increase in payroll speaks for itself.  Payroll did not go up by the entirety of the BAM money.  We don't know what other expenses BAM may have been used to fund.  What we do know is that you are ignoring the fact that it existed when you insist there is no reason to reduce payroll from the 2023.  Level.  Obviously, between BAM and TV revenue it makes perfect sense.  

The $267 in revenue came from Statistica.  Is this hard fact no.  Is it a reasonable source?  Yes.  There are also other sources reporting very similar numbers.   I then added $13M suggesting this seemed like a reasonable assumption for them to increase expected revenue.  They mighty have forecasted no increase.  I was just trying to make a reasonable assumption.

I have never said there's no reason to reduce payroll from 2023. Never. Not once. I've argued that it's a short-term view that I don't agree with and I wish they'd choose to take a financial risk, or even guaranteed loss in 2024 from a Twins LLC perspective only, to invest in their product for the long-term growth of their company because it's pocket change for them as a family. I accept and acknowledge the 2024 profit situation and am not arguing that they could spend 150+ and still make their desired profit, or any profit. I'm not going to go down this road with you again. You care about the Pohlad's year over year profit and trust public estimates of their revenue. I don't care about the Pohlad's making profits every year and don't trust public estimates. We know where we each stand on that. We're not having that discussion again.

But none of that is the point I was making when I responded to that other poster. The point is that the arb money doesn't start hurting until 2027 because of the offsetting loss of contracts the next 2 offseasons. So any room they have now will still be there until 2027. So if they wanted to/had the room to add a contract this offseason they have a 3 year window before it actually starts hurting them. 2027 is the year where things come together between the arb raises and large contracts they have now. Not 2025 or 2026. 2027.

[specialiststeve]

34 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Tampa should be embarrassed. They take money from other teams and pocket it, never trying to get over the hump. Why any fan would root for teams to under pay players so billionaires can have more money is mind boggling. 

So ... spending money wisely and using the resources you have to put out a great product every year is embarrassing? Ridiculous take.

There are a TON of teams that spend less and are not competitive!  Those teams I do feel should be the teams you target but a team that continually has a great system and pays players their market value.. and when that value gets to a point they can't afford they move them for quality prospects to replenish their system ... rince.. repeat.. compete. Smartly run ... 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, specialiststeve said:

So ... spending money wisely and using the resources you have to put out a great product every year is embarrassing? Ridiculous take.

There are a TON of teams that spend less and are not competitive!  Those teams I do feel should be the teams you target but a team that continually has a great system and pays players their market value.. and when that value gets to a point they can't afford they move them for quality prospects to replenish their system ... rince.. repeat.. compete. Smartly run ... 

 

 

If you like to root for smart, ridiculously profitable teams for that reason, good for you. But let's not pretend they are good for the sport. They take money from other teams and pocket it, never spending more to get over the top. Imagine how good they could be if they spent even close to what other teams spend.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

19 hours ago, Linus said:

I don’t care what the Royals spend but the Pohlad family should be embarrassed by this off season. They got caught completely unprepared for this TV situation and double down by pinching what equates to nickels and dimes after their first playoff in forever. They had to have known they were going to get some TV money yet they act like it is zero. I personally don’t understand why the fan base isn’t more pissed. I guess everyone has just been conditioned to not expect anything different. 

This.  A thousand times this.

To say the Pohlads were caught unprepared is not accurate.  This had been coming in the wind for months.  I too do not understand why the fan base isn't rioting right now...

[Major League Ready]

31 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I have never said there's no reason to reduce payroll from 2023. Never. Not once. I've argued that it's a short-term view that I don't agree with and I wish they'd choose to take a financial risk, or even guaranteed loss in 2024 from a Twins LLC perspective only, to invest in their product for the long-term growth of their company because it's pocket change for them as a family. I accept and acknowledge the 2024 profit situation and am not arguing that they could spend 150+ and still make their desired profit, or any profit. I'm not going to go down this road with you again. You care about the Pohlad's year over year profit and trust public estimates of their revenue. I don't care about the Pohlad's making profits every year and don't trust public estimates. We know where we each stand on that. We're not having that discussion again.

But none of that is the point I was making when I responded to that other poster. The point is that the arb money doesn't start hurting until 2027 because of the offsetting loss of contracts the next 2 offseasons. So any room they have now will still be there until 2027. So if they wanted to/had the room to add a contract this offseason they have a 3 year window before it actually starts hurting them. 2027 is the year where things come together between the arb raises and large contracts they have now. Not 2025 or 2026. 2027.

The money coming off is a consideration for sure but is it a good idea to proceed with a strategy that would require that Kepler / Vazquez / Farmer / DeSclafani and Thielbar be replaced by prospects / league minimum players? I have said that it can be managed but signing long-term contracts at this point could really bite us.  As much as I want pitching, at the rate free agent pitching fails, or even trade (Mahle) I would be more inclined to take that leap with a position player given our financial position.

[jorgenswest]

The Twins won the central leading it virtually all of the way. They had their biggest payroll ever. Where was the attendance? They couldn’t even get to 2 million. They ranked 19th and were closer to Tampa Bay at 27 than to San Francisco at 17.

[bird]

10 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

If you like to root for smart, ridiculously profitable teams for that reason, good for you. But let's not pretend they are good for the sport. They take money from other teams and pocket it, never spending more to get over the top. Imagine how good they could be if they spent even close to what other teams spend.

I understand your POV, Mike, but my own concern is for those who would enjoy having the financial wherewithal to take a family of four to a MLB game, even once a season. I’m all for any behavior that puts a bit of pressure on the oligopoly that is MLB. Mr. Douglas was wrong. Greed sucks. And there’s no shortage of participants in that greed. It’s not just owners, players, and agents. It’s also us fans who can afford the ticket and glamour for our team to continue the craziness that is the current economics of professional entertainment.

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, bird said:

I understand your POV, Mike, but my own concern is for those who would enjoy having the financial wherewithal to take a family of four to a MLB game, even once a season. I’m all for any behavior that puts a bit of pressure on the oligopoly that is MLB. Mr. Douglas was wrong. Greed sucks. And there’s no shortage of participants in that greed. It’s not just owners, players, and agents. It’s also us fans who can afford the ticket and glamour for our team to continue the craziness that is the current economics of professional entertainment.

I agree that prices are too high, but that has nothing to do with what Tampa is doing......It really has little impact on player pay either, as most of the money comes from tv and radio and other things.....not that ticket sales don't matter, but salaries aren't driving ticket prices up. 

[Mike Sixel]

11 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

The Twins won the central leading it virtually all of the way. They had their biggest payroll ever. Where was the attendance? They couldn’t even get to 2 million. They ranked 19th and were closer to Tampa Bay at 27 than to San Francisco at 17.

Attendance is largely driven by previous year's record, since season tickets sales are driven by that, as well as the first 2-3 months.....we should expect it to be better this year. Not sure it will be, but that's how the cycle generally works. 

It won't help that immediately after being good, they said they were cutting payroll .....that won't sit well with the fans.

[chpettit19]

39 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The money coming off is a consideration for sure but is it a good idea to proceed with a strategy that would require that Kepler / Vazquez / Farmer / DeSclafani and Thielbar be replaced by prospects / league minimum players? I have said that it can be managed but signing long-term contracts at this point could really bite us.  As much as I want pitching, at the rate free agent pitching fails, or even trade (Mahle) I would be more inclined to take that leap with a position player given our financial position.

I'd be good with a position player, too. Doesn't need to be pitching as far as I'm concerned. Jorge Soler for 3 years would make me happy, and I believe should be affordable. I don't expect that, but I think 3/45 (I think that was The Athletic's estimate for him) should be a realistic deal for the Twins, and it comes off the books right as the youngsters start getting truly costly (assuming they perform well the next few years). If they could get an arm for 3 years I'd be happy with that, too, but I don't think that's realistic for Montgomery or Snell (I'm terrified of paying Snell anyways). But maybe there's an arm with 3 years of control left that they could trade for? I don't know. I just see a 3 year window where I wish they'd be aggressive with some things while still being reasonable. Even getting to 135ish this year in payroll (where they were in 2022) would give them a shot at someone like Soler I think. Or a trade if there's someone available that makes sense.

[Vanimal46]

57 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

This.  A thousand times this.

To say the Pohlads were caught unprepared is not accurate.  This had been coming in the wind for months.  I too do not understand why the fan base isn't rioting right now...

Out of sight, out of mind. Years of hiding their content behind a cable box and radio broadcasts on AM frequency is catching up to them. 

When they announced their intention to slash payroll right away in the offseason, I took it as an invitation to check out for the winter. 

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

This.  A thousand times this.

To say the Pohlads were caught unprepared is not accurate.  This had been coming in the wind for months.  I too do not understand why the fan base isn't rioting right now...

Rioting huh? 

[jorgenswest]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Attendance is largely driven by previous year's record, since season tickets sales are driven by that, as well as the first 2-3 months.....we should expect it to be better this year. Not sure it will be, but that's how the cycle generally works. 

It won't help that immediately after being good, they said they were cutting payroll .....that won't sit well with the fans.

It didn’t help the finances either that immediately after the 2019 season they had no attendance. In 2021 after two winning seasons they ranked 19th like last year. It does t seem like winning has been a good formula for attendance.

[Major League Ready]

44 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'd be good with a position player, too. Doesn't need to be pitching as far as I'm concerned. Jorge Soler for 3 years would make me happy, and I believe should be affordable. I don't expect that, but I think 3/45 (I think that was The Athletic's estimate for him) should be a realistic deal for the Twins, and it comes off the books right as the youngsters start getting truly costly (assuming they perform well the next few years). If they could get an arm for 3 years I'd be happy with that, too, but I don't think that's realistic for Montgomery or Snell (I'm terrified of paying Snell anyways). But maybe there's an arm with 3 years of control left that they could trade for? I don't know. I just see a 3 year window where I wish they'd be aggressive with some things while still being reasonable. Even getting to 135ish this year in payroll (where they were in 2022) would give them a shot at someone like Soler I think. Or a trade if there's someone available that makes sense.

I know this sound weird but they could go 12/18/15 for a total of 45 for Soler.  That's only $130M this year.  We would have an  increase of $33M next year between Lopez / Paddack and Soler.  Offset by Kepler / Vazquez / Farmer / DeSclafani and Thielbar coming off for a total of $33.5M coming off.  In other words, payroll would go up equal to arbitration increases.  Paddack and Castro come off after 2025 which would absorb a lot of the next round of arbitration increases.  Of course, the downside is that we would have very little room to add in free agency until Lopez and Correa come off.

The other potential tactic for future salary management will be to trade a couple of the more expensive arbitration players if we have backfill with players like Lee / E-rod / Gonzalez / Severino / Canterino / Prielipp / Festa etc.  (The Rays SOP) That scenario has a decent chance of coming to fruition.   I could see players like Wallner / Julien / Kirilloff / Ryan / Ober being traded for value and salary relief while being replaced by equal or better players.  This approach would also make Soler more tradable in his final year when we hope to have E-rod / Jenkins and/or Gonzalez in the OF.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

To my knowledge there is only one MLB team you can directly buy stock in, the Braves.  NASDAQ : BATRA.  A quick look says that their stock has gone up approximately 3X in 8 years.  That's an annualized 15% ROI give or take, if I did my math right.

I would like to own stock in the Twins.  No further research on my part needed.  Why?  Because the Pohalds aren't selling any.  That's how I know it's a great investment. 

We beat the Braves P&L to death already this off-season.  I'm more interested in the thought exercise that is trying to look at the organizations that we would buy/sell/hold similar to a stock.

Buying complicates it for the thought exercise as we would spend the rest of the winter setting a starting value so I'll propose a scenario.  You get a card for Christmas from Grandma and this year, instead of a $2 bill, its a stock certificate in a MLB baseball team.  She signs the card "I've had this forever but you're the baseball fan so I trust you will know what to do with it."  It's real money too, $100k of stock.  Per her wishes, you can do anything you want with it.

I'm holding Twins.  Along with Dodgers, Yankees, Orioles, Rangers and Braves for sure, just off the top of my head.  Red Sox?  Not sure I want to ride the dip but there should be long term value. And so on, there are several that would be interesting beer conversations.

Selling several as soon as I can, most of them are obvious.  The Royals are a VC flip, paint and carpet.  As @Riverbrian adroitly pointed out, the Padres were the same thing, just with nicer countertops.  An obvious sucker bet that could have been magical if it hit.  Betting on a dying billionaire who obviously wants something isn't the worst investment, you just have to know when to get out.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I know this sound weird but they could go 12/18/15 for a total of 45 for Soler.  That's only $130M this year.  We would have an  increase of $33M next year between Lopez / Paddack and Soler.  Offset by Kepler / Vazquez / Farmer / DeSclafani and Thielbar coming off for a total of $33.5M coming off.  In other words, payroll would go up equal to arbitration increases.  Paddack and Castro come off after 2025 which would absorb a lot of the next round of arbitration increases.  Of course, the downside is that we would have very little room to add in free agency until Lopez and Correa come off.

The other potential tactic for future salary management will be to trade a couple of the more expensive arbitration players if we have backfill with players like Lee / E-rod / Gonzalez / Severino / Canterino / Prielipp / Festa etc.  (The Rays SOP) That scenario has a decent chance of coming to fruition.   I could see players like Wallner / Julien / Kirilloff / Ryan / Ober being traded for value and salary relief while being replaced by equal or better players.  This approach would also make Soler more tradable in his final year when we hope to have E-rod / Jenkins and/or Gonzalez in the OF.

Ideally the young guys put them in a spot to make some really tough decisions in the next couple years. I'd bet/hope that they use some option years to really let things play out. That's part of my hesitation with people wanting to clear too much space for young guys (like dropping Gordon to start Martin in MLB). It's certainly not ideal to have guys start in AAA when they're MLB ready, but it really gives them the best chance to maximize their team over 162 and into the playoffs. I didn't like Ober starting in AAA last year, but it worked out great, I think. Making the same kind of moves to get some guys established while maintaining maximum depth for the next few years sounds ideal to me. Don't rely on having guessed right, but give yourself some time to find the top guys even if it means Wallner, Julien and Ober types have to spend a little extra time on the farm.

To tie this back into the Royals theme here, I think the near-term future of the Central is going to be determined by which squad picks the right young guys to build around. Cleveland and Detroit especially have some young guys on the cusp as well. Most of KC's youth is here so they've tried to open a 2 year window to give them a little length. But the Central overall is young. The team that keeps the best, and makes the best trades for the rest, can really take hold of this division.

[purplesoldier4u]

22 hours ago, DJL44 said:

It is crazy, given the market size advantage, that the Twins will end up with a local TV contract worse than Cleveland and Kansas City.

Dave St. Peter and his business acumen is responsible for that. When the RSN deals were being haded out like candy to children on Halloween, the Twins were relegated to lower-tier dollars. $55 million was more than they led us to believe it was, much like the Royals' deal, but it should have been in the area of the Padres.

[farmerguychris]

Embarrassed that they probably overpaid one young talented shortstop, while we have a variety of quality players in our system making less money than their one guy - nope!

One person does not make a team, so I'm always happy to see other AL teams overpaying for players - means we might be able to get someone within our budget because their money is already all spent.

At least thats what I tell myself....

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, jorgenswest said:

The Twins won the central leading it virtually all of the way. They had their biggest payroll ever. Where was the attendance? They couldn’t even get to 2 million. They ranked 19th and were closer to Tampa Bay at 27 than to San Francisco at 17.

Maybe, just maybe, fans didn't go because the team had been bad for 2 years.  It's almost like consistent investment in the product on the field has a positive correlation to revenue.  The Twins drew 2.6m fans in 1992 and 3m in 1988 fyi. 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

53 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Rioting huh? 

I suppose rioting has a bad connotation here in Minnesota considering the last few years...

How about "loud and vocal negative uproar from the Twins fandom"?

[jorgenswest]

1 minute ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Maybe, just maybe, fans didn't go because the team had been bad for 2 years.  It's almost like consistent investment in the product on the field has a positive correlation to revenue.  The Twins drew 2.6m fans in 1992 and 3m in 1988 fyi. 

How many good years will it take? They won the central 2019 and 2020 and still ranked 19th in 2021. Short of the excitement of a new stadium maybe they aren’t going to rank much higher than 19th is their peak.

I will add that not only did they rank 19th last year but their ticket prices relative to other teams is in the bottom 10. This is harder to find reliable data on. statista has them 29th in average ticket price, USA Today 21st and ticket city.com has them 28th based on average sales. They have lower attendance and they are taking in fewer dollars with each ticket sold in spite of winning the AL Central three of the last five seasons.

[Riverbrian]

51 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

We beat the Braves P&L to death already this off-season.  I'm more interested in the thought exercise that is trying to look at the organizations that we would buy/sell/hold similar to a stock.

Buying complicates it for the thought exercise as we would spend the rest of the winter setting a starting value so I'll propose a scenario.  You get a card for Christmas from Grandma and this year, instead of a $2 bill, its a stock certificate in a MLB baseball team.  She signs the card "I've had this forever but you're the baseball fan so I trust you will know what to do with it."  It's real money too, $100k of stock.  Per her wishes, you can do anything you want with it.

I'm holding Twins.  Along with Dodgers, Yankees, Orioles, Rangers and Braves for sure, just off the top of my head.  Red Sox?  Not sure I want to ride the dip but there should be long term value. And so on, there are several that would be interesting beer conversations.

Selling several as soon as I can, most of them are obvious.  The Royals are a VC flip, paint and carpet.  As @Riverbrian adroitly pointed out, the Padres were the same thing, just with nicer countertops.  An obvious sucker bet that could have been magical if it hit.  Betting on a dying billionaire who obviously wants something isn't the worst investment, you just have to know when to get out.

Teams that I would buy stock in... Good Question... Fun Question actually. 

Orioles - With that farm system - They are going to be around for awhile - With a new owner they may get to add money to the farm. 

Jays - They own Canada - Good Farm - plenty revenue - There is no reason for this organization to fall large distances

Tigers - The Kids are starting to come - And the money will come once the kids build a base

Braves - They are pretty loaded for the next few years - After that... who knows but right now they are set for awhile. 

Nationals - Buy low candidate - They will be back and back strong. 

Dodgers - They are like buying Berkshire Hathaway - Expensive but bullet proof. 

and why not... Twins - I think the farm is starting to produce fruit and I think the farm will continue to produce fruit

Teams that I would never by stock in

Rockies - They don't develop prospects - They don't spend money  

Marlins - Lots of young players - But, somehow someway they can't seem to figure it out

White Sox - Probably a good buy low candidate but I'd be wishing they stay down... even if they climb up... they are going back down again. Instability on steroids - And I hate them more than any other team. 

Angels - There hasn't been a worse run organization for the past couple of decades. 

 

[Major League Ready]

30 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

How many good years will it take? They won the central 2019 and 2020 and still ranked 19th in 2021. Short of the excitement of a new stadium maybe they aren’t going to rank much higher than 19th is their peak.

I will add that not only did they rank 19th last year but their ticket prices relative to other teams is in the bottom 10. This is harder to find reliable data on. statista has them 29th in average ticket price, USA Today 21st and ticket city.com has them 28th based on average sales. They have lower attendance and they are taking in fewer dollars with each ticket sold in spite of winning the AL Central three of the last five seasons.

Thanks for injecting some factual basis for comparison into the conversation rather than assuming the revenue disparity is purely a product of incompetence.  

[Woof Bronzer]

36 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

They have lower attendance and they are taking in fewer dollars with each ticket sold in spite of winning the AL Central three of the last five seasons.

I think the vast majority of fans do not care about simply winning the worst division in sports, or at least they don't anymore after how many seasons of winning the Central and then faceplanting in the playoffs. At some reason you have to have postseason success.  The Twins drew 2 mil in 87 and 3 mil in 88.  Fans care about the playoffs.  

[Woof Bronzer]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Thanks for injecting some factual basis for comparison into the conversation rather than assuming the revenue disparity is purely a product of incompetence.  

It's partly incompetence but mostly greed.  

[DJL44]

15 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Rockies - They don't develop prospects - They don't spend money  

They spend money but mostly on the wrong things (Kris Bryant).

[Woof Bronzer]

7 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Thanks for injecting some factual basis for comparison into the conversation rather than assuming the revenue disparity is purely a product of incompetence.  

Also, has the Twin Cities market shrink since 1988, when the team drew 3 million fans?  I'm really stumped as to how we could draw 3 million fans in a concrete bowl 35 years ago, but we can't draw 2 million in a great outdoor ballpark.  What could it possibly be?  

[Major League Ready]

9 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

It's partly incompetence but mostly greed.  

They produced less revenue because of greed?  You are going to need to elaborate on this one.

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

They spend money but mostly on the wrong things (Kris Bryant).

Agreed but... I'd put the Rockies issue with Bryant down to an unexplainable horrible sense of timing. 

Kris Bryant... OK... you spent on him and he cost what he cost. That's how free agency works... if you want the player... you gotta pay the price.

Not only did Kris Bryant do you no good but the bigger issue is that you had nothing around him when you made the purchase. 

It's like buying the Mona Lisa and hanging it on the wall of a trailer park office.

Get out of the trailer park first.      

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, jorgenswest said:

How many good years will it take? They won the central 2019 and 2020 and still ranked 19th in 2021. Short of the excitement of a new stadium maybe they aren’t going to rank much higher than 19th is their peak.

 

They were coming out of a pandemic in 2021 and businesses all over were struggling to get people to return. Not to mention the social situation in Minneapolis at that time and the concern a large number of people had for their safety when going to downtown Minneapolis at that time. I don't think 2021 is a great example of "winning doesn't really help." Way more factors that went into that time period in Minneapolis.