The Twins Should Be Embarrassed to Be Outspent by the Royals

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

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. 

 

I was going to reply to the question you replied to, but you laid out a framework first so I'll go off of that.

Strictly as an investment, you can't go wrong with most of these.  Some are a little better than others.  But all are properties that rich people have chosen to invest in, and (mostly) not share with the hoi polloi.  So, if I'm offered, I'm in.  Any financial success I've had has come from throwing in my lot with people wealthier than me.

I saw a negative opinion for the Red Sox, above.  Me, I would snap up that opportunity, much as you described for the Dodgers.  Buy Quality.  If there's a severe economic downturn, the Red Sox shares I hold will still find takers.  That might be less true of Marlins and Rockies and A's.

[Riverbrian]

8 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I was going to reply to the question you replied to, but you laid out a framework first so I'll go off of that.

Strictly as an investment, you can't go wrong with most of these.  Some are a little better than others.  But all are properties that rich people have chosen to invest in, and (mostly) not share with the hoi polloi.  So, if I'm offered, I'm in.  Any financial success I've had has come from throwing in my lot with people wealthier than me.

I saw a negative opinion for the Red Sox, above.  Me, I would snap up that opportunity, much as you described for the Dodgers.  Buy Quality.  If there's a severe economic downturn, the Red Sox shares I hold will still find takers.  That might be less true of Marlins and Rockies and A's.

I thought of the Red Sox and ultimately decided to keep them in my vast hold category.

I think Henry is a guy who is able to merge best practices from other organizations into his and he of course has the money to support whatever direction they go. 

However... Henry also appears to be impatient and therefore I'm never sure if they could stick with a concept long enough.  

[ashbury]

5 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I thought of the Red Sox and ultimately decided to keep them in my vast hold category.

I think Henry is a guy who is able to merge best practices from other organizations into his and he of course has the money to support whatever direction they go. 

However... Henry also appears to be impatient and therefore I'm never sure if they could stick with a concept long enough.  

I'd be perfectly happy to buy into a mutual fund across all these MLB investments.

[Riverbrian]

3 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I'd be perfectly happy to buy into a mutual fund across all these MLB investments.

I think they would be safe purchases but baseball's demographics have me worried as a long term investment. 

Me... I'd invest in American Soccer. That sport is going to be pure growth as you an I jam out to Led Zeppelin in the old folks home.  

[nicksaviking]

5 hours 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. 

And root for them to under pay players for the sole purpose of leveraging the city for free tax money. Such a farce.

[jorgenswest]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

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.

Bottom line unfortunately for their finances relative to the other teams revenue from home games hasn’t been very good over the last 5 years in spite of 3 pretty good seasons.

[nicksaviking]

4 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I think they would be safe purchases but baseball's demographics have me worried as a long term investment. 

Me... I'd invest in American Soccer. That sport is going to be pure growth as you an I jam out to Led Zeppelin in the old folks home.  

I've been hearing about the future of American Soccer for 30 years.

The NFL figured out how to be a 12 months sport somehow and they're not giving the other sports a chance to breath. They're happy to eat up the market share of every other sport that makes a misstep.

Which for MLB is a monthly trend it seems. 

[ashbury]

14 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I'd invest in American Soccer.

The Sport of the Future.™  Always has been, always will be.  They've been telling me this* since I was a kid.

 

* Outside the US, it's certainly a different story.  And even in the US there is a following.  The Tottenham winter scarf my son got me a few years ago for Christmas is a good conversation starter in crowds.  Go Spurs, I guess.

[NotAboutWinning]

The Twins should be embarrassed to get caught in the lie that tv revenue uncertainty must result in lowered payroll!

[Riverbrian]

5 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I've been hearing about the future of American Soccer for 30 years.

The NFL figured out how to be a 12 months sport somehow and they're not giving the other sports a chance to breath. They're happy to eat up the market share of every other sport that makes a misstep.

Which for MLB is a monthly trend it seems. 

Check out a Loons Game. The Place is packed. Weak to non-existent broadcast options, tiny amount of column inches at the very end of the sports page in the newspaper. Yet, even with no media support... the place is packed. 

While the Loons may lack decent coverage... On the other hand... the English Premier league is growing and is becoming a thing Saturday Mornings. The one truth about television programming is this: If people don't watch it... it goes away. If People watch it... there will be more of it. 

There is more of it and that's because people are watching. 

For 30 years... it wasn't available to us... For 30 years... it was a soccer ball unsold on the shelf at Toys R Us and stories of hooligans across the pond singing songs and living dying by the days results.

In the U.S. It has become available and becoming more available every year while those soccer fields in Maple Grove are over run with Kids and parents with lawn chairs.    

[Riverbrian]

11 minutes ago, ashbury said:

The Sport of the Future.™  Always has been, always will be.  They've been telling me this* since I was a kid.

 

* Outside the US, it's certainly a different story.  And even in the US there is a following.  The Tottenham winter scarf my son got me a few years ago for Christmas is a good conversation starter in crowds.  Go Spurs, I guess.

Portsmouth was the team I got behind... They got into financial trouble and were penalized straight into the toilet and are now hanging in League One. 

I've adopted Arsenal as a placeholder until Portsmouth can work there way back to the Prem. 

[Major League Ready]

5 hours 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. 

How is Tampa underpaying players?

[chpettit19]

17 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

Bottom line unfortunately for their finances relative to the other teams revenue from home games hasn’t been very good over the last 5 years in spite of 3 pretty good seasons.

Which is certainly unfortunate, but I think some of us are frustrated that they're going to now self-inflict more bad attendance. There's nothing they could've done about 2020 and 2021. But they have some control over 2024 and beyond. Instead of choosing to take advantage of their first playoff win, and series win, in 2 decades they're choosing to actively hurt their relationship with at least part of the fan base by openly admitting they're going to slash payroll at the very beginning of the offseason. That's on them. That's not just "aw, shucks, bad luck for us" that's them actively telling their fans they're not investing in the team right after the team finally excited the fanbase and before they ask the fans to invest in the team themselves. 

Professional sports is a weird business. They have built in business no matter how terrible their product is. They get paid directly by their competitors even if they're actively not trying to produce a quality product (see Athletics, Oakland). The sport itself draws fans even to teams that are actively not trying to produce a quality product. It rings hallow to me when they provide 2 decades of playoff misery, and a bunch of regular season embarrassments, while racking in profits and then complain that there's just no way they can invest in a quality product because of their profits. I don't buy it. It's not all in their control, but it's not all out of their control. Should they blindly throw around money? No, of course not. But could they survive a season of purposeful profit losses to build their future revenue? I'd sure like to think they have some control over the amount of revenue they produce.

To me, it feels like they're saying "we'll invest when you do" to their fans. Which is possible because their business is profitable no matter how hard they try. But Dave St Peter publicly questioning fans because they don't show up after 2021 and 2022 disasters is a bad look. Build a product fans find worthy of investing in and the Twin Cities will invest. We've shown it before. 2 decades with no playoff wins leads to fans being a little slow to react. Feels pretty reasonable to me that fans are asking them to "prove it." The Twins response is "no, just show up." I'm not impressed with that. The Royals seem to have realized they need to invest to get the fans to. I hope the Twins figure that out, too.

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

How is Tampa underpaying players?

There's a zero percent chance we'll agree on this, and I no longer argue for the sake of arguing on social media, so I'll just bow out of this conversation.

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

There's a zero percent chance we'll agree on this, and I no longer argue for the sake of arguing on social media, so I'll just bow out of this conversation.

We don't have to agree for you to explain your position.  Tampa can't possibly underpay players.  The free agency system negates that potential.  They elect not to invest heavily in free agents.  Their investments they have made in free agents like Morton and Eflin have been wise and their success makes it very difficult to argue they don't know what they are doing or that they don't put a good product on the field.  They understand the underlinable fact that they have to produce far more per dollar spent than most of the league and they manage assets accordingly.

BTW .... if there were no subsidies, owners would not elect to make less.  They would pay players less unless you believe that players would not play for two-thirds of what they make.  Given you don't have to go back far to get to a point where they made one-third of what they do today, I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion.   

[Jocko87]

I have to say, I'm quite proud of the group reaction to this article.  Nothing is perfect but we've got a pretty good thing going here.  Embarrassment is just insecurities manifest in a different form.  I don't blame anyone for these insecurities as they were well earned over the years but I'd hate to see someone miss out on the good times in the desperate search for perfect. 

The good times are here. The great times are coming. 

[KBJ1]

Sick and tired of this team pissing away windows of opportunity. Sign Montgomery and get it done!

We needed a #2 pitcher and a RH bat in LF. Santana & Desclafini do NOT qualify!

[Woof Bronzer]

18 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

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

Yes, because the Pohlad's prioritize short term profits over long term sustainability - due to greed - they refuse to consistently invest appropriately in the product on the field, leading to a lesser product and accordingly less attendance/revenue.

Do you think revenue is static?  There's X amount of dollars in each market and the team gets that X every year regardless of success, marketing, etc?  Please explain then how the 1988 Twins drew 3 million fans and the 2023 Twins drew under 2 million.

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Yes, because the Pohlad's prioritize short term profits over long term sustainability - due to greed - they refuse to consistently invest appropriately in the product on the field, leading to a lesser product and accordingly less attendance/revenue.

Do you think revenue is static?  There's X amount of dollars in each market and the team gets that X every year regardless of success, marketing, etc?  Please explain then how the 1988 Twins drew 3 million fans and the 2023 Twins drew under 2 million.

I suspect like every other business greed is a motivating factor.  If they felt additional investment would make them more money, they would invest. That's what billionaires do.  With few exceptions all of the other teams in the same revenue range operate the same way,  If you fell you are more skilled at assessing these opportunities than all of these billion owners and the analysts that work for them, good for you.  There is a $500K job waiting for you if you don't already have one.

[Vanimal46]

19 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Check out a Loons Game. The Place is packed. Weak to non-existent broadcast options, tiny amount of column inches at the very end of the sports page in the newspaper. Yet, even with no media support... the place is packed. 

While the Loons may lack decent coverage... On the other hand... the English Premier league is growing and is becoming a thing Saturday Mornings. The one truth about television programming is this: If people don't watch it... it goes away. If People watch it... there will be more of it. 

There is more of it and that's because people are watching. 

For 30 years... it wasn't available to us... For 30 years... it was a soccer ball unsold on the shelf at Toys R Us and stories of hooligans across the pond singing songs and living dying by the days results.

In the U.S. It has become available and becoming more available every year while those soccer fields in Maple Grove are over run with Kids and parents with lawn chairs.    

This sparked my curiosity to look into Minnesota United FC for the first time. I imagine their stadium looks packed because it’s the 6th smallest stadium in MLS by capacity. Evidently they’ve been doing well, making the playoffs in 5 of the last 7 years. I haven’t heard a peep about them living in the area and paying attention to sports media. 

Here’s a good litmus test… The argument has been made to make baseball broadcasts widely available. And maybe, just maybe some younger kids stumble upon it and become fans. Whelp, MLS has been available on Apple TV+. For $79 you can get the season pass and watch every MLS game. Does anyone know a person who has done this? 

[Riverbrian]

18 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

This sparked my curiosity to look into Minnesota United FC for the first time. I imagine their stadium looks packed because it’s the 6th smallest stadium in MLS by capacity. Evidently they’ve been doing well, making the playoffs in 5 of the last 7 years. I haven’t heard a peep about them living in the area and paying attention to sports media. 

Here’s a good litmus test… The argument has been made to make baseball broadcasts widely available. And maybe, just maybe some younger kids stumble upon it and become fans. Whelp, MLS has been available on Apple TV+. For $79 you can get the season pass and watch every MLS game. Does anyone know a person who has done this? 

I don't personally. 

I don't know many soccer fans period and the ones that I do know follow the Premier League... like I do. There are like 3 people in my life that I can even talk Premier league with and all 3 are younger than I am. 

I can't name a single player with the Loons so MLS is something that isn't even on my radar. I do enjoy a random Aston Villa vs. Brighton game on a Saturday morning so there is no reason that the MLS couldn't be on my radar other than viewing access.     

But, that is just a small sample from my circle of friends and my generation has know I idea what a West Ham is so my litmus test is going to fail due to lack of validity. 

I attended one Loons game... and even without media attention... the place was packed. I haven't checked MLS demos but I suspect the demos are young and I would also guess that you can't discount the possibility that there is a sizable population in any major city made up of people from countries where Soccer(Football) is huge. 

 

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

  With few exceptions all of the other teams in the same revenue range operate the same way,  

This is so laughably false you can't possibly believe it.  The Dbacks have the same situation as the Twins this offseason and chose to invest.  The Padres, in a much smaller market, made major investments a couple years ago.  The Royals, much smaller market, just spent $300 mil and have the highest payroll in the Central.  Not to mention the Cardinals, probably the best comparable to the Twins in terms of market.  Their business model for decades has been long term sustainability - I think last year was the first time in 20 years they were below 500 - and as a result they have one of the most loyal fanbases in the sport and a very consistent revenue stream.  These teams made drastically different business decisions than the Pohlads, who chose to pocket the unanticipated playoff revenue, cut payroll, make the team worse, and dampen the enthusiasm of a fan base who just witness the first playoff win in decades.  

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

On 2/5/2024 at 3:40 PM, chpettit19 said:

I don't know if embarrassing is the right word, but it certainly doesn't make me thrilled that the Twins are seeing their competitive window open and are choosing to slash payroll instead of trying to take advantage of a super weak division. KC and Detroit are trying. I know we all like to point at the young Twins players and say we're golden because they're going to improve, but those teams have young guys that should improve as well. Along with Cleveland. I think our perceived superiority in the central is overstated. I think it's a tighter race than people expect.

Not because those other 3 teams are great, but because the Twins aren't either. Cleveland won this division going away in 2022 with young talent that was certain to improve and give them the chance to dominate this division. The Twins standing pat and making no overall improvement to the 2024 team has kept the door open for the other teams to make a run. If I believed Twins ownership cared about winning I'd say they should be embarrassed. But I don't think that's their priority so I don't think it's the right word for them. But it certainly isn't encouraging as a fan that they're getting outspent by KC and we're watching 2 other division teams at least make noticeable efforts to improve their team overall while the Twins seem to be content shifting pieces around while not increasing their overall talent. We'll see who's young talent is able to carry them this year. I think it'll be more of a battle than folks expect.

Not great, but Royals are having to market a better team for getting the new stadium.  We are having RSN issues.  Yes it is not great, but its the world we are living in.  Cleveland has done much less than us and have talked about trading their closer that they have under control for 5 more years - they are also dealing with the RSN issues.  

[chpettit19]

27 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

Not great, but Royals are having to market a better team for getting the new stadium.  We are having RSN issues.  Yes it is not great, but its the world we are living in.  Cleveland has done much less than us and have talked about trading their closer that they have under control for 5 more years - they are also dealing with the RSN issues.  

The Royals are in some RSN limbo themselves. Bally owns their rights as well. They spent much of the offseason planning for this to be their last year on Bally as Diamond was going to close up shop after 2024 before Amazon jumped in. Their current deal is less than the Twins previous deal. They have an uncertain future in their RSN lives, too. Diamond also owns the Royals digital (streaming) rights so they don't even have hope for a boost there because they've already signed over both their cable and streaming rights to Bally in a deal that was less than the Twins previous deal.

A team investing because they want public money to pay for a new stadium shouldn't make fans feel any better, in my opinion. Comparing the Twins to Cleveland doesn't make me feel any better either. Just because there's worse teams doesn't mean we should be happy with what we have. It is what it is, but the talks are the Twins are going to get roughly 44 mil from their 2024 deal with Bally. KC gets right around 50 mil from what I've seen. I think the RSN situation is overblown. The Twins were always going to get paid to have their games broadcast. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

This is so laughably false you can't possibly believe it.  The Dbacks have the same situation as the Twins this offseason and chose to invest.  The Padres, in a much smaller market, made major investments a couple years ago.  The Royals, much smaller market, just spent $300 mil and have the highest payroll in the Central.  Not to mention the Cardinals, probably the best comparable to the Twins in terms of market.  Their business model for decades has been long term sustainability - I think last year was the first time in 20 years they were below 500 - and as a result they have one of the most loyal fanbases in the sport and a very consistent revenue stream.  These teams made drastically different business decisions than the Pohlads, who chose to pocket the unanticipated playoff revenue, cut payroll, make the team worse, and dampen the enthusiasm of a fan base who just witness the first playoff win in decades.  

A one year snapshot, especially given the TV situation, does not provide an accurate view of spending.  Where are these other teams coming from and how was their paroll allocated.  Over the last 5 years, the Twins have spent $596M, the Royals $412M, and the Dbacks 382.  The Dbacks and Royals were due to finals spend.

The Dbacks were not in the same situation as the twins.  The twins had already made long-term investments.  The Dbacks top 10 players made $52M in 2023.  The Twins top 10 made $118M.

The Royals do not have the largest payroll in the central.  They are at $111M including the $10M in dead money to Dozier and the Twins are at $116M.  (See Spotrac)  

The Cardinals average 80-100M more in revenue which is the only measurable that matters until players start accepting market size as compensation.  

The Padres had an owner that knew his time on earth was very limited.  I think we can call that an anomaly and it was hardly an example of success.  What did they do with that payroll this year after his death?  They cut $100M.
 

[Woof Bronzer]

18 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

A one year snapshot, especially given the TV situation, does not provide an accurate view of spending.  Where are these other teams coming from and how was their paroll allocated.  Over the last 5 years, the Twins have spent $596M, the Royals $412M, and the Dbacks 382.  The Dbacks and Royals were due to finals spend.

The Dbacks were not in the same situation as the twins.  The twins had already made long-term investments.  The Dbacks top 10 players made $52M in 2023.  The Twins top 10 made $118M.

The Royals do not have the largest payroll in the central.  They are at $111M including the $10M in dead money to Dozier and the Twins are at $116M.  (See Spotrac)  

The Cardinals average 80-100M more in revenue which is the only measurable that matters until players start accepting market size as compensation.  

The Padres had an owner that knew his time on earth was very limited.  I think we can call that an anomaly and it was hardly an example of success.  What did they do with that payroll this year after his death?  They cut $100M.
 

Yes, a well run franchise like St Louis, in a smaller market than us, that invests in winning and treats fans well, generates more revenue than the slash-and-burn "blame fans for the losing" strategy employed here.  Glad we agree!