3 True Lies From the Twins Offseason

[chpettit19]

39 minutes ago, rv78 said:

This team pays 2 players (Correa and Buxton) a 3rd of their payroll. Add in the raises Correa and Pablo Lopez get in 2025 and those 3 will get more than half of the current payroll. Start adding players like Lewis, Jeffers, Duran, Ryan, Ober, Jax and you have a serious payroll situation coming. You could say they are in trouble. Add in guys like Wallner, Miranda and Julien and some big decisions need to be made about the future of this club. Yes, Kepler will likely be gone as well as Vazquez, two $10M contracts, but $20M doesn't cover the 9 young guys I listed very well and the big 3 will still be here taking the cream of the pie. With the way this club operates it is very likely that 4 or 5 of the 9 young players I listed will be traded or lost via free agency and the next core of players in the minors will need to step up. All of this means the FO will NOT be handing out any more Correa type contracts to any type of Free Agent until he is off the books and the FO had better start getting creative in dealing with the likes of Lewis, Jeffers, Duran, and do it soon, or they'll be too late.

Money doesn't start getting tight until 2027. Any reasonable expectation for raises for the young guys is easily mitigated by the loss of Kepler, Vazquez, Farmer, Santana, Paddack, and DeSclafani the next 3 seasons. Correa's raise is immediately wiped out the next season as his contract starts to decrease.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Johnny Ringo said:

Falvey doesn't set his budget. The Pohlads expect the Twins to be a financial stand-alone entity. They are not going to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher. The Twins have no certainty as to media revenues after this year which made this FA season tough as they shied away from multi-year player deals.

The article rips the blackouts. It's bad. It is a annoyance. But they took the Bally deal because it was the only viable deal. So would you NOT have them take that and have to slash expenses more? I want my cake. I want to eat it too. And I want you to pay for it.

  

The Twins are treated as a stand-alone entity, and I'm totally good with that. Where I disagree is the idea that the lack of certainty in media revenues after this year should lead to them slashing payroll this year, and that blackouts are just an "annoyance." They're a stand-alone entertainment entity. If you can't get your entertainment in front of people who want to be entertained by it it should be viewed as far more than just an annoyance to fans. It's actively hurting their ability to increase revenue for their stand-alone entity.

Their choice to view the Twins as an entity that needs to produce profit year in and year out is a business decision that leads to short-sighted decisions that hurt their ability to grow their fanbase and revenue. They rake in profits while providing a horrible, unentertaining product for years, but now that they have what could be a good, entertaining product they choose to not risk their profit and make the short-sighted decision to take as much money as they can instead of trying to expand their fanbase. It's not selfish fans being unreasonable, it's dedicated fans saying "we literally paid for your building and have made you 10s of millions of dollars a year while you provided us with nothing so now we'd like to see you guys sacrifice a little of your unearned money to provide us with the best product you can that we can actually watch." 

The Pohlads #1 priority is making profits. Totally fine. It's their business they can do what they want. But then they need to tell Dave St Peter to quit questioning their consumers and telling us they aren't tone-deaf. Nobody is asking the Pohalds to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher, we're asking them to invest in their product like any other stand-alone entity has to do from time to time to improve their customer base and revenue. Not an unreasonable ask.

[Whitey333]

All I knowbis my opinion.  My opinion is I think the Twins on paper are worse than last year.  Too many question marks kn the starters after Lopez.  Seems that a lot of people on here are counting on the players to have career years.  That just simply isn't realistic.  If you were honest you would also then realize there will be regressions and disappointments.  I'm glad we have so many experts on here that on one hand ask others how do you know this then at the same time tell us how it really is.  I'm no expert.  Just a long time Twins fan with opinions on the team.  The TV situation was handled so poorly.  Shows very poor planning.  Shows very little care for the fans.  They didn't have to resign with Bally.  Their contract was up.  They could have opted to get the team available to more fans.  They again chose money over fans.

[sweetmusicviola16]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins are treated as a stand-alone entity, and I'm totally good with that. Where I disagree is the idea that the lack of certainty in media revenues after this year should lead to them slashing payroll this year, and that blackouts are just an "annoyance." They're a stand-alone entertainment entity. If you can't get your entertainment in front of people who want to be entertained by it it should be viewed as far more than just an annoyance to fans. It's actively hurting their ability to increase revenue for their stand-alone entity.

Their choice to view the Twins as an entity that needs to produce profit year in and year out is a business decision that leads to short-sighted decisions that hurt their ability to grow their fanbase and revenue. They rake in profits while providing a horrible, unentertaining product for years, but now that they have what could be a good, entertaining product they choose to not risk their profit and make the short-sighted decision to take as much money as they can instead of trying to expand their fanbase. It's not selfish fans being unreasonable, it's dedicated fans saying "we literally paid for your building and have made you 10s of millions of dollars a year while you provided us with nothing so now we'd like to see you guys sacrifice a little of your unearned money to provide us with the best product you can that we can actually watch." 

The Pohlads #1 priority is making profits. Totally fine. It's their business they can do what they want. But then they need to tell Dave St Peter to quit questioning their consumers and telling us they aren't tone-deaf. Nobody is asking the Pohalds to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher, we're asking them to invest in their product like any other stand-alone entity has to do from time to time to improve their customer base and revenue. Not an unreasonable ask.

100% agree. The short-sightedness that you speak of is why the good teams of the 2,000's never became great teams that had a legitimate chance of winning the WS. We are once again playing the same game. 

[saviking]

Crying over spilled milk.

[old nurse]

4 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

It's blindly accepting something (in this case hype) to be true without testing it but later realizing it's false when it's too late. Social media is full of people pushing their agenda. If I was in this situation I wish someone to challenge me. I am always open for logical debate.

Blindly critiquing the FO is OK without knowledge of the facts is OK. No Koolaid accusations there. 

[USAFChief]

The Pohlad family bought the Twins franchise for $44M. It's now worth roughly $1.5B.

And some here want to claim they're not regularly making pretty decent profits?

I don't believe it. And I don't believe there was a single reason the Twins "needed" to drop ~$40M from the payroll this year. 

The TV money is down less than $10M. Actually much less, more like ~$5M, since half their local TV money goes to MLB, where it's combined with all 29 other team's local TV revenue and then redistributed back to the 30 teams. That's right...the Twins get part of the Dodgers (and every other team's) local TV money. 

And the "BAM money" canard is just a clumsy attempt to explain it all away. That was a 1 time windfall payment that had zero effect on 2023 payroll. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Money doesn't start getting tight until 2027. Any reasonable expectation for raises for the young guys is easily mitigated by the loss of Kepler, Vazquez, Farmer, Santana, Paddack, and DeSclafani the next 3 seasons. Correa's raise is immediately wiped out the next season as his contract starts to decrease.

This is true only if none of these players are replaced by free agents.  Do you think that's realistic?  Do you think other posters here would be OK with no free agent additions in the next couple years?

[Linus]

58 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins are treated as a stand-alone entity, and I'm totally good with that. Where I disagree is the idea that the lack of certainty in media revenues after this year should lead to them slashing payroll this year, and that blackouts are just an "annoyance." They're a stand-alone entertainment entity. If you can't get your entertainment in front of people who want to be entertained by it it should be viewed as far more than just an annoyance to fans. It's actively hurting their ability to increase revenue for their stand-alone entity.

Their choice to view the Twins as an entity that needs to produce profit year in and year out is a business decision that leads to short-sighted decisions that hurt their ability to grow their fanbase and revenue. They rake in profits while providing a horrible, unentertaining product for years, but now that they have what could be a good, entertaining product they choose to not risk their profit and make the short-sighted decision to take as much money as they can instead of trying to expand their fanbase. It's not selfish fans being unreasonable, it's dedicated fans saying "we literally paid for your building and have made you 10s of millions of dollars a year while you provided us with nothing so now we'd like to see you guys sacrifice a little of your unearned money to provide us with the best product you can that we can actually watch." 

The Pohlads #1 priority is making profits. Totally fine. It's their business they can do what they want. But then they need to tell Dave St Peter to quit questioning their consumers and telling us they aren't tone-deaf. Nobody is asking the Pohalds to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher, we're asking them to invest in their product like any other stand-alone entity has to do from time to time to improve their customer base and revenue. Not an unreasonable ask.

This. A thousand times this. The Pohlads have proven this time and again with their actions throughout their ownership tenure. 

[nicksaviking]

9 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is true only if none of these players are replaced by free agents.  Do you think that's realistic?  Do you think other posters here would be OK with no free agent additions in the next couple years?

What free agents have they signed the last three years that have panned out? Vazquez, Gallo, Taylor, Simmons, Donaldson, Sanchez, Happ, Shoemaker, Bundy, Archer? I mean I'm happy they opened the wallet for Correa, but......

Donovan Solano? Cream of the crop? They can probably afford another one of those under any circumstance. Trade and develop. They continue to prove they can't do free agency anyway.

[Major League Ready]

18 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

What free agents have they signed the last three years that have panned out? Vazquez, Gallo, Taylor, Simmons, Donaldson, Sanchez, Happ, Shoemaker, Bundy, Archer? I mean I'm happy they opened the wallet for Correa, but......

Donovan Solano? Cream of the crop? They can probably afford another one of those under any circumstance. Trade and develop. They continue to prove they can't do free agency anyway.

You are absolutely right.  Not only do I agree but I have suggested on more than one occasion that free agency is a last resort and far less important to roster development than drafting and/or trading for prospects.  Yet, people go nuts while ignoring that training for Mahle produced zero and we would be a considerably better team today and for the next several years had they not invested in a team that was not in a position to contend.  

The money would be much more likely to have a lasting impact if it was spent on extending someone like Lewis.

[sweetmusicviola16]

40 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is true only if none of these players are replaced by free agents.  Do you think that's realistic?  Do you think other posters here would be OK with no free agent additions in the next couple years?

Been virtually none this year, so yeah if there are none the next couple of years I'd guess that we will be OK with it. Staumount and Jackson are about it this year. Santana was signed with Polanco savings, almost to the penny.

[chpettit19]

44 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is true only if none of these players are replaced by free agents.  Do you think that's realistic?  Do you think other posters here would be OK with no free agent additions in the next couple years?

Most of the posts on this site these days is about how great the system is and how they are going with all younger guys and don't need free agents anyways. So, yes, based on the posts here I'd think people would be just fine without free agent additions. I'd personally be just fine with no more Farmer, Santana, Vazquez, Gallo 5-10+ mil deals on older vets.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins are treated as a stand-alone entity, and I'm totally good with that. Where I disagree is the idea that the lack of certainty in media revenues after this year should lead to them slashing payroll this year, and that blackouts are just an "annoyance." They're a stand-alone entertainment entity. If you can't get your entertainment in front of people who want to be entertained by it it should be viewed as far more than just an annoyance to fans. It's actively hurting their ability to increase revenue for their stand-alone entity.

Their choice to view the Twins as an entity that needs to produce profit year in and year out is a business decision that leads to short-sighted decisions that hurt their ability to grow their fanbase and revenue. They rake in profits while providing a horrible, unentertaining product for years, but now that they have what could be a good, entertaining product they choose to not risk their profit and make the short-sighted decision to take as much money as they can instead of trying to expand their fanbase. It's not selfish fans being unreasonable, it's dedicated fans saying "we literally paid for your building and have made you 10s of millions of dollars a year while you provided us with nothing so now we'd like to see you guys sacrifice a little of your unearned money to provide us with the best product you can that we can actually watch." 

The Pohlads #1 priority is making profits. Totally fine. It's their business they can do what they want. But then they need to tell Dave St Peter to quit questioning their consumers and telling us they aren't tone-deaf. Nobody is asking the Pohalds to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher, we're asking them to invest in their product like any other stand-alone entity has to do from time to time to improve their customer base and revenue. Not an unreasonable ask.

"Unearned money"=earned disregarded opinion. Plenty of room on the Dodgers wagon.

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

The Pohlad family bought the Twins franchise for $44M. It's now worth roughly $1.5B.

And some here want to claim they're not regularly making pretty decent profits?

I don't believe it. And I don't believe there was a single reason the Twins "needed" to drop ~$40M from the payroll this year. 

The TV money is down less than $10M. Actually much less, more like ~$5M, since half their local TV money goes to MLB, where it's combined with all 29 other team's local TV revenue and then redistributed back to the 30 teams. That's right...the Twins get part of the Dodgers (and every other team's) local TV money. 

And the "BAM money" canard is just a clumsy attempt to explain it all away. That was a 1 time windfall payment that had zero effect on 2023 payroll. 

Valuation is not money. You want tax those unrealized gains too?

[sweetmusicviola16]

13 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Most of the posts on this site these days is about how great the system is and how they are going with all younger guys and don't need free agents anyways. So, yes, based on the posts here I'd think people would be just fine without free agent additions. I'd personally be just fine with no more Farmer, Santana, Vazquez, Gallo 5-10+ mil deals on older vets.

I actually liked the Vazquez signing and still do. It certainly shouldn't be though of as a signing that hamstrings the club financially, though that has been portrayed as such this off season. I still hope that Vazquez can provide more value on the field this season. I still like signing him more than I do/did Correa. Why? Two clubs backed out on Correa and in all honesty Carlos was not really that good last season so the jury is still out imo that maybe the other clubs were right. There again we have to hope that wereceive more value on the field in 2024. 

As for this FO in FA? Yeah they suck. Why? Maybe it has to do with the type of players they sign. Bundy,Archer, Gallo. Addison Reed imo was a good try. Jason Castro way back when is probably their best value thus far.

[Major League Ready]

18 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Most of the posts on this site these days is about how great the system is and how they are going with all younger guys and don't need free agents anyways. So, yes, based on the posts here I'd think people would be just fine without free agent additions. I'd personally be just fine with no more Farmer, Santana, Vazquez, Gallo 5-10+ mil deals on older vets.

That's not how I would interpret it.  I think many people simply accept that spending will go down if revenue goes down.  Anyone who has dealt with budgets in the real world have zero problem understanding this off-season.  many more understand the only way a modest revenue team can be successful is through player development.   

I also was not talking about the people with the point of view described above.  The people complaining about spending this year are not going to be OK with the team not filling holes with free agents.   They would have a point.  Free agency has a function.  Taylor and Solano were important to the team last year.  Vazquez was a smart and well-received addition.  Like many free agents, he simply did not work out.  Correa was not very good either but we seem to be OK with his failure because he cost a lot.

[chpettit19]

15 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

"Unearned money"=earned disregarded opinion. Plenty of room on the Dodgers wagon.

Valuation is not money. You want tax those unrealized gains too?

What did the Twins do to "earn" a new stadium? They simply existed. That's not earning. They get paid by the rest of the league simply to exist. They didn't build a great product or do anything to get their revenue sharing checks or Target Field. They simply existed. So, yes, I call that unearned money.

[chpettit19]

18 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

That's not how I would interpret it.  I think many people simply accept that spending will go down if revenue goes down.  Anyone who has dealt with budgets in the real world have zero problem understanding this off-season.  many more understand the only way a modest revenue team can be successful is through player development.   

I also was not talking about the people with the point of view described above.  The people complaining about spending this year are not going to be OK with the team not filling holes with free agents.   They would have a point.  Free agency has a function.  Taylor and Solano were important to the team last year.  Vazquez was a smart and well-received addition.  Like many free agents, he simply did not work out.  Correa was not very good either but we seem to be OK with his failure because he cost a lot.

We must be reading different posts then. Because there are many that very clearly say they'd rather have young guys with options over having Santana, etc. Like a lot. We all deal with budgets in the real world. We can also all understand that the Twins aren't going out of business if they lose some money this year, but choosing a wider reach with their audience could lead to increased revenue in the future instead of making the short-term decision to make money in 2024. I spent more money than I brought in last year to do some garage and courtyard renovations at my house. I'm in the middle of renovating my kitchen and have spent more than I've brought in so far this year. Sometimes people choose to invest in things knowing they won't be maximizing their financial gains. Let's stop acting like that's some sort of outrageous idea. I'm glad you're happy that the Pohlads are going to make money this year. I'm not as thrilled. I'd rather they invest in their product. To each their own.

I'm complaining about spending this year and I am also saying I am OK with the team not filling holes with the 5-10+ mil vets. Just because you don't like that stance doesn't mean people aren't saying it. Yes, I am OK with Correa struggling while hurt while I'm not OK with Gallo and Vazquez struggling while they aren't hurt. I'd rather take fewer big swings than many small swings. I'd rather they fill the Taylor and Solano roles with young guys and spend bigger on better players. And, yes, I realize that's a risk and if they get 1 or 2 of those big deals wrong things can go way south. But I'd rather them take a chance than have things still go way south while they take a ton of tiny swings on guys who's best outcomes are league average players.

[Jocko87]

13 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

What did the Twins do to "earn" a new stadium? They simply existed. That's not earning. They get paid by the rest of the league simply to exist. They didn't build a great product or do anything to get their revenue sharing checks or Target Field. They simply existed. So, yes, I call that unearned money.

We might be close to getting to the nut of this. If your view truly is that they just existed and were gifted a stadium, I can't help you with these topics. None of us can.

I exist, dammit! Wheres my stadium?

[old nurse]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

What free agents have they signed the last three years that have panned out? Vazquez, Gallo, Taylor, Simmons, Donaldson, Sanchez, Happ, Shoemaker, Bundy, Archer? I mean I'm happy they opened the wallet for Correa, but......

Donovan Solano? Cream of the crop? They can probably afford another one of those under any circumstance. Trade and develop. They continue to prove they can't do free agency anyway.

Correa, Donaldson  and Vasquez are the only free agents they signed hat were not stopgap signings. They also signed Castro as a free agent. Did you think the other players were  signed as stars? 

[Jocko87]

Meanwhile, heres an interesting article. Twins come it at #5 on the power list. Crazy, huh.

The more interesting part is that for fun they projected what adding all 4 Boras guys to each team would look like. Highly unlikely, but at least they are getting creative while they are bored waiting for signings.

Adding Snell, Montgomery, Chapman and Bellinger to the Twins is worth 5.7 projected wins. It would cost something near a billion dollars, but at least they would have done something. 

You'd think you could get more for a billion, but man, this economy, am I right? WAR used to be cheap.

The reality is they are already pretty good and pretty good at these positions.

It's not a good year to be a free agent.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/39531300/stock-watch-free-agency-trades-spring-training-2024

[nicksaviking]

13 minutes ago, old nurse said:

Correa, Donaldson  and Vasquez are the only free agents they signed hat were not stopgap signings. They also signed Castro as a free agent. Did you think the other players were  signed as stars? 

They can stop with the 'stopgap' signings until there actually is a gap to stop. Every season, the guys in AAA show each and every time that they can play just as well or just as poorly as these stopgap players. They didn't need Carlos Santana, they have a half dozen guys that can do what he does, or most likely doesn't.

If you're the 2012 Twins with basically no players worth MLB consideration anywhere in sight, sure, sign them. We aren't anywhere near that point. Either sign BIG useful free agents who are clear upgrades to what you have (which they always should be looking to do), or don't sign any. Don't sign someone just because you're getting dragged over the coals by the fans.

[chpettit19]

30 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

We might be close to getting to the nut of this. If your view truly is that they just existed and were gifted a stadium, I can't help you with these topics. None of us can.

I exist, dammit! Wheres my stadium?

From a business perspective they simply existed. They didn't build some wonderful product that drove revenue. They threatened to take their ball home if they didn't get free money. If you can't understand that professional sports teams get free stuff no matter how good their product is I can't help you with these topics. None of us can.

[Jeff K]

I think this was a terrible article.  They weren't lies.  The Twins were mistaken with some of their statements, but do not appear to have purposefully said untruths.  I do think the team can improve simply with our youngsters gaining experience and having  Correa and Buxton healthier than last season.  I also think the Twins are not done making moves.  Sometimes it is good to see what you have before making moves for the sake of making them.  None of us have crystal balls into what the Twins are thinking.  

[Dave Borton]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

 Is Corey Provus a member of Twin’s management?  No.  He is a member of the media

Of course Provus is a member of Twin's staff. He is a paid employee, not a member of the media.

[nicksaviking]

21 minutes ago, Jeff K said:

I think this was a terrible article.  They weren't lies.  The Twins were mistaken with some of their statements, but do not appear to have purposefully said untruths.  I do think the team can improve simply with our youngsters gaining experience and having  Correa and Buxton healthier than last season.  I also think the Twins are not done making moves.  Sometimes it is good to see what you have before making moves for the sake of making them.  None of us have crystal balls into what the Twins are thinking.  

I agree that they weren't lies, and this title is inflammatory. But the fact that they didn't know what they were saying had a reasonable chance of being completely and utterly wrong stinks of incompetence. Not on the baseball side, on the operations side. 

We hardly EVER hear a concrete rumor from Falvey's side of things. New player news tends to be played tight to the vest. On the other side, St. Peters' crew, and St. Peter himself, started spreading roses and rainbows all over the place, and not in October, not in November, but weeks and days before they got egg on their face. How did he have such a terrible read on the situation? 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, davidborton said:

Of course Provus is a member of Twin's staff. He is a paid employee, not a member of the media.

Correct, but he’s not a manager. He doesn’t make decisions about how the Twins are run. He’s an instrument just like the players are. Buxton, Correa, Provus, none of them set the budget, or have any insight, they repeat what they are told and share their opinions.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, davidborton said:

Of course Provus is a member of Twin's staff. He is a paid employee, not a member of the media.

Of course, he is an employee.  Do we hold the team responsible for statements from the grounds crew?  He has no say in the decisions and has no standing as a member of the Twins management team.  That aside, the premise he was lying is absurd.  Lying implies intent.  Are you really going to tell me you think he meant to mislead us?  This thing has gotten really petty.

[nicksaviking]

17 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Of course, he is an employee.  Do we hold the team responsible for statements from the grounds crew?  He has no say in the decisions and has no standing as a member of the Twins management team.  That aside, the premise he was lying is absurd.  Lying implies intent.  Are you really going to tell me you think he meant to mislead us?  This thing has gotten really petty.

I work in a bank. We all get mindless webinars and training about the expectations of internal vs external conversations. Revealing  privileged  information like the elimination of blackouts or discussing revenue streams would most certainly draw the ire of HR if not get the employees fired. Like it or not, if you talk about your company, the public will presume you talk FOR your company.

Not blaming Provus or the other employees. Blaming those that didn't tell them these conversations were inappropriate.

[Major League Ready]

Just now, nicksaviking said:

I work in a bank. We all get mindless webinars and training about the expectations of internal vs external conversations. Revealing  privileged  information like the elimination of blackouts or discussing revenue streams would most certainly draw the ire of HR if not get the employees fired. Like it or not, if you talk about your company, the public will presume you talk FOR your company.

Not blaming Provus or the other employees. Blaming those that didn't tell them these conversations were inappropriate.

I agree, especially with the part that someone should have told Provus their plans were not ready for public reveal.  That said, just because people presume someone is speaking for their company does not make that a reasonable presumption.  We need to be reasonable and holding the Twins accountable for something a broadcaster said is not completely reasonable, especially given any reasonable person would not presume his intent was to mislead.  I think the reasonable takeaway is that the twins were planning on ending blackouts, he was excited about it, and then the landscape changed.