3 True Lies From the Twins Offseason

[Dave Borton]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

...

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

Exactly. I was merely correcting the notion that Provus is "media." Nothing more.

I enjoy his work and have seen him move more objectively and critically of the Twins (when deemed appropriate) over the years in his booth with the Twins.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

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.

My thought when I heard it was that he was cleared to say it.  No way to know for sure but a seasoned professional communicator doesn't generally speak out of school on something that huge.  

They were trying to get the message out, likely because they do hear some of the crap being said.  If they had pulled it off, it's genius. Now, not so much. 

[Jocko87]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

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.

Your argument is basically been summarized to, they rich bah!

I made sure to quote this statement so you could see it, read it back out loud and try to sort it into a reasonably economically literate statement.  That's not how anything works.

We've had this discussion is several different forms throughout the offseason and please trust me as I say again. This is not the hill to die on.  It's not even close to a thing that should effect your fandom.

I'm still trying find someone who will admit to telling some other business that their products, that are basically free to me and pretty darn good, that they didn't spend enough money to make this product.

Like dammit George, this hot dog is fantastic but I'll be damned if I consume another until you spend another 30% to produce it.  While I wait, I'm going to drag your name in the mud all over the internet and expect you to tell me how great a customer I am at the same time. 

Sports fans are weird man. 

[Woof Bronzer]

45 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Your argument is basically been summarized to, they rich bah!

Your argument is....what exactly? Are you disagreeing that the Twins got a $500m handout?  Are you disagreeing that the Pohlads threatened to leave or contract the team if they didn't get their handout?  You are screeching about "how things work" but provide nothing to the contrary.  I'm sorry if it triggers you but those things happened.

47 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

It's not even close to a thing that should effect your fandom.

If you don't think there's a correlation between payroll and success, can't help you.  Since 91 only 1 team 18th or lower in league payroll has won a Series.  I cheer for the Twins to see them win; the Pohlads operate the Twins solely to make cash.  Yeah, the Pohlads affect my fandom.  Do you think, say, A's fandom is affected by the actions of their owner?

49 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Like dammit George, this hot dog is fantastic but I'll be damned if I consume another until you spend another 30% to produce it.

Did George demand welfare from his city because he needed it in order to produce great hot dogs, threaten to leave the state if he didn't get what he wanted, successfully receive that money, and then spend several years producing crappy hot dogs and pocketing the excess welfare to line his own pockets?  If not, do you think this is an appropriate analogy?  

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

Your argument is basically been summarized to, they rich bah!

I made sure to quote this statement so you could see it, read it back out loud and try to sort it into a reasonably economically literate statement.  That's not how anything works.

We've had this discussion is several different forms throughout the offseason and please trust me as I say again. This is not the hill to die on.  It's not even close to a thing that should effect your fandom.

I'm still trying find someone who will admit to telling some other business that their products, that are basically free to me and pretty darn good, that they didn't spend enough money to make this product.

Like dammit George, this hot dog is fantastic but I'll be damned if I consume another until you spend another 30% to produce it.  While I wait, I'm going to drag your name in the mud all over the internet and expect you to tell me how great a customer I am at the same time. 

Sports fans are weird man. 

And I'll wait for you to explain to me how many other businesses have anti-trust laws for them since the 1950s. How many other businesses get taxpayer dollars to build their facilities. How many other businesses get paid directly by their competitors so the product they produce literally doesn't matter because their competitors just need them there.

Your "George and his hot dog" analogy doesn't work. The Twins aren't always producing a "fantastic hot dog." But it doesn't matter. They're literally paid by the 29 other teams whether their hot dog is edible or not. The Pohlads make money every year whether their "hot dog" is good or not. George doesn't have the luxury of not caring about how good his hot dog is and still making money. George doesn't get his hot dog restaurant built by tax payers because he threatens politicians with leaving if they don't do it. The Twins are not George and his hot dog restaurant. The Twins hadn't won a single playoff game in nearly 2 decades, but I'm supposed to praise them because they were able to lose cheaply? Yeah, no thanks. If George doesn't make a "fantastic" hot dog for 2 decades he goes out of business. The Twins aren't George and the Twins are literally paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year by their competitors simply to exist. They don't have to be good, they don't have to try. They simply have to be there to give other teams someone to play.

And, on a side note, quit telling me what should and shouldn't effect my fandom. Some fans care about titles. Some care about well played games throughout the year. Some care about having players around a long time so they can get to know them. We all care about different things when it comes to the teams we cheer for. I can choose to be a fan however I want to. I'm happy for you if you don't care about payroll or the processes behind building the team. I do. 

 

[Jocko87]

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

How many other businesses get taxpayer dollars to build their facilities.

 

All of them. 

Including my own.

Including all the companies I've ever worked for.

It's literally the foundation of the tax code.  Create value, get tax benifit.  

I'm sorry if you don't like it. Just don't deny reality. 

Am I to understand that George has to deal with business reality and the Twins/MLB do not? 

[chpettit19]

33 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

All of them. 

Including my own.

Including all the companies I've ever worked for.

It's literally the foundation of the tax code.  Create value, get tax benifit.  

I'm sorry if you don't like it. Just don't deny reality. 

Am I to understand that George has to deal with business reality and the Twins/MLB do not? 

Taxpayers built the building your business is in? As in the government literally paid for that building to be built? Not tax benefits. Not tax breaks. Literally paid the company that built your building. That's your claim? That tax payer dollars have built every commercial building in America? Dang, I guess I learned something new today.

The reality of the Twins business is very different than the reality of George's, yes. Until George is getting paid by other hot dog companies simply to have hot dogs, even if they're bad, then, yes, he is dealing with a different business reality than the Twins.

You own a business? If your business had a 13 year stretch where it was successful at it's job 5 years and failed 8 would your business still be racking in profits? The Twins have had a .500 record 5 of the last 13 seasons. And they continue to rack in profits. Their business reality simply is not the same as yours.

[Jocko87]

59 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Taxpayers built the building your business is in? As in the government literally paid for that building to be built? Not tax benefits. Not tax breaks. Literally paid the company that built your building. That's your claim? That tax payer dollars have built every commercial building in America? Dang, I guess I learned something new today.

The reality of the Twins business is very different than the reality of George's, yes. Until George is getting paid by other hot dog companies simply to have hot dogs, even if they're bad, then, yes, he is dealing with a different business reality than the Twins.

You own a business? If your business had a 13 year stretch where it was successful at it's job 5 years and failed 8 would your business still be racking in profits? The Twins have had a .500 record 5 of the last 13 seasons. And they continue to rack in profits. Their business reality simply is not the same as yours.

We just disagree on the scaling. It's the same thing, just different degrees.

As for George, how do you think franchises work?

And yes, this year I will get a tax benefit that roughly offsets a 3 year stretch of losses where I put a few hundred thousand of my own billionaire funds into it to stabilize. I'll get the benefit over several years but it was the cost of building a long term winner. Anyone with a business knows about lean years.  5 good years in 13 is not a horrible ratio unfortunately. Ask a farmer. Not Kyle.

Racking in profits is just a silly buzz phrase.

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

We just disagree on the scaling. It's the same thing, just different degrees.

As for George, how do you think franchises work?

And yes, this year I will get a tax benefit that roughly offsets a 3 year stretch of losses where I put a few hundred thousand of my own billionaire funds into it to stabilize. I'll get the benefit over several years but it was the cost of building a long term winner. Anyone with a business knows about lean years.  5 good years in 13 is not a horrible ratio unfortunately. Ask a farmer. Not Kyle.

Racking in profits is just a silly buzz phrase.

The Twins get all the massive tax breaks of any big business. Other big businesses don't get their buildings built for them. The scaling matters. Pretending they're the same as every other business is ignoring the realities. They aren't. Their tax benefits are on a different scale, yes. But then they add 500 million in tax payer money to directly pay for their facilities. Those "different degrees" matter, and change things drastically.

Oh, so now George owns a hot dog franchise? There used to be a Dairy Queen by my house. Franchise, right? It didn't produce a good enough product. Now it's closed. How many seasons of bad product do you think it would take the Twins to close? How realistic do you think it is that the Twins just close their doors someday?

Oh wait, you invested your own money into your product to improve it? You didn't just ask your customers to continue supporting it while refusing to invest your own money so you actively took a loss for 3 years to better improve your position? You're literally telling me you did what many of us are asking the Twins to do while you tell me I'm being crazy to think that should be an option. My argument this entire offseason, while you've been telling me not to die on this hill, is that the Pohlads should take this opportunity coming off the excitement from last season and not kill their momentum, but instead take a purposeful loss (if that's what is needed) to build a "long term winner." So a "regular" business like yours should do that, but it's crazy for me to think the Twins should do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the Twins play in the same business pool as you and my argument about purposeful losses for long-term improvement is valid or the Twins don't play in the same business pool as you. You can't have it both ways.

My argument all offseason has been to eat some money this year if that's what's needed to build their fan base and help drive more revenue for a better long-term situation. You're now telling me that's a very normal practice. In fact you did it for 3 years, I'm only asking for 1 (to start). But you've been telling me not to die on this hill. Interesting.

[Doctor Gast]

19 hours ago, old nurse said:

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

Facts are exactly what you're not getting from this FO. They let out only the info that fits them.

'21 we came off 2 division championships, the fanbase was excited. In the off-season they didn't get the FA SP they wanted, So they got some older SPs in Happ & Shoemaker & ex CWS closer, Colume, they showed some past stats & stated that Johnson was going work his magic & fix Shoemaker's mix, and the fanbase got even more excited, watch out MLB here we come. I criticized that Happ wasn't a good idea because an old slow LHP in a heavy dominant RH-hitting Central Division was never going to work. old Shoemaker had a lot to fix & showed no openness to change. Plus there must be a reason why CWS let  Colume go, Closers have a super stressful job, and you need to be highly confident in your stuff & yourself to be one. Colume was having problems (that's why CWS let him go) plus being let go doesn't do anything for your confidence plus getting acclimated to a different club is too much, Plus FO wanted to show they made the right decision by showcasing him as our primary closer. And just like now, I was hammered, "You're crazy", "you don't know what you're talking about", and "Don't rock the boat".

Questioning sources, observing, doing research, putting pieces together & making an assumption isn't blindly accusing this FO. I might not be 100% correct but I'm not being blind. I sincerely would like this FO to do well. But I'm going to speak up when I don't agree.

[old nurse]

59 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

Facts are exactly what you're not getting from this FO. They let out only the info that fits them.

'21 we came off 2 division championships, the fanbase was excited. In the off-season they didn't get the FA SP they wanted, So they got some older SPs in Happ & Shoemaker & ex CWS closer, Colume, they showed some past stats & stated that Johnson was going work his magic & fix Shoemaker's mix, and the fanbase got even more excited, watch out MLB here we come. I criticized that Happ wasn't a good idea because an old slow LHP in a heavy dominant RH-hitting Central Division was never going to work. old Shoemaker had a lot to fix & showed no openness to change. Plus there must be a reason why CWS let  Colume go, Closers have a super stressful job, and you need to be highly confident in your stuff & yourself to be one. Colume was having problems (that's why CWS let him go) plus being let go doesn't do anything for your confidence plus getting acclimated to a different club is too much, Plus FO wanted to show they made the right decision by showcasing him as our primary closer. And just like now, I was hammered, "You're crazy", "you don't know what you're talking about", and "Don't rock the boat".

Questioning sources, observing, doing research, putting pieces together & making an assumption isn't blindly accusing this FO. I might not be 100% correct but I'm not being blind. I sincerely would like this FO to do well. But I'm going to speak up when I don't agree.

Pretty much lost in your salad was the article was about the current payroll  Not a person has shown how the front office has been disingenuous about the numbers. Facts are few and far between. Fact in a Nick Nelson article, they lost money in 2022. Payroll went up in 2023 but they also had extra revenue from BAM money.  Attendance went up only slightly for 2023   Those are the facts at people’s disposal.

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins get all the massive tax breaks of any big business. Other big businesses don't get their buildings built for them. The scaling matters.

I basically with you more that taxpayers should not fund stadiums.  So, let's say starting next year every team had to start paying $50M/year (rent or financing) or had to come up with $2B for a stadium.   Do you understand the financial implications, specifically who would be paying the toll so to speak?

[Jocko87]

11 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins get all the massive tax breaks of any big business. Other big businesses don't get their buildings built for them. The scaling matters. Pretending they're the same as every other business is ignoring the realities. They aren't. Their tax benefits are on a different scale, yes. But then they add 500 million in tax payer money to directly pay for their facilities. Those "different degrees" matter, and change things drastically.

Oh, so now George owns a hot dog franchise? There used to be a Dairy Queen by my house. Franchise, right? It didn't produce a good enough product. Now it's closed. How many seasons of bad product do you think it would take the Twins to close? How realistic do you think it is that the Twins just close their doors someday?

Oh wait, you invested your own money into your product to improve it? You didn't just ask your customers to continue supporting it while refusing to invest your own money so you actively took a loss for 3 years to better improve your position? You're literally telling me you did what many of us are asking the Twins to do while you tell me I'm being crazy to think that should be an option. My argument this entire offseason, while you've been telling me not to die on this hill, is that the Pohlads should take this opportunity coming off the excitement from last season and not kill their momentum, but instead take a purposeful loss (if that's what is needed) to build a "long term winner." So a "regular" business like yours should do that, but it's crazy for me to think the Twins should do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the Twins play in the same business pool as you and my argument about purposeful losses for long-term improvement is valid or the Twins don't play in the same business pool as you. You can't have it both ways.

My argument all offseason has been to eat some money this year if that's what's needed to build their fan base and help drive more revenue for a better long-term situation. You're now telling me that's a very normal practice. In fact you did it for 3 years, I'm only asking for 1 (to start). But you've been telling me not to die on this hill. Interesting.

There's a very good chance that money you want them to eat this year has already been eaten the last two years. We've discussed that as well. Is it the same ask if it's three years in a row?

By the way, closing their doors is contraction. Remember that? The stadium made the business functional again but it's not like there's billions just laying around all of a sudden.

You're going in circles, making my case for me, then ignoring what you are saying to come to your emotional conclusion.

Go spend some time with the prospect lists and spring training reports, we can take this up again next offseason. There's a good chance it will be worse.

[Johnny Ringo]

22 hours 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.

I always try to be respectful when I post here.

So I say respectfully that it seems a tad ironic to give "here's how you should run your business" advice to a family that has turned a $40 million investment into a $2.5 billion one.  

However, I agree completely with your point on DSP.  It is my experience that the truly tone-deaf never recognize it in themselves. How else do you explain all that bad karaoke?  

One thing that we have to acknowledge about the Pohlads. They never get rid of anyone. Bill Smith, Terry Ryan, TK. They are all still on the payroll. I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Martin is still drawing a check.  DSP seems the beneficiary of that philosophy.  I bristle every time he trots out that "you don't love us enough" nonsense. Please join the rest of us in the real world Dave.  But I have to warn you. Self parking can be a little scary. 

[USAFChief]

25 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Go spend some time with the prospect lists and spring training reports...

Maybe take your own advice. 

[Jocko87]

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Maybe take your own advice. 

Way ahead of ya, chief.  As I said in the complete sentence, it's a topic for next offseason.

[chpettit19]

27 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

There's a very good chance that money you want them to eat this year has already been eaten the last two years. We've discussed that as well. Is it the same ask if it's three years in a row?

By the way, closing their doors is contraction. Remember that? The stadium made the business functional again but it's not like there's billions just laying around all of a sudden.

You're going in circles, making my case for me, then ignoring what you are saying to come to your emotional conclusion.

Go spend some time with the prospect lists and spring training reports, we can take this up again next offseason. There's a good chance it will be worse.

Why is there a good chance it's been eaten already? I'm told by you and MLR that their 30 million BAM money was why they could spend last year and since it's gone that's why they can't spend. Why did they lose money in 2022? What's your reasoning there? Other than 2020, why would we believe the Twins ever lose money?

Your honest opinion is that the Twins literally couldn't have survived without Target Field? You honestly believe that? The business wasn't possibly functional without a publicly funded stadium? That's your honest belief? More power to ya, I guess.

I'm not going in circles. My argument all offseason from the second Falvey told us they were slashing payroll is that it was a shortsighted move that focused on immediate profits instead of long-term growth. After it was announced they were wrong about ending blackouts because they went with short-term money instead of building their fanbase I again said it was a shortsighted move that focused on immediate profits instead of long-term growth. As you've noted, you've continually told me "this isn't the hill to die on." But now you literally said you did exactly what I'm asking them to do with your own business. That's not an emotional conclusion. You literally said you took a short-term hit to "build a long term winner." I've spent all offseason suggesting they take a short-term hit to "build a long term winner" and you've told me that's a ridiculous idea.

And, again, quit telling me how to be a fan. If you don't want to have a back and forth with someone you disagree with then just ignore my comments. Me disagreeing with you isn't automatically an "emotional conclusion," and even if it is I'm entitled to it. So if you don't like it just ignore me and move on with the rest of your life. You fan however you want to fan and I'll fan how I want to.

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Johnny Ringo said:

I always try to be respectful when I post here.

So I say respectfully that it seems a tad ironic to give "here's how you should run your business" advice to a family that has turned a $40 million investment into a $2.5 billion one.  

However, I agree completely with your point on DSP.  It is my experience that the truly tone-deaf never recognize it in themselves. How else do you explain all that bad karaoke?  

One thing that we have to acknowledge about the Pohlads. They never get rid of anyone. Bill Smith, Terry Ryan, TK. They are all still on the payroll. I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Martin is still drawing a check.  DSP seems the beneficiary of that philosophy.  I bristle every time he trots out that "you don't love us enough" nonsense. Please join the rest of us in the real world Dave.  But I have to warn you. Self parking can be a little scary. 

Where I have a problem is with the idea that they really had to do much of anything to turn their 40 mil investment into one that's worth close to 2 bil now. That's more just the nature of pro sports teams. Pick any NBA, MLB, or NFL team that you feel is the worst run of all. That team has seen a massive increase in their valuation despite being horribly run (assuming they weren't just purchased). Look at the Wolves right across the street from the Twins. At one point in the last few years they held some pretty horrible records for the most losing franchise in major North American sports history. They were just sold for $1.5 billion. 

That's kind of my point here. Pro sports teams aren't normal businesses that some people want to compare them to. They don't have to succeed to succeed. You can be the losingest team in history and turn a $94 million purchase into a $1.5 billion sale (what Glen Taylor did with the Wolves). 

[Linus]

I’ve posted my disgust about this off-season. But now I would like to give a hat tip to the FO. They were put in a difficult spot trying to improve their roster while their budget was slashed. I didn’t like the Polanco deal but looking at it now it makes sense. It was the only way to free up any money to try and improve the roster in other ways. When the dust settles they will likely end up with just as good a club this year as last. That’s pretty good work considering the pile of crap ownership dumped on them.