What Light Does Diamondbacks Deal Shed on the Minnesota Twins?

[Schmoeman5]

For all those complaining about the constant griping about spending. Here's what Twins mgt has done for the team and it's fan base. Announced payroll cuts due to the loss of TV revenue.  Then turn around a sign a tv deal for less money. It wasn't the best or only deal perhaps I don't know but it was the easiest. If it was the only option, why? Closed upper deck for early part of the season. To cut costs? Or because they can't sell enough tickets to warrant it staying open. I personally think the Twins have a huge PR problem. Why can't the Twins avg well over 2 million yearly like let's just say the Brewers do. It's cold there in April too. When the perception is you get what we give you and you better like it, it tends to alienate the paying public. And once you've lost them it's hard to get them back. Yeah it gets old. But so does complaining about the high K rate or Rocco is terrible or the bullpen. No one's complaining as much about the pen so far because it looks like they made moves to improve it. The same will happen with spending if they improve their public image. Right now that's not so good.

[Nashvilletwin]

1 hour ago, Linus said:

Actually I think the business side of the club is very interesting and part of being a fan for me anyway. 

I agree!  All cool.  

[wabene]

I do think it is short sighted to take the cash now while leaving many potential fans without the ability to watch the team. Yes they have killed the momentum from last year. Now with Amazon involved, does that mean BSN will survive and the Twins are back on it next year? Again giving up streaming rights? This confuses me because you would think a group with billions of dollars would be adept at smart business decisions. Baseball's fan base overall is aging, you would think it would be prudent to try to reach as many young fans as possible. Especially when the product is good and just had success. This whole thing doesn't make sense to me. I would think a large organization like the Pohlads would be it in front of this thing. Selfishly of course I would love to cancel my $1200 a year Fubo subscription and just pay to stream the Twins. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Nashvilletwin said:

So making decent deals for players is not investing?  Is your point that to be considered an “investment” the number has to be higher or needs to be an overpay?  So if we had paid more for Buxton or Correa, that would count as full credit instead of 1/2? That’s ridiculous.  A dollar is a dollar.  Wait until the arbitrations and extensions kick in starting next season - then we will have the ability to keep our talent, instead of wasting it on the one and done types. I’d argue that the team is actually making a big investment in their young talent this year by clearing the way to develop them, and, yes, pay them in the future. 

 

Trading Jorge Polanco to save money isn't investing. Using that money for a 38 year old 1B who can't hit righties isn't investing. Replacing Gray with DeSclafani isn't investing. It doesn't need to be an overpay, but the fact that they cut payroll and traded one of their better players sure would suggest it actually was an overpay. I want them to invest in the team. Signing an expensive guy over here while trading another one over there isn't investing. 

Clearing the way? Who have they cleared the way for? Bringing in Santana wasn't "clearing the way." DeSclafani isn't "clearing the way." A whole bunch of 30+ year old relievers with very little track record isn't "clearing the way." Farmer for 6+ mil isn't "clearing the way." And I hope they do keep them all, but, again, they haven't extended them and I'm not going to praise them for things they haven't done. The young guys with opening day jobs earned them last year. They didn't "clear the way" for them. I'm glad you're sold that they're automatically going to jump payroll next year. "Right-sizing our business" doesn't scream "we're about to spend a bunch more" to me, but we'll see. I'm not praising them for 2025 until I see what they do. 

All I know is that they went to the ALDS last year and had their fanbase more excited than it's been in literally decades. They had the chance to take a real shot at gaining another generation of fans. Instead they told us they needed to right-size and took a TV deal that doesn't include the streaming they sent Provus out to promote. You're more than welcome to be happy with things. Nobody is telling you not to be. I'm not. If you don't get that it's fine.

[Blyleven2011]

I'm going to change this up and not complain about the payroll , it's fine  ...

What I will complain about is  that  with Rocco , FO and the pohlads we will never win a world series with their plan  ....

Boy am I going to get a lot of thumbs down on this one , realistically I remember 2021 and 2022 all so well  and first half of lineup in 23 , pitching saved us last year most definitely  ...

I remember 2019 as well , Rocco  was manager of the year only because  the players had career years in the juiced ball  , 2020 also was a winning season ,  Rocco and FO mismanaged the post season  in both those years ...

We dont need to be followers of other teams , let's be creative and innovated and bring back an exciting game of baseball,  the other teams might not be ready for it  ...

Please , the strikeouts do matter and please put an emphasis on contact  , fundamentals  and let the wins pile up by playing baseball the way it should  be played , it was played the same  way for over 150 years ... 

If you really are a fan of baseball  you shouldn't be complaining about the length of game , it's a nine inning game or then some , get used to  and if you have children  , leave in the 7th inning and tuck them in ...

I used to go to most of the old double headers they used to have , 2 games for the price of one , MAN WAS I IN HEAVEN ...

 

[Fatbat]

4 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

First, I need a dictionary for the “penurious” behavior, or lack of, displayed by the organization.

We don’t have income clarity. Whole bunch of sources and ways to get to the theoretical end. Per your sentiments, whatever, let it go. Fair enough.

What seems to be clear or something that provides some clarity are the levels of payroll historically.

Again from me, 2019-$119M …2020-Covid ….2021-$125M …2022-$134M ….2023-$154M.

2023 seems to have been an extravagant year with payroll at about $10M over what would have been expected based on trailing years.

Why are the Twins back to spending between 2019 & 2021 levels?? That’s my question/concern.

‘23 had $30BAM one time revenue. 

[JD-TWINS]

43 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

‘23 had $30BAM one time revenue. 

2022……..$134 Million

2021……….$125 Million

2024………..$122 Million

2019………..$119 Million

Acknowledged 2023 was a $10M overspend. Tired of hearing about BAM money - no BAM money in ‘22 - right? 2023, with normal progression should have been $144M & it was $10M higher.

2024………More attendance - at least as much if not more Revenue Share - Inflation.

How can they only be $3M more than 5 years ago??

[Parfigliano]

2 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

First, I said I suspect that the team is run more or less to earn a small profit give or take.

Second, I agree.  I do not know.  But I point to the Forbes analysis that someone posted supporting that contention. Second, the level of estimated revenues and costs would seem to support the ideas, particularly how payroll fluctuates with revenues.  Third, I personally could understand running the team not to lose money, but I’m having a hard time really thinking the Pohlads are looking to take huge cash out of this business of theirs. Fourth, operating expenses, not just payroll, go up every year.  Let’s just be a bit kind - the Twins are a pretty well run organization doing a lot of things the right way.  And the fam experience at Target Field is pretty much top notch across the board.

So, until proven otherwise, I will just stick with my contention that the team is run with a target small margin and the Twins are at the lower end of that spectrum.  You are free to keep banging the drum about how cheap the Pohlads are. 

I suspect that no one ever became a multi-billionaire running any part of their business to earn a small profit.  They run things with a goal of max profit and never at a loss.

[Doc Munson]

I am torn...

But I will say my biggest issue with Pohlad, is you don't come out and SAY  "we need to right size".  Its not my money, so I shouldnt have a say, BUT...

There is a time to be financially prudent, and a time to push the boundaries. Coming off of last year is the time to push the boundaries, and by pushing the boundaries I mean "do not handcuff" teh team. even signing a $30M player You can still come in under last years salary.

As everyone has noted contracts like Farmer, Vasquez, Kepler, that is $26M right there. 

We come off last season, where we break through the playoff curse. Royce looks like a special player, the hopes of Correa being healthy, and Buxton being healthy ( I will pause right here for laughter to subside).. Having a good young core adding Julien and Brooks Lee nearly ready, Matt Wallner showing promise as a slugger, and Pablo being an ace... AND basking in the wave of excitement of Joe Mauer being elected 1st ballot...  and a very winnable division, and NOT the time to say need to right size.

I don't even mind them not making any more additions (if they dont) as long as they make a move at the deadline.

 

But you just don't talk about right sizing right now, you capitalize on the goodwill and excitement.  You are going to go after any of the remaining big FA, no worries,  just KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!   and now there are MLBPA grievances being filed.  I do not know what any potential punishments could be, but I am guessing fines (which lose some of that precious $$ you are saving by right sizing) or could we lose draft pick??

 

But what I REALLY want to hear then is...  When in the next couple of years the $4.4B (or more) that gets distributed amongst the owners with 2 new expansion teams in a couple years, are we going to "re-right size" and spend more?  Ill just sit here holding my breathe.

 

All of that being said, I am excited for this team this year and will enjoy the team whether we spend more or not.

[Otaknam]

8 hours ago, Karbo said:

The D-backs already want a new stadium? I lived there for a time, including when that stadium was built. There was a lot of fighting about the increase in taxes then, even though about 1/2 was on the tourism trade. What gives them a chance is they took the extra tax off when the stadium was fully funded. But that place was nice! It isn't that old. Hard for me to believe they already need a new one. Is this going to be the next demand for many teams, a new stadium? funded by the public? The same public that already shells out so much $$ to simply attend the games?

I live in Arizona. You have explained it perfectly. The ballpark isn’t that old and is right downtown.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

10 hours ago, Linus said:

I have a solution for you. Don’t read them. I would like all the relevant information I can get on this topic. 

This article could have been written without the payroll talk and would have been nice to get a “if your sick of payroll quit reading now”…. The first half was very informative!

[jorgenswest]

I am curious. Is the $100 in market option going to sell well? I have mlb tv and not in twins market. My TV comes over the air so if I were in market I probably would reluctantly pay the $100 but then I guess I watch those other teams also. Maybe I find a radio package.

Is DBack TV the only option to see Diamond back games in market?

If given a choice between RSN through paid TV provider or a $100 Dback TV where would most land?

If these were the options for the Twins I wonder if viewership would be reduced. It sure seems like revenue would take a hit.

edit: I tried getting clarity on the linear TV options. Apparently that piece is not worked out yet according to the Arizona Republic.

I wonder if it would also be subscription based in order for the DBacks to get revenue from this option. 

[USAFChief]

11 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Ted, we love your work, but this payroll stuff is just getting so old.

 

 

7 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Nah, someone needs to keeping pointing out how ludicrous it is for some of my fellow DNers to keep bashing the Pohlads

You seem at odds with yourself. 

[old nurse]

17 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Are there a lot of fans asking for the Twins to "consistently lose money?" I don't see much of that. I do see a whole lot of fans suggesting making a long-term investment in the team coming off its first playoff win in 2 decades with its fan base the most excited its been in the same time frame as opposed to immediately throwing water on its own consumer's excitement. And there are absolutely teams that make that decision. Ted is suggesting here that the DBacks are making that very choice. 

Are there fans who scream "cheap Pohlads" every season no matter what? Of course. But this offseason is very different. They had the choice to sacrifice a little financially to dramatically grow their reach with the fanbase. I believe it was Gleeman who said they're in basically 1/4 of households in their viewing area. They chased short-term money over the chance to significantly increase their reach at the perfect time with some actual success last year. Everything came together as they got out from the TV deal they themselves have complained about for years while they were hitting an exciting point in their team development and they chose to go back to the same terrible TV situation while delivering terrible messaging and hurting their connection to their fan base. 

The DBacks are showing that some teams do take short-term financial hits to improve their long-term outlook. I don't think it's too crazy that fans suggest the Pohlads could make the same decision.

So nice that you know the Diamondback’s management so well. Short term investments you cry for were made in 22 and likely 23. Where did it get the team?   Where did it get the Padres and Mets?  

[chpettit19]

4 hours ago, old nurse said:

So nice that you know the Diamondback’s management so well. Short term investments you cry for were made in 22 and likely 23. Where did it get the team?   Where did it get the Padres and Mets?  

Why should we believe they were made in 22 and 23? Someone brings up the 23 BAM money in all these articles. Forbes said the Twins likely made about 16 mil in 22. That's them investing? If making 16 mil is them sacrificing financially for the betterment of their product I'm even more upset that they slashed payroll now.

I'm not asking them to be the Padres or Mets and spend to the luxury tax. Convenient that you left out the Dodgers, Yankees, and Rangers in that, though. Especially the Rangers who invested big time and I believe they won a world series recently, no? And the article is literally about the DBacks so if you have a problem with me following the lead of the article perhaps take it up with Ted. I'm glad you're happy with the team's spending. Not telling you not to be. But I don't get how finally winning and then slashing payroll and not coming through on streaming is a praise-able situation. To each their own. 

[HrbieFan]

21 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Guy who literally posts spreadsheets defending the Pohlads suddenly wants to "move on".  Can't make it up. 

I don't blame you though, the Dbacks prove false your thesis that all teams do and must act the way the Pohlads have acted this offseason.  They don't, it's a decision.  The Dbacks had postseason success last year and decided to build on it, even with TV uncertainty.  Smart move.  

This article had to be written by a politician, as it was written with a slant to support a view. Dbacks were a rebuilding team that had stripped their payroll down and no one expected them to compete last year. Of course their payroll was going up this year! Comparing owners and franchises is a dicey road as no 2 are equal

[Major League Ready]

21 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Guy who literally posts spreadsheets defending the Pohlads suddenly wants to "move on".  Can't make it up. 

I don't blame you though, the Dbacks prove false your thesis that all teams do and must act the way the Pohlads have acted this offseason.  They don't, it's a decision.  The Dbacks had postseason success last year and decided to build on it, even with TV uncertainty.  Smart move.  

This response exemplifies why it’s time to move on.  That “spreadsheet” which was nothing more than a simple calculation offered absolutely no opinion on spending level.   It simply illustrated how to do the math and that posters were using a very flawed financial construct to determine how much payroll would need to be reduced to make up for losses in revenue.  The fact that you object to this being pointed out and portray it as a defense of the Pohlad’s is why it’s pointless to have these conversations.  Some of us with financial backgrounds have attempted to point these things out but posters refuse to even acknowledge some errors that are pretty basic.  What is the be learned by continuing a conversation based on badly flawed concepts?  I don’t see any point.  

Let’s go over the examples.  

The first one that was brought up over and over was the $30M in BAM money.  Many posters here were unaware.   That’s an honest mistake until it’s pointed out numerous times and people, including all of the writers here ignore it because they don’t want to accept it.  JD-Twins in this very thread said he was “tired of hearing about BAM money”.  This is about as factual as it gets.  

Another example is when posters insisted if revenue went down by let’s just say $40M, payroll should only go down $20M because the organization generally uses 50% of revenue as their target.  The math simply does not work that way.  Let’s say someone makes $6K/month and pays $3K month in rent (50%).  2,400 (40%) goes to food / vehicle pymt / gas / other monthly expenses.  This would be a parallel to operating expenses.  The other 10% goes to 401/savings.  If your income goes down by $1,000, will moving to a different rental that is $500/month cheaper cover the difference?  Does the fact that the $3K was 50% of revenue matter?  Of course not.  This is rather simple financial concept.  Yet, it was constantly misused here.

Another example is when the difference in spending was calculated as the current payroll vs ending payroll from last year. The ending payroll includes all of the payments to those who fill-in for injured players.  The Twins used something like 48 players last year.  It’s not a huge amount but $7M or $8M changes that percentage substantially.

Another example is once the BAM money was pointed out so many times it could not be ignored, people started insisting that they should not have used one-time to sign long-term deals.  This was a silly argument given we know with certainty that all of those contracts fit within the budget guidelines outlined by the FO.  I don’t really know what could be more obvious but some people still attempted to portray this as incompetence.

Another example is people insisting that the Twins should rank 14 or 15th in spending because they have the 14 or 15th ranked market.  The only rank that counts in terms of supporting payroll is revenue.  You would think this is about as obvious as it gets but apparently not.  One could argue they could or should generate more revenue but using market rank to justify spend is not a reasonable financial construct.

Another that’s not as cut and dried is we just want them to take it in the shorts for one year.  The problem with that premise is that meaningful free agents require multi-year contracts.  A really good FA would ensure a 2025 payroll at or near record levels with uncertain revenues.  We would also have an unmanageable percentage of payroll in two players if a major FA was signed.  It would also make it very difficult to extend our young core which is a far more effective practice than signing free agents.  

The last concept is an interesting and much more nuanced conversation.  The others can and have been proven mathematically.  You choose to ignore the opportunity to better understand these concepts others cheer you for it.  It’s one thing to not know the financial constructs.  It’s another thing entirely to intentionally ignore them when an explanation is offered.  That’s when it’s time to move on.   
 

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

This response exemplifies why it’s time to move on.

I am confused, can you an others move on and leave the conversation to those that want to talk about it? I am baffled on how you and others believe they should decide what to talk about? You can point out flaws, have disagreements on what people say, but demanding what he conversation should be is is strange no?

I have given my piece in other articles, the Twins can do what ever they want with the money and I can do the same (Minus that taxes I have to pay being that l live in Hennepin county). With that said I will be cheering for the Twins and pondering how the writers will decide which Twin wins the MVP(Lewis, Correa, or Buxton), ROY (Martin or Festa) and CY (Lopez, Ober or  Ryan)

[nicksaviking]

11 hours ago, USAFChief said:

 

You seem at odds with yourself. 

No, it's quite possible to agree with something, yet grow tired of it. Feels to me that endless harping is bad for the soul.

[Major League Ready]

4 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am confused, can you an others move on and leave the conversation to those that want to talk about it? I am baffled on how you and others believe they should decide what to talk about? You can point out flaws, have disagreements on what people say, but demanding what he conversation should be is is strange no?

I have given my piece in other articles, the Twins can do what ever they want with the money and I can do the same (Minus that taxes I have to pay being that l live in Hennepin county). With that said I will be cheering for the Twins and pondering how the writers will decide which Twin wins the MVP(Lewis, Correa, or Buxton), ROY (Martin or Festa) and CY (Lopez, Ober or  Ryan)

You want to talk about only if you talk about it in the context of badly flawed financial concepts.  Do you want to discuss it based on accurate comparisons?  If so, tell me how the 5 flawed concepts I just listed are not flawed.  

[Linus]

7 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You want to talk about only if you talk about it in the context of badly flawed financial concepts.  Do you want to discuss it based on accurate comparisons?  If so, tell me how the 5 flawed concepts I just listed are not flawed.  

So we can discuss it so long as we discuss it in a way in which you approve. Got it. Better solution: if you are tired of something don’t partake in it. 

[Riverbrian]

22 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Are there a lot of fans asking for the Twins to "consistently lose money?" I don't see much of that. I do see a whole lot of fans suggesting making a long-term investment in the team coming off its first playoff win in 2 decades with its fan base the most excited its been in the same time frame as opposed to immediately throwing water on its own consumer's excitement. And there are absolutely teams that make that decision. Ted is suggesting here that the DBacks are making that very choice. 

Are there fans who scream "cheap Pohlads" every season no matter what? Of course. But this offseason is very different. They had the choice to sacrifice a little financially to dramatically grow their reach with the fanbase. I believe it was Gleeman who said they're in basically 1/4 of households in their viewing area. They chased short-term money over the chance to significantly increase their reach at the perfect time with some actual success last year. Everything came together as they got out from the TV deal they themselves have complained about for years while they were hitting an exciting point in their team development and they chose to go back to the same terrible TV situation while delivering terrible messaging and hurting their connection to their fan base. 

The DBacks are showing that some teams do take short-term financial hits to improve their long-term outlook. I don't think it's too crazy that fans suggest the Pohlads could make the same decision.

I don't disagree with you about this off-season. We both would have liked to see the Twins add top end to what we had returning from last year. 

However... in regards to payroll and the many discussions that spawn from it.  

Last year it was the Padres. Twins Daily was subjected to the Padres being held up high as the example to follow.  

This year it's the Royals and D-Backs. Nobody is talking about the Padres anymore. Next year the Royals and D-Backs will fade back into the corner where they usually sit and a new team or teams will be the new team in the spot light. .  

Next year it will be whatever team steps out out of the corner and makes a significant free agent signing or two and that team will be used as an example of what the Twins should have done. 

 

 

 

[TwinsDr2021]

20 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You want to talk about only if you talk about it in the context of badly flawed financial concepts.  Do you want to discuss it based on accurate comparisons?  If so, tell me how the 5 flawed concepts I just listed are not flawed.  

I don't give two rats about any of the things you discussed. The Twins offer a product and I can decide to spend my money on that product or not, end of story (minus that I am spending on it because I live in hennepin county and paying taxes on the stadium that was build and paid for (75%) by the tax payers. If I don't feel like they are doing enough for me to spend my money on said product that is all that matters, others can feel different and I don't begrudge them. Every time spend money on a taxable item I pay ..15% tax and at a minimum have put for 1K towards that. But like I have also said that doesn't stop me for cheering for them and hoping all the players exceed expectations.

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I don't disagree with you about this off-season. We both would have liked to see the Twins add top end to what we had returning from last year. 

However... in regards to payroll and the many discussions that spawn from it.  

Last year it was the Padres. Twins Daily was subjected to the Padres being held up high as the example to follow.  

This year it's the Royals and D-Backs. Nobody is talking about the Padres anymore. Next year the Royals and D-Backs will fade back into the corner where they usually sit and a new team or teams will be the new team in the spot light. .  

Next year it will be whatever team steps out out of the corner and makes a significant free agent signing or two and that team will be used as an example of what the Twins should have done. 

 

 

 

For sure. There's nothing that's ever going to stop payroll discussions or be "good enough" until they get a cap system in baseball (and even then some folks will complain if they aren't at the cap every year). I think this offseason has been a bigger discussion about business practices than simply "cheap Pohlad" shouts, though. My problem is with people lumping it all in as people just blindly screaming "cheap Pohlads" when we're really talking about bigger things, like the TV deal and streaming option that this article is about. Payroll naturally gets connected to that, but just dropping this into the same bucket as the typical "cheap Pohlad" talk is missing the point many of us are trying to make.

I'd be happier if they'd slashed payroll down to $100 mil if it meant they were actually adding streaming and expanding their reach with the fanbase. They'd get less pushback if they were way better at messaging and simply never let Dave St Peter speak publicly (maybe Joe Pohlad, too). I'd be happier if they hadn't sent Provus out to talk up the "no more blackouts" stuff before they actually had that deal signed, sealed, and delivered. There's always going to be "cheap Pohlad" talk as long as there's no salary cap in baseball. But lumping all of our complaints into just that 1 bucket and then being annoyed by it is going to get some pushback from me, and others. 

They're always going to get pushback from a certain segment of the fanbase. But they also don't do themselves any favors. I don't know how this offseason could've been handled much worse from a messaging/PR standpoint. You know what may help quiet some of the shouts? Building a winning team and then building on that momentum. They had their chance this year and chose to not do that. I think it's worth noting that this offseason's complaints are different than the typical "cheap Pohlad" screams that will never go away.

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

For sure. There's nothing that's ever going to stop payroll discussions or be "good enough" until they get a cap system in baseball (and even then some folks will complain if they aren't at the cap every year). I think this offseason has been a bigger discussion about business practices than simply "cheap Pohlad" shouts, though. My problem is with people lumping it all in as people just blindly screaming "cheap Pohlads" when we're really talking about bigger things, like the TV deal and streaming option that this article is about. Payroll naturally gets connected to that, but just dropping this into the same bucket as the typical "cheap Pohlad" talk is missing the point many of us are trying to make.

I'd be happier if they'd slashed payroll down to $100 mil if it meant they were actually adding streaming and expanding their reach with the fanbase. They'd get less pushback if they were way better at messaging and simply never let Dave St Peter speak publicly (maybe Joe Pohlad, too). I'd be happier if they hadn't sent Provus out to talk up the "no more blackouts" stuff before they actually had that deal signed, sealed, and delivered. There's always going to be "cheap Pohlad" talk as long as there's no salary cap in baseball. But lumping all of our complaints into just that 1 bucket and then being annoyed by it is going to get some pushback from me, and others. 

They're always going to get pushback from a certain segment of the fanbase. But they also don't do themselves any favors. I don't know how this offseason could've been handled much worse from a messaging/PR standpoint. You know what may help quiet some of the shouts? Building a winning team and then building on that momentum. They had their chance this year and chose to not do that. I think it's worth noting that this offseason's complaints are different than the typical "cheap Pohlad" screams that will never go away.

I'll agree this off-season that they dropped a couple of oranges while juggling public relations. 

However, the thing about PR is this. They will pick up the oranges and try again. When they keep them in the air for awhile with no mistakes, the crowd will forget about the oranges previously on the floor until the next time they are dropped.    

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I'll agree this off-season that they dropped a couple of oranges while juggling public relations. 

However, the thing about PR is this. They will pick up the oranges and try again. When they keep them in the air for awhile with no mistakes, the crowd will forget about the oranges previously on the floor until the next time they are dropped.    

For sure. And doing a couple of cool tricks early after picking them back up (winning a bunch of games) will help the crowd forget even quicker. But they picked a really bad offseason to drop their oranges and kick one of them off stage. St Peter dropped an orange after 2022 when he questioned fans not showing up, but that was during an offseason with a team coming off back to back dismal seasons right after the covid season. The stakes weren't so high when you lost the division by 14 games after having lost it by 20 the season before. The half-filled crowd wasn't paying much attention to the juggling act anyways. This time they had a sold-out crowd watching in anticipation and they almost immediately started dropping orange after orange. And the killer is that they could've just sat on the stage and done nothing and it would've been just fine. Should've just let the crowd imagine you juggling oranges instead of failing at juggling the oranges.

[Riverbrian]

Last Off-Season... The D-Backs did very little in Free Agency. 

This off-season... They did some things. 

Last Off-Season... The Twins did some things in Free Agency. 

This off-season... The Twins did very little. 

[Major League Ready]

16 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Last Off-Season... The D-Backs did very little in Free Agency. 

This off-season... They did some things. 

Last Off-Season... The Twins did some things in Free Agency. 

This off-season... The Twins did very little. 

As someone who forgot this little fact, the Twins signed Correa last off-season.  They may not have spent big on Castro, Solano, and MAT but those were quite good.  Where they failed to get much was their biggest spends Correa / Vasquez and Gallo.

[Sparky55]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:16 AM, Major League Ready said:

Yet another article whining about spending.  Baseball is here.  Can we move on!

If ownership hadn’t brought it up, saying they would lose $30 million from the tv deal and now we find out they are only behind by $8 million. Kinda makes you wonder if they are in it to win it or make a buck 🤔

[Major League Ready]

2 minutes ago, Sparky55 said:

If ownership hadn’t brought it up, saying they would lose $30 million from the tv deal and now we find out they are only behind by $8 million. Kinda makes you wonder if they are in it to win it or make a buck 🤔

Where are you coming up with $8M?  That information was sealed by the court so are you speculating, or do you have inside information you are sharing in violation of that order?  Regardless, I would assume they are like every other business, and every player, meaning they are in for the $$$.