Will Lower-Than-Anticipated Attendance and Payroll Limitations Impact Twins Trade Deadline?

[Major League Ready]

21 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

When the owner of the team goes public saying they're cutting payroll to "right-size their business" there is no reason what-so-ever to believe they are going to get anywhere near their previous payroll. The Twins didn't sit on 25 million during the offseason with a plan to spend it at the deadline instead. No team would do that. They told us they aren't spending as much this year and it's time to start believing them. They aren't spending 150 mil.

Did they make an announcement or were they asked my someone in media who reported it.  Those are two very different scenarios.  In the former, they innitiate the action.  In the other, they responded.

If they announced it, should they have deceived would be season ticket buyers in order to make more sales?  In the case they were asked, should they have lied or misled?  If they had dogged the question, the narrative here would have been they are devious / cheap bastards instead of their PR is poor.  While they no doubt were poor from a PR perspective there is no winning with the portion of fans who are focused on spending.  

[weneedneshek]

8 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

There's less violence than ever. The stats are clear on this. 

This. I live in North Loop as well as the majority of my friends, none of us have experienced any kind of violent crime and we are out late at night frequently. At worst there's the occasional stolen bike or car break-in and that comes with any city

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Did they make an announcement or were they asked my someone in media who reported it.  Those are two very different scenarios.  In the former, they innitiate the action.  In the former, they responded.

If they announced it, should they have deceived would be season ticket buyers in order to make more sales?  In the case they were asked, should they have lied or misled?  If they had dogged the question, the narrative here would have been they are devious / cheap bastards instead of their PR is poor.  While they no doubt were poor from a PR perspective there is no winning with the portion of fans who are focused on spending.  

They dodge and PR speak their way around such questions all the time. Falvey loves to tell us the Pohlads give them everything they need to build a competitive team. This offseason he decided to tell us they were slashing payroll 6 days after the world series and ruin the momentum they'd gained from the playoffs instead of going with the tried and true "we get everything we need."

It's ok to admit they completely and utterly botched their offseason messaging. They're paying for it now. I'm not going to get into another debate with you on the business things. Many of us told you they were hurting their bottom line all offseason and you just told us we didn't know business. Now they're down 54,000 fans to this point in the season year over year. They screwed up, and it's costing them millions. 

[Whitey333]

The Twins have major public relations issues.  They make horrendous baseball related decisions that continues to alienate fans and then blame the fans for not coming.  I was one of those that didn't go to early games because they closed the upper sections.  They needed to dump st.peter years ago.

[Linus]

My guess is that lower attendance is caused by a number of factors:

Younger people are not as interested in baseball anymore. 
Bad access to watch games for a number of years has reduced interest for a lot of fans. 
The Twins have developed a reputation as an org that is going to put money first. They pumped up that reputation big time with payroll slashing and right sizing. There are real nuances to this discussion but most fans don’t care about that. I don’t do the cheap Pohlads thing but the perception by a lot of fans is pretty negative towards the money issue. 
Many people, especially in out state MN, have the perception that Minneapolis is still not safe. Statistics say otherwise but perception is reality for the people choosing to buy or not buy tickets. 

It’s a complicated problem. And I’m not sure the Twins are up to the task of dealing with it. 
 

[jorgenswest]

They also have been one of the least expensive places to see a game ranking 29th entering this year. Lower attendance and lower revenue per ticket is not going to help them compete with other teams.

It was a PR mistake to announce that they were reducing budget but that came after their best opportunity to sell tickets during the 2023 playoffs. If they didn’t sell 2024 tickets then, why should they have expected the winter would be much better? 

[TopGunn#22]

I have no doubt at all that Twins ownership will use the excuse of slightly lower attendance this season to stand pat at the trade deadline.  It's the Pohlad way.  I was a little surprised at the TV revenue figures listed in the article.  I had always thought that Twins 2023 TV revenue from Diamond Sports was $55 million (the article listed it as $60 million for 2023).  And I thought the figure we all discussed on TD after it was announced the team was going back to Diamond Sports for this year was $47 million (roughly 85% of what 2023's revenue had been).

Whatever the precise revenue figures are, really isn't relevant to the Pohlad's.  They were going to cut salary/expenses no matter what for 2024.  Cleveland, Detroit and Kansas City all made moves to be competitive and it's worked out pretty well for the Guardians and Royals.  Heck, the Royals just added Hunter Henry to their struggling bullpen.  That's a decent move.

I don't disagree that the biggest additions the Twins can and will make before or soon after the trade deadline will be Royce Lewis, Brock Stewart and Justin Topa (and maybe Varland to the BP).  However, none of those moves improve the starting rotation.  Adding a SP who at worst would slot in as the #3 behind Lopez and Ryan and pushes Ober to #4 and SWR to #5 is a need that should filled if the Pohlad's are serious about defending their A.L. Central crown and making some noise in the playoffs. 

The American League pennant is there for the taking.  The Yankees suddenly look beatable.  The Astros ain't the Astros anymore.  Cleveland is catchable and beatable.  Seattle has gotten no help at all offensively from Jorge Polanco and despite great pitching has a weak lineup top to bottom.  The team to beat is Baltimore, and the only chance the Twins have is to get healthy and find a SP who has similar talent to Lopez and Ryan.  But I'm not holding my breath that such a move will be made.     

 

[stringer bell]

As they did at the end of the off season, the Twins won’t spend much, if any, money on acquisitions. Perhaps they can find a rental reliever for less than $1M, but don’t expect any player with significant salary to be added. 

[Vanimal46]

13 hours ago, bean5302 said:

So it has to do with results rather than payroll, then?

Yes. It’s always been about results. The rest of your post is an argument I didn’t make nor do I have any interest participating in. 

[Riverbrian]

I haven't read this entire thread but does anyone know if the Twins have received any money from their current deal with Diamond/Bally. 

It may be a reported 47 million but with the company trying to wiggle through bankruptcy proceedings... Issues with Comcast... I can't help but assume that collecting the 47 million could be challenging. 

If there are issues collecting the money... I'd assume that missing payments would lead to default and a lifting of the blackout restrictions. Since the blackout restrictions remain... I'd assume that the Twins organization is either getting paid or in limbo holding out hope that they will receive that 47 million owed to them.  

The next court date is at the end of the month... which isn't going to leave a lot of time for clarity on money available at the trade deadline. 

[stringer bell]

14 minutes ago, stringer bell said:

As they did at the end of the off season, the Twins won’t spend much, if any, money on acquisitions. Perhaps they can find a rental reliever for less than $1M, but don’t expect any player with significant salary to be added. 

I'll add that if somehow the Twins could get rid of Kyle Farmer's contract, they'd probably acquire someone who makes about the same amount of money. An even more remote possibility would be trading Max Kepler and then spending what the Twins had remaining of his contract.

[stringer bell]

The other topic in this thread has to do with diminished attendance. It probably deserves its own thread, but since others have commented, I guess I'll weigh in as well:

1) Fear of going to the ballpark in Minneapolis. While I admit, I haven't gone to many night games in the last couple of years, it has more to do with driving a substantial distance late at night with aging eyes. I don't think going to Target Field is particularly dangerous and I've seen plenty of law enforcement around before and after games. It seems that perception becomes reality, especially when there are votes to be had by portraying urban areas as blighted by crime.

2) Public relations. The TV situation has been an epic fail. To promise only one thing (no blackouts) and then not deliver on that is feeble and weak. Taking the higher dollars (and then not spending it) from Bally is a PR nightmare in and of itself. Combine that with the Comcast snafu and it is a toxic mess for fan interest. Proclaiming that payroll will be cut and following that up with comments about "right sizing" future payrolls is plenty to suck optimism from a fan base looking for a big winner.

3) Baseball itself is losing popularity. Compared to the early 2000s, attendance is down quite a bit. Maybe it has to do with COVID, maybe with popularity of other sports. I thought the "speed up" adjustments of the past couple of years would help, but growth (if any) has been slow.

4) Minnesota isn't a baseball hotbed. Well, there are other things to do and follow. This remains an area that is more Vikings than Twins and both the Wild and Timberwolves get good interest. 1991 is a long time ago and people want to support a champion, or at least a team they think can get there. 

[Original_JB]

"This remains an area that is more Vikings than Twins and both the Wild and Timberwolves get good interest."

Interesting point. Now the other 3 leagues are salary-cap leagues, so everyone (in theory) is operating on the same playing field. In the MLB, teams have a choice in how much/how hard they want to pursue a championship. Now, I know the readership here has long had the realization of how the Twins operate, and kind of stay 'grounded' in expectations, but what if the 'overall' fandom has come to that same conclusion; that the Twins priorities are just selling/profiting on 2 1/2- 3 hours of "entertainment", no different than a Monster Truck Rally or a Disney on Ice show, as opposed to "striving" to win a World Series?

[DJL44]

51 minutes ago, stringer bell said:

people want to support a champion, or at least a team they think can get there. 

This does not explain interest in the Vikings

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

They dodge and PR speak their way around such questions all the time. Falvey loves to tell us the Pohlads give them everything they need to build a competitive team. This offseason he decided to tell us they were slashing payroll 6 days after the world series and ruin the momentum they'd gained from the playoffs instead of going with the tried and true "we get everything we need."

It's ok to admit they completely and utterly botched their offseason messaging. They're paying for it now. I'm not going to get into another debate with you on the business things. Many of us told you they were hurting their bottom line all offseason and you just told us we didn't know business. Now they're down 54,000 fans to this point in the season year over year. They screwed up, and it's costing them millions. 

You just completely dodged the question.   If they responded to a reporter, would you have criticized them for not being transparent.  That's what I see here all the time is contempt when they are not completely transparent.  When they answer honestly, you complain just the same. 

Should they have lied or misled.  Would that have made you fell better.  The messaging was bad no doubt but let's face this is 100% a bitch about reducing spending not the messaging.  All of the other rhetoric is a platform for you to continue to squak about spending.  

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You just completely dodged the question.   If they responded to a reporter, would you have criticized them for not being transparent.  That's what I see here all the time is contempt when they are not completely transparent.  When they answer honestly, you complain just the same. 

Should they have lied or misled.  Would that have made you fell better.  The messaging was bad no doubt but let's face this is 100% a bitch about reducing spending not the messaging.  All of the other rhetoric is a platform for you to continue to squak about spending.  

I wouldn't have criticized them for not being transparent. Would some fans? Absolutely. But I personally would not. I'm all over these boards saying they shouldn't say anything they don't absolutely have to. Whether it be about payroll, injuries, anything. PR talk your way around everything.

This is not "a bitch about reducing spending not the messaging." I said it the second Falvey told us they were cutting payroll he shouldn't have said it. I argued all offseason that they were completely and utterly bungling the business decisions and messaging and it was going to cost them. Yes, they should have lied and misled. Like every company does. They should have communications and PR people who talked to Falvey, St Peter, and Pohlad before they did public interviews to discuss how they were going to brand and message things. Like every company does. I haven't changed my complaint. My complaint was they screwed up messaging, took a short-term payday, and those things hurt their ability to grow their fanbase by alienating fans and destroying all the momentum they'd built up the second half of last year.

And, despite your constant ridicule and insistence that they knew what they were doing, I was right. You spent all offseason fighting against many of us telling us we just didn't understand. Well it sure appears we had a little better idea about what we were talking about than you believed. They "right-sized" themselves right out of millions of dollars just like so many of us said they were doing. I'm done with this conversation. Believe what you want. They screwed up and they're paying for it now.

[South Dakota Tom]

The question in the original post about adding players (especially a strong starter) leads me to believe that they won’t spend big for a rental.

They might, however, dip more heavily into their prospect capital for an arb-1 arm or something more $-controlled.

It is spending the future rather than money but seems more plausible to have them give up a Rodriguez, Keaschall, Morris, Raya, Matthews, Prielipp type package (not all, but that level of player) to add that young 3rd starter with some years left.  Not sure that is wise but seems more likely than Snell or Scherzer.

[Mike Sixel]

25 minutes ago, South Dakota Tom said:

The question in the original post about adding players (especially a strong starter) leads me to believe that they won’t spend big for a rental.

They might, however, dip more heavily into their prospect capital for an arb-1 arm or something more $-controlled.

It is spending the future rather than money but seems more plausible to have them give up a Rodriguez, Keaschall, Morris, Raya, Matthews, Prielipp type package (not all, but that level of player) to add that young 3rd starter with some years left.  Not sure that is wise but seems more likely than Snell or Scherzer.

Zero chance they deal Rodriguez. Zero. 

Prielipp? He has no value right now. 

I'd be shocked if they deal Morris or Matthews, but not completely. 

[DJL44]

Looks like the NBA just destroyed the regional sports network.

NBA owner warns regional sports networks 'unviable' with new TV deal - Yahoo Sports

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I wouldn't have criticized them for not being transparent. Would some fans? Absolutely. But I personally would not. I'm all over these boards saying they shouldn't say anything they don't absolutely have to. Whether it be about payroll, injuries, anything. PR talk your way around everything.

This is not "a bitch about reducing spending not the messaging." I said it the second Falvey told us they were cutting payroll he shouldn't have said it. I argued all offseason that they were completely and utterly bungling the business decisions and messaging and it was going to cost them. Yes, they should have lied and misled. Like every company does. They should have communications and PR people who talked to Falvey, St Peter, and Pohlad before they did public interviews to discuss how they were going to brand and message things. Like every company does. I haven't changed my complaint. My complaint was they screwed up messaging, took a short-term payday, and those things hurt their ability to grow their fanbase by alienating fans and destroying all the momentum they'd built up the second half of last year.

And, despite your constant ridicule and insistence that they knew what they were doing, I was right. You spent all offseason fighting against many of us telling us we just didn't understand. Well it sure appears we had a little better idea about what we were talking about than you believed. They "right-sized" themselves right out of millions of dollars just like so many of us said they were doing. I'm done with this conversation. Believe what you want. They screwed up and they're paying for it now.

They are down 54,000 fans at this point so let’s say they end 100,000 down in attendance.  At $60/person which is generous that’s $6M and they give half to opposing teams.  They spent $30M less and lost $3M.  Your inability to see the net is the root of our disagreement.  You also insisted (over & over) during the course of the spending conversation that anyone that did not understand losing Polanco was catastrophic just did not get it.  Had they kept him, Polanco would be at 2B and Lee would be in the minors.

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

They are down 54,000 fans at this point so let’s say they end 100,000 down in attendance.  At $60/person which is generous that’s $6M and they give half to opposing teams.  They spent $30M less and lost $3M.  Your inability to see the net is the root of our disagreement.  You also insisted (over & over) during the course of the spending conversation that anyone that did not understand losing Polanco was catastrophic just did not get it.  Had they kept him, Polanco would be at 2B and Lee would be in the minors.

What about your precious BAM money they lost? Conveniently leaving that out now that it doesn't fit your narrative? How much was that again? And that's before the loss of TV money. Nice doing business with you today. I'm sure the Twins aren't at all concerned about the lower attendance. All part of the grand plan I'm sure.

And, yes, I was very wrong on Polanco and Santana this year. And I'm more than willing to admit that right now. You wanna take a shot at admitting you were wrong about anything or just going to stick with this being the best business plan they could've come up with?

[stringer bell]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

This does not explain interest in the Vikings

Oh, I think it does. Football fans all except for the really terrible teams, are convinced this year is their year. 

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, stringer bell said:

Oh, I think it does. Football fans all except for the really terrible teams, are convinced this year is their year. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

What about your precious BAM money they lost? Conveniently leaving that out now that it doesn't fit your narrative? How much was that again? And that's before the loss of TV money. Nice doing business with you today. I'm sure the Twins aren't at all concerned about the lower attendance. All part of the grand plan I'm sure.

And, yes, I was very wrong on Polanco and Santana this year. And I'm more than willing to admit that right now. You wanna take a shot at admitting you were wrong about anything or just going to stick with this being the best business plan they could've come up with?

Unless losing the BAM money somehow kept fans away it is completely irrelevant to this conversation   The loss of BAM money will impact profitability but it has zero impact on attendance.  Cutting payroll is the variable you are claiming resulted in 54,000 less fans.  You might be right but what does that have to do with the presence BAM or lack therefore?  How does BAM correlate with attendance?  Absolutely nothing.  So, yes, nice doing business with you while you demonstrate once again you don't understand finance. 

[chpettit19]

45 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Unless losing the BAM money somehow kept fans away it is completely irrelevant to this conversation   The loss of BAM money will impact profitability but it has zero impact on attendance.  Cutting payroll is the variable you are claiming resulted in 54,000 less fans.  You might be right but what does that have to do with the presence BAM or lack therefore?  How does BAM correlate with attendance?  Absolutely nothing.  So, yes, nice doing business with you while you demonstrate once again you don't understand finance. 

Yikes. Dude. Just stop. I told you the cutting of payroll wasn't my complaint, the messaging and handling of it is. I literally just told you I thought they should've lied and misled so as to not kill fan engagement. The conversation that you once again jumped into and wanted to steer into your very specific little corner to make a point that I refused to make because you were wrong about me being mad about them lying was about their business decisions AND MESSAGING leading to the loss of attendance, and thus money.

The BAM money. The TV money. The attendance money all play into that loss of money. The variable I am claiming resulted in the loss of fans is the horrible marketing/PR/messaging campaign they ran this offseason. I said it was going to hurt their bottom line. It is now hurting their bottom line. The idea that you can look at the 30 mil less in payroll and say there isn't a problem with losing 3 mil in attendance while ignoring the other losses is ridiculous. The Twins planned for the losses of the BAM and TV money. They didn't also plan for the loss of attendance. So the lost attendance revenue is what's directly effecting them making less money than they planned to. 

At this point you're completely ignoring what I'm actually saying and running with your own narrative. Like usual. So I'm signing off for the day. The Twins business department isn't hitting their projections. Their attendance has been hurt by the bungled offseason. You said that wouldn't happen. I said it would. Believe what you want, but there's no reason we should believe they're happy with the way things are going financially this season.

[Jocko87]

On 7/15/2024 at 3:02 PM, Craig Arko said:

Heh, I’m an older person and I live in Minneapolis. I don’t go downtown because it’s too f-ing expensive and discretionary income ain’t what it used to be. The last Twins games I’ve attended came with free (for me) tickets. It can be an expensive hobby and I prefer other expensive hobbies to drop my dough on.

Regarding the attendance issue, this is the only acceptable answer.  It's flipping expensive to do a lot of things all of a sudden.  I spent $150 at the last Wind Surge game I went to on a $20 ticket, by myself.  I'd probably be looking at $6-700 to go to a big boy game.  Granted, I like good seats and beer so I get no joy out of the upper deck but it's a different equation for everyone.  I'd struggle to see how a family of 4 could do a game enjoyably for less than a couple hundred bucks. Considering the headwinds, the attendance is actually probably pretty decent.  Activities like these are down all over.  

I thought they should have done something crazy when the Comcast news dropped like the Falcons concession model.  Dollar dogs, two dollar brats, three dollar beers.  All concessions no ballpark markup.  Big marketing campaign from the best marketing team in baseball....err, wait.  

Regarding the original question, it might be a factor in the trade deadline but several rungs down the ladder of importance.  I don't think it plays enough of a factor to change anything they would normally do in the first place.  So many of the trade deadline suggestions are so far out of the realm of the way we know they operate that they shouldn't even be discussed.  Vlady?  Pfffft. 

Frankly, from a baseball standpoint, there aren't a ton of clear upgrades out there that make sense.

[Vanimal46]

14 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Regarding the attendance issue, this is the only acceptable answer.  It's flipping expensive to do a lot of things all of a sudden

Nobody asks me for a 15, 20, or 25% tip at my house! 

[USAFChief]

22 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Regarding the attendance issue, this is the only acceptable answer.  It's flipping expensive to do a lot of things all of a sudden.  I spent $150 at the last Wind Surge game I went to on a $20 ticket, by myself.  I'd probably be looking at $6-700 to go to a big boy game.  Granted, I like good seats and beer so I get no joy out of the upper deck but it's a different equation for everyone.  I'd struggle to see how a family of 4 could do a game enjoyably for less than a couple hundred bucks. Considering the headwinds, the attendance is actually probably pretty decent.  Activities like these are down all over.  

I thought they should have done something crazy when the Comcast news dropped like the Falcons concession model.  Dollar dogs, two dollar brats, three dollar beers.  All concessions no ballpark markup.  Big marketing campaign from the best marketing team in baseball....err, wait.  

Regarding the original question, it might be a factor in the trade deadline but several rungs down the ladder of importance.  I don't think it plays enough of a factor to change anything they would normally do in the first place.  So many of the trade deadline suggestions are so far out of the realm of the way we know they operate that they shouldn't even be discussed.  Vlady?  Pfffft. 

Frankly, from a baseball standpoint, there aren't a ton of clear upgrades out there that make sense.

Going to a Twins game isn't cheap, but it's not $6-700 per, either. 

There's no reason a fan can't take in a game, with a hot dog and a beer,  including parking, for $75 or less. Family of four for $250 easily. 

I do it for less.

And there is a dollar dog night, family concession stands with reasonable prices. Bring in your own water. Etc etc. 

 

[Craig Arko]

30 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Nobody asks me for a 15, 20, or 25% tip at my house! 

So, party at your place?

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Yikes. Dude. Just stop. I told you the cutting of payroll wasn't my complaint, the messaging and handling of it is. I literally just told you I thought they should've lied and misled so as to not kill fan engagement. The conversation that you once again jumped into and wanted to steer into your very specific little corner to make a point that I refused to make because you were wrong about me being mad about them lying was about their business decisions AND MESSAGING leading to the loss of attendance, and thus money.

The BAM money. The TV money. The attendance money all play into that loss of money. The variable I am claiming resulted in the loss of fans is the horrible marketing/PR/messaging campaign they ran this offseason. I said it was going to hurt their bottom line. It is now hurting their bottom line. The idea that you can look at the 30 mil less in payroll and say there isn't a problem with losing 3 mil in attendance while ignoring the other losses is ridiculous. The Twins planned for the losses of the BAM and TV money. They didn't also plan for the loss of attendance. So the lost attendance revenue is what's directly effecting them making less money than they planned to. 

At this point you're completely ignoring what I'm actually saying and running with your own narrative. Like usual. So I'm signing off for the day. The Twins business department isn't hitting their projections. Their attendance has been hurt by the bungled offseason. You said that wouldn't happen. I said it would. Believe what you want, but there's no reason we should believe they're happy with the way things are going financially this season.

First of all, misleading your customers is a terrible way to run a business and you condoning it says a lot.  Secondly, I simply don't buy your objection is the messaging. Even if it was, the catalyst for loss attendance is still the payroll decrease. Third, your claim in this thread was they cost themselves millions.  Your continuous rant is all about how much this is costing the team and you don't even understand you have to count the cost savings compared to the revenue loss.  Plus, there is a reasonable chance they make up that difference before the end of the year with continued good play going forward.   

BTW ... What would have been acceptable IMO would have been to say they would be very difficult to manage any multi year signings given the increases scheduled for next year and left it at that.   .