Rangers Could Drop Nathan Eovaldi, Others On Waivers. Could the Twins Nab Pitching Help?

[Fire Dan Gladden]

33 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The Pohlad family has always been focused on the business aspect of baseball. It's not that they do not want to win, it's they won't accept a business losing money. That's just a family thing. Carl Pohlad was immensely successful while cultivating a reputation as a very generous, honorable and charitable person. He did not accept losses from his businesses. That's something which has been instilled into his sons who own the Twins.

I will fault the Pohlad's on what I feel is a short-sightedness, and poor business management issues (nepotism, lack of accountability, poor management choices) and a failure to make mistakes up to their customer base this year (TV debacle), but there are precious few major sports owners willing to lose money in terms of net operating income or run a negative cash flow as a practice.

Not to go down this rabbit hole again, but there are ZERO owners of professional sports teams that lose money.  On the off-chance a team (like the Mets), tries to go negative cash-flow for a season, they will make it up in increasing overall value of the team.

The issue is not the Twins losing money.  The issue is that there is a profit line the Pohlad's refuse to go below.  A line they create that has been exacerbated by the idiotic television/marketing/public announcement decisions they have made over the last 12 months. 

[Joe A. Preusser]

13 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

No, No. No.  Stop reverting back to these articles and discussions that are complete fantasy.  Never mind the waiver process and availability of players...

THE TWINS ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY MONEY!!!!!

This is categorically false!  

I was in line behind Jim Pohlad at KwikTrip the other day and I saw him WITH MY OWN EYES buy a pack of gum. 

Money spent. 

 

 

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

 

Oh ferpetesakes. You asked for "one report even non credible." 

I gave you multiple. From different sources. All quite credible.

Mark Feinsand.

Jeff Passan, quoted directly. 

Bob Nightingale. 

Nationally recognized reporters. On the record. With quotes. Not sourcing each other.

Locally, Gleeman:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5670091/2024/07/31/twins-trade-deadline-takeaways/

 

You've been on this silly take for weeks now. You lack any credibility on the subject of payroll. 

Just stop. 

 

 

 

I'm OK with being able to read.  I have a hell of a lot more financial literacy than most of these writers, probably all.  I'm more than comfortable challenging the narrative until some obvious questions get asked and answered.  I'm OK being out on my own here, others will catch up soon enough.

The Bob Nightingale piece actually doesn't have quotes, despite your insistence. I looked again.  There is not one on the record quote from a team source cited anywhere.  The on the record statements are actually quite different.

Words matter such as the highlighted ones in Passan's quote, shown below.  There is not much difference in what Passan says here from any other year-when has this not been the case?  It's also a quote from him, not any named source.

"Money issues continue to hinder any shot at a big move, and it's why the Twins are an add-and-subtract team and not simply an add team like they ought to be," Passan reports. "If the opportunity to acquire a higher-salary player presents itself, they would need to offload salary from their major league roster in that deal or another to cancel out the expense."

We still don't have a good reason they added a $2.1m reliever when so many $700k guys were available.  Musta been too much stoopid money getting in the way.

[USAFChief]

5 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I'm OK with being able to read.  I have a hell of a lot more financial literacy than most of these writers, probably all.  I'm more than comfortable challenging the narrative until some obvious questions get asked and answered.  I'm OK being out on my own here, others will catch up soon enough.

The Bob Nightingale piece actually doesn't have quotes, despite your insistence. I looked again.  There is not one on the record quote from a team source cited anywhere.  The on the record statements are actually quite different.

Words matter such as the highlighted ones in Passan's quote, shown below.  There is not much difference in what Passan says here from any other year-when has this not been the case?  It's also a quote from him, not any named source.

"Money issues continue to hinder any shot at a big move, and it's why the Twins are an add-and-subtract team and not simply an add team like they ought to be," Passan reports. "If the opportunity to acquire a higher-salary player presents itself, they would need to offload salary from their major league roster in that deal or another to cancel out the expense."

We still don't have a good reason they added a $2.1m reliever when so many $700k guys were available.  Musta been too much stoopid money getting in the way.

Just stop. 

 

And for the record,  Richards costs about $700k

 

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

I'm OK with being able to read.  I have a hell of a lot more financial literacy than most of these writers, probably all.  I'm more than comfortable challenging the narrative until some obvious questions get asked and answered.  I'm OK being out on my own here, others will catch up soon enough.

The Bob Nightingale piece actually doesn't have quotes, despite your insistence. I looked again.  There is not one on the record quote from a team source cited anywhere.  The on the record statements are actually quite different.

Words matter such as the highlighted ones in Passan's quote, shown below.  There is not much difference in what Passan says here from any other year-when has this not been the case?  It's also a quote from him, not any named source.

"Money issues continue to hinder any shot at a big move, and it's why the Twins are an add-and-subtract team and not simply an add team like they ought to be," Passan reports. "If the opportunity to acquire a higher-salary player presents itself, they would need to offload salary from their major league roster in that deal or another to cancel out the expense."

We still don't have a good reason they added a $2.1m reliever when so many $700k guys were available.  Musta been too much stoopid money getting in the way.

All we have is evidence that they've only really added salary big time one trade deadline under this ownership. Either ever other team is wrong to make trades, or there's some other reason the twins don't. Occam's razer suggests that is making these trades was an awful idea, teams would stop doing it and fire GMs that do it...or, it's not awful, and there's another reason the Twins don't add salary at the deadline most years in any meaningful way. We're just going to disagree that years of evidence says what I think it says. 

[nicksaviking]

15 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

No, No. No.  Stop reverting back to these articles and discussions that are complete fantasy.  Never mind the waiver process and availability of players...

THE TWINS ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY MONEY!!!!!

Yeah, I get it, but the Twins are paying Richards more than the last three relievers on the list will cost.

But agree with everyone else; they'll never make it to the Twins.

The only hope is that no team is going to want to claim and accidentally get three starters and four relievers, so someone goes unclaimed by the lower teams because they all claimed the same few guys.

Which means the Twins would need to bid on the worst of the bunch.

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

Yeah, I get it, but the Twins are paying Richards more than the last three relievers on the list will cost.

 

Huh?

[nicksaviking]

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Plus Texas hasn't waived anyone, and it'd be a really bad look if they did.

Bad look for sure. Especially since Seattle and Houston are two teams who ARE in position to grab these guys. No way in hell Texas wants either of those teams to win a championship with one of these guys.

[nicksaviking]

6 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Huh?

I'm not disagreeing that the Pohald's aren't the ones standing in the way of improving the club, but Trevor Richards isn't playing for free. They did add 1M or whatever in payroll to add him, which is as much or more than the last three relievers listed. Stands to reason if they didn't say no to Richards, it's possible they wouldn't say no to:

• RHRP José Léclerc - $1M - 0.3 fWAR
• LHRP Kirby Yates - $0.7M - 1.6 fWAR
• LHRP Andrew Chafin - $0.7M - 0.3 fWAR

[USAFChief]

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not disagreeing that the Pohald's aren't the ones standing in the way of improving the club, but Trevor Richards isn't playing for free. They did add 1M in payroll to add him, which is as much or more than the last three relievers listed.

$700k.

Richards is making $2.1M in 2024. Approx 1/3 of that is the Twins responsibility (2 of 6 months...$700k).

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/richatr01.shtml

[nicksaviking]

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

$700k.

Richards is making $2.1M. Approx 1/3 of that is the Twins responsibility (2 of 6 months...$700k).

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/richatr01.shtml

OK, so if they were willing to spend 700K on a bad reliever, stands to reason they may be able to be talked into spending 700K on a not bad reliever.

But again, I'm in agreement, Texas is unlikely to do this, and if they should, the players are unlikely to make it to the Twins.

[ashbury]

6 hours ago, Trov said:

How does a no trade clause work if the person is put on outright waivers?

No one can claim him.  The waivers are a formality.  The player in this case has control over his own destiny.  The league's rules cover this case - otherwise there could be subterfuge in getting around someone's NTC.  He's released, and then he can choose the team he signs with.  Or, just sit at home and count his cash that continues to come in.  His choice.

[Jocko87]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Just stop. 

 

And for the record,  Richards costs about $700k

 

And what would the 700k guy cost?  
 

Less.  
 

JHC.  I'm not going to write for a five year old so you can keep up. 

[USAFChief]

2 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

And what would the 700k guy cost?  
 

Less.  
 

JHC.  I'm not going to write for a five year old so you can keep up. 

First Rule Of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging. 

[Jocko87]

9 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

First Rule Of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging. 

I'm not digging, I'm just not rolling over like you're used to. 

[Trov]

22 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Plus Texas hasn't waived anyone, and it'd be a really bad look if they did.

They will not until the last few days of the month.  The reason why is they need to have someone claim the player, to get the contract off their books.  If they did it now, if a team does not claim them, then they pass through and get to be a FA and any team can sign them but Rangers are on hook for the contract, and the other team signs for min.  If you wait until last few days of month, the only way the player can play on playoff roster is if they are claimed due to having to be on roster by 9/1.  Waivers takes a couple of days, and just like last year teams will place players on them right at last min to allow teams to claim and have on post season roster, but not let them pass and sign to have on post season roster. 

[Trov]

19 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Bad look for sure. Especially since Seattle and Houston are two teams who ARE in position to grab these guys. No way in hell Texas wants either of those teams to win a championship with one of these guys.

They would if it manages to save them millions of dollars in tax payments.  If they can get below the tax line they not only save the money on the guys they cut, but also the percent on each contract for each player for being a tax payer.  Not only would they save some money, knowing they will not make playoffs, but they were tax payer last year, and would again be this year.  If you continue to be tax payer, the penalties grow, but if they dip 1 time it resets.  If they do not dip down, they will not want to be a tax payer next year else they would have 50% bill, but if they dip this year, not only do they not have a 30% this year, but they can go out spend a bunch of money on FA next year and only have 20% bill. 

They will have a lot of incentive to get below the tax payer this year if they can. 

[nicksaviking]

3 minutes ago, Trov said:

They would if it manages to save them millions of dollars in tax payments.  If they can get below the tax line they not only save the money on the guys they cut, but also the percent on each contract for each player for being a tax payer.  Not only would they save some money, knowing they will not make playoffs, but they were tax payer last year, and would again be this year.  If you continue to be tax payer, the penalties grow, but if they dip 1 time it resets.  If they do not dip down, they will not want to be a tax payer next year else they would have 50% bill, but if they dip this year, not only do they not have a 30% this year, but they can go out spend a bunch of money on FA next year and only have 20% bill. 

They will have a lot of incentive to get below the tax payer this year if they can. 

We'll see, but I'm still doubtful. Crazy to think about around here, but the Rangers seem proud to be a big spender and wear it like a badge.

[bean5302]

23 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Not to go down this rabbit hole again, but there are ZERO owners of professional sports teams that lose money.  On the off-chance a team (like the Mets), tries to go negative cash-flow for a season, they will make it up in increasing overall value of the team.

The issue is not the Twins losing money.  The issue is that there is a profit line the Pohlad's refuse to go below.  A line they create that has been exacerbated by the idiotic television/marketing/public announcement decisions they have made over the last 12 months. 

I worked in executive compensation, business planning and investments for over 20 years. You don't appear to have even a rudimentary grasp on how businesses are run or why they're run that way.

The Pohlads have run the Twins like most owners have run their teams. It's not a matter of net value. In a very crude example, buy a house, but make no house payments for a year. Invest those payments into a kitchen remodel and a new roof. Then try to refinance and tell your mortgage company it's okay because the house went up in value.

I'm not going further on this, but I strongly suggest everybody who thinks cash flow or net operating income is not relevant to large businesses take a few weeks to really learn about finances. If you don't understand the basics of your life insurance policy or your retirement account or you don't think you could do your own taxes, take some time and learn all that stuff. Even if you don't think it helps you now or for 10 or 20 years, it likely will save you some enormous stress and sleepless nights down the road.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

I worked in executive compensation, business planning and investments for over 20 years. You don't appear to have even a rudimentary grasp on how businesses are run or why they're run that way.

The Pohlads have run the Twins like most owners have run their teams. It's not a matter of net value. In a very crude example, buy a house, but make no house payments for a year. Invest those payments into a kitchen remodel and a new roof. Then try to refinance and tell your mortgage company it's okay because the house went up in value.

I'm not going further on this, but I strongly suggest everybody who thinks cash flow or net operating income is not relevant to large businesses take a few weeks to really learn about finances. If you don't understand the basics of your life insurance policy or your retirement account or you don't think you could do your own taxes, take some time and learn all that stuff. Even if you don't think it helps you now or for 10 or 20 years, it likely will save you some enormous stress and sleepless nights down the road.

I love the internet, when you can be condescending and at the same time have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.  I am not going to post my resume, but needless to say my business grasp is slightly more than rudimentary.

First, using your example, making capital improvements on a property will most assuredly improve the value of said property.  You also must not understand the concept of flipping houses, as taking short-term interest only loans or balloon payment while you improve and then sell the house is extremely common.  But that is not really germane to this discussion.

There are only a few reasons to own a big 4 professional sports team.  One is status, another is sentiment, but mainly it is financial.  There is basically no other investment where the value of your business is guaranteed to rise, regardless of how you treat it.  In the case of the Twins and Pohlad, he got the team on the cheap in '84 for $44 million.  They had a few years of success (mainly 87-92), but were otherwise pathetic until 2000, when they were going to be contacted and receive $250 million.  The were fantastic for most of the 2001-2020 era, and as of 3/24, Forbes has the current value of the Twins around $1.5 billion.  They increased in value when they lost, they increased in value when they won.

You are right in the Pohlads run the team like others.  They run player payroll mainly as a percentage of income/net income.  Like I said, there is an income threshold they do not want to go below.  The Dodgers and Yankees bloated TV deals directly translates into those teams spending more on player salary.  But that percentage is arbitrary, not fixed.  Ownership showed that by pocketing the late TV deal money, instead of re-investing it into the Twins.

I have never said that cash flow or net operating income do not matter.  I am saying that you need to look at those items in conjunction with your overall return on investment, meaning business value.  According to your business acumen, a business that has a neutral or negative, cash flow but the overall value is a net positive every year is a poor investment.  That is insane, especially for the uber wealthy that do not require that net income to live off of.  

Lastly, team owners have a certain degree of civic duty when owning a team.  They know this when the join the fraternity.  Owners that spend money on the team and fan experience are loved, while cheap owners that look to squeeze every last nickel from the team are hated.

Back to baseball....