Twins coaching staff and front office meeting today

[cmathewson]

Twins do not give the customer the best product available because they dont spend nearly as much as teams that make as much as them. Over the last 4 years the Twins have been ranked 4th, 6th, 12th and now 15th in AVG home attendance. Which means over those 4 years they have been in the top 10 for AVG home attendance. But the funny thing is every year in those 4 years they have cut salary. They should be spending alot more than they are.

 

Hopefully they are just cutting the payroll while we are in rebuild mode then when all of our prospects are up and we are ready to contend they will get some top FAs and makes some Trades to give us a shot at a WS.

 

The Dodgers and Angels say Hi. Point is, you can't draw a line of causation between spending and product. There are plenty of correlations. But it doesn't make sense to spend money just because you have it. I think most Twins fans get this.

 

Besides Sanchez, there weren't a lot of free agents who A. we should have signed and B. would take our money. Though we should have signed Sanchez, he preferred to stay with a winner. So we had to make do. Not everyone here agrees with this, but the burden of proof is on them on the ways we should and could have spent the surplus.

 

Free agency is not like going to Target and spending your budget. It's more like an auction system where 30 teams bid on the rarest commodities. The difference is, unlike an auction, the commodities themselves can choose to take less money to play for a winner. The FO doesn't have control over that.

 

The real reason the product has lagged the last three years is a lack of good home-grown talent. With few exceptions, the team simply did not draft good quality pitchers between 2005 and 2009. We are seeing what happens when you fail to do that. Since 2009, that trend has reversed. So the future looks a good deal brighter than the present.

[Mike Sixel]

Joe, not sure your business background, but I'd guess the Pohlad's like most look for a return on capital invested. The new $25MM came way after they committed to any capital investment of the team or the stadium. No way they factored that into their decisions. The ticket prices, concessions, somewhat local tv/radio are driven by investments the TWins make. National TV? That's driven by big market teams spending money and generating interest in the game. This is found money....like, someone just handed them a bag of money for owning a team....they literally could run like the Marlins and get this money. It's the nature of the oligarchy they participate in.

 

As for the company the Twins run......they have fixed costs for marketing and sales....their only real variable cost is payroll. Now that MLB has put a cap on draft pick money and internationl FA money, the only real variable cost is MLB payroll. As they add $25MM in new revenue, if is isn't used on players, what would it be used on? They aren't going into a new line of business....they aren't adding a new distribution channel....they aren't adding a new anything, other than players.

 

So, ya, this is found money. Money that has no use other than players (unless they want to put more into the stadium, but if they do that, I'd wonder about their strategy.....I doubt improvements to the stadium would return as much as would improvements to the product at this point).

[Mike Sixel]

I agree with cmatt....the biggest root cause of the issues on this roster is their awful job of adding talent at the end of Ryan's first term as GM. Some of that is on Ryan, some on the scouts, some on ownership I'm sure.

[chopper0080]

so many threads where this could go, but I choose here:

 

Dave Cameron: Don’t think Morneau has any value, so no real conundrum there. They should move Willingham. Well, they should have moved him over the winter, really.

 

I would be totally ok with trading Willingham if I thought the Twins would be willing to sign a power bat in the offseason. However, history says they won't.

[PseudoSABR]

Gammons

 

GM:"Terry Ryan isn't going to trade Perkins without a big haul. They're going to be good quick. Best player in minor league ball(Buxton)...

 

Sano's already in double-A, and he and Rosario are on the fast track, they've got pitching coming. Terry doesn't make mistakes."

[howieramone1406390264]

Gammons

 

GM:"Terry Ryan isn't going to trade Perkins without a big haul. They're going to be good quick. Best player in minor league ball(Buxton)...

 

Sano's already in double-A, and he and Rosario are on the fast track, they've got pitching coming. Terry doesn't make mistakes."

I dare them to come on this board and say such things.

[drjim]

What credibility does Peter Gammons have?

[ashbury]

I would be totally ok with trading Willingham if I thought the Twins would be willing to sign a power bat in the offseason. However, history says they won't.

 

History says they signed Willingham in an offseason recently.

[cmathewson]

Gammons

 

GM:"Terry Ryan isn't going to trade Perkins without a big haul. They're going to be good quick. Best player in minor league ball(Buxton)...

 

Sano's already in double-A, and he and Rosario are on the fast track, they've got pitching coming. Terry doesn't make mistakes."

 

Terry makes plenty of mistakes. Fewer than Smith and most of the other GMs in the game, sure. But he has made plenty, especially in the bargain-basement free agent area. Here's a sampling of the signings he's subjected us to:

 

Jose Offerman, Pat Borders, Corky Miller, Brett Boone, Rondell White (twice), Tony Batista, Phil Nevin, Ruben Sierra, Jeff Cirillo

 

And that's just position players from the 00s.

[goulik]

Seems like payroll in the new stadium did go up.. Major League Baseball Team Payrolls 1998-2013

In million= 2013-95, 2012-95, 2011-112, 2010-97, 2009-65, 2008-56, 2007-75, 2006-63,2005-56

[Guest USAFChief]

Seems like payroll in the new stadium did go up.. Major League Baseball Team Payrolls 1998-2013

In million= 2013-95, 2012-95, 2011-112, 2010-97, 2009-65, 2008-56, 2007-75, 2006-63,2005-56

 

I'm not sure where the blogger you linked to is getting his info, but Cot's is almost surely a much better source for payroll info.

 

Your guy is off by a factor of $100M on the Dodgers, for example.

 

Cot's Baseball Contracts

[Brock Beauchamp]

Your guy is off by a factor of $100M on the Dodgers, for example.

 

*chuckles*

 

$100m is just a small clerical error, Chief.

[John Bonnes]

I'm not sure where the blogger you linked to is getting his info, but Cot's is almost surely a much better source for payroll info.

 

Your guy is off by a factor of $100M on the Dodgers, for example.

 

Cot's Baseball Contracts

 

FWIW, I think for the most part the figures in that web site are correct. They look to me like they were pulled from USAToday's tracking DB, which is widely recognized. The problem is that the 2013 numbers were never updated. They match the 2012 numbers exactly.

[IdahoPilgrim]

I'm not sure where the blogger you linked to is getting his info, but Cot's is almost surely a much better source for payroll info.

 

Your guy is off by a factor of $100M on the Dodgers, for example.

 

Cot's Baseball Contracts

 

Whichever set of numbers you use, I think his point is that payroll in Target Field is still well above payroll in the dome - whether taken as an average or compared year-to-year.

 

For myself, the fact that they bumped up payroll in 2011 when they (incorrectly) believed they'd be chasing the title shows they'll spend the money when they think it's warranted. It will never be enough to satisfy the critics, though. Forget the stadium issues - until we match Yankees and Dodgers TV revenues, we will never even begin to approach their payroll numbers.

[JB_Iowa]

For myself, the fact that they bumped up payroll in 2011 when they (incorrectly) believed they'd be chasing the title shows they'll spend the money when they think it's warranted. It will never be enough to satisfy the critics, though. Forget the stadium issues - until we match Yankees and Dodgers TV revenues, we will never even begin to approach their payroll numbers.

 

I find it difficult to extrapolate from 2011 until now because Bill Smith was the GM in 2011. I really see the end of Smith's tenure as GM and the rehiring of Terry Ryan as retrenching on the payroll front. Do I think payroll will rise from this year? Of course. I just don't have any faith that Ryan will ever push the envelope and, unfortunately, I think pushing the envelope and taking some risks (both on payroll & trades) is probably necessary to move a team from playoff caliber to championship caliber.

[ThePuck]

Whichever set of numbers you use, I think his point is that payroll in Target Field is still well above payroll in the dome - whether taken as an average or compared year-to-year.

 

For myself, the fact that they bumped up payroll in 2011 when they (incorrectly) believed they'd be chasing the title shows they'll spend the money when they think it's warranted. It will never be enough to satisfy the critics, though. Forget the stadium issues - until we match Yankees and Dodgers TV revenues, we will never even begin to approach their payroll numbers.

 

Again, the bump in payroll for 2011 was mostly for players already on the team getting raises (like Mauer's big one). They gutted the bullpen and middle IF and they didn't go hog wild on the FA market in an attempt to go for it.

[ThePuck]

I find it difficult to extrapolate from 2011 until now because Bill Smith was the GM in 2011. I really see the end of Smith's tenure as GM and the rehiring of Terry Ryan as retrenching on the payroll front. Do I think payroll will rise from this year? Of course. I just don't have any faith that Ryan will ever push the envelope and, unfortunately, I think pushing the envelope and taking some risks (both on payroll & trades) is probably necessary to move a team from playoff caliber to championship caliber.

 

I think it will be many years before payroll gets above what it is right now as we keep bringing up cheap talent and some of our expensive talent goes.

[Guest USAFChief]

Whichever set of numbers you use, I think his point is that payroll in Target Field is still well above payroll in the dome - whether taken as an average or compared year-to-year.

I

For myself, the fact that they bumped up payroll in 2011 when they (incorrectly) believed they'd be chasing the title shows they'll spend the money when they think it's warranted. It will never be enough to satisfy the critics, though. Forget the stadium issues - until we match Yankees and Dodgers TV revenues, we will never even begin to approach their payroll numbers.

I don't think I've seen anyone make the argument that payroll hasn't gone up at TF. Nor that the Twins should have payrolls similar to the Yankees or Dodgers.

 

There has been plenty of discussion about what the Twins payroll could--or even should--be. Justifiable discussion IMO.

[Mike Sixel]

We'll see what happens this next offseason....I'm prety sure they have 2 players under contract for more than $5.5.MM next year, two. Willingham and Mauer, that's it.

 

They have 7 players scheduled to make at least $1MM next year.

 

$24.5MM comes off the books next year, putting them below $60MM if they don't sign any free agents. Oh, and they get $25MM more in national tv money......meaning they have $50MM to play with, just to stay level with this year (or, if you want them to pocket 50% of the new money, $37MM).

 

The salary structure should be going up, just from baseball inflation (which is nothing like real world inflation), and the increase in national tv money, let alone the new stadium.

[JB_Iowa]

I think it will be many years before payroll gets above what it is right now as we keep bringing up cheap talent and some of our expensive talent goes.

 

You are probably right. That's why I wish the Twins would make it clear that they are "harboring" some of their savings now to be used later to go over the 50% preference. It is contrary to their business model but would seem to make some sense to me.

[ThePuck]

I don't think I've seen anyone make the argument that payroll hasn't gone up at TF. Nor that the Twins should have payrolls similar to the Yankees or Dodgers.

 

There has been plenty of discussion about what the Twins payroll could--or even should--be. Justifiable discussion IMO.

 

As if that matters...it more fun to bash the most extreme side of an argument, even if the extreme part of the argument was never made. Asking the twins to stick to spending 50-52% of revenue is EXACTLY like asking them to spend like the Dodgers and Yankees...

[cmathewson]

As if that matters...it more fun to bash the most extreme side of an argument, even if the extreme part of the argument was never made. Asking the twins to stick to spending 50-52% of revenue is EXACTLY like asking them to spend like the Dodgers and Yankees...

 

The problem is, we lack evidence. Is the current spending an outlier or part of a trend? The cynics are inclined to say it's part of a trend. The homers are inclined to call it an outlier. I lean toward the latter camp, but all I have to go on is the decade prior to this year, in which they spent close to 50% of revenue every year, give or take 5%.

 

I understand that's not good enough for some. And I accept that I'll never convince them until the Twins indeed spend 50% of revenue again. But I fail to see why they wouldn't do that. You have to spend money to make money. They will lose money if they are so cheap, they fail to field a winning team. That is the reality of the business.

[Mike Sixel]

The problem is, we lack evidence. Is the current spending an outlier or part of a trend? The cynics are inclined to say it's part of a trend. The homers are inclined to call it an outlier. I lean toward the latter camp, but all I have to go on is the decade prior to this year, in which they spent close to 50% of revenue every year, give or take 5%.

 

I understand that's not good enough for some. And I accept that I'll never convince them until the Twins indeed spend 50% of revenue again. But I fail to see why they wouldn't do that. You have to spend money to make money. They will lose money if they are so cheap, they fail to field a winning team. That is the reality of the business.

 

Like I said, we'll see if they sign $35-50MM of free agents next year.....

[Guest USAFChief]

They will lose money if they are so cheap, they fail to field a winning team. That is the reality of the business.

So spending = winning?

 

One page ago, you said this:

"The Dodgers and Angels say Hi. Point is, you can't draw a line of causation between spending and product."

[ThePuck]

Like I said, we'll see if they sign $35-50MM of free agents next year.....

 

There is no way they spend more next year than this year. With the money coming off the books, cheap minor leaguers coming up, no one due any significant raises, and Ryan's reluctance to go after expensive players, I can't see how it could be more than last year. Especially when you consider everyone else is getting that extra money too.

[Mike Sixel]

There is no way they spend more next year than this year. With the money coming off the books, cheap minor leaguers coming up, no one due any significant raises, and Ryan's reluctance to go after expensive players, I can't see how it could be more than last year. Especially when you consider everyone else is getting that extra money too.

 

At some point, it becomes a trend, not an outlier.....my guess is the homers (using the above wording) will state that next year is not the year to sign free agents, so we can't count next year as a reduction in spending as a % of revenue either (since it is my hypothesis that they will not increase payroll by $12.5MM, assuming they are at 50% now.............).

[old nurse]

So spending = winning?

 

One page ago, you said this:

"The Dodgers and Angels say Hi. Point is, you can't draw a line of causation between spending and product."

 

The statement that you have to spend money to make money is true. It is also is true that you can't draw a line of causation between spending and the product. I am shocked that someone of your rank can't see how both statements are true. The team has to spend to upgrade but it has to spend wisely. As usual, they will turn something up from the scrap heap.

[drjim]

I'll provide the obvious spoiler alert: payroll will be lower at the start of next season than it was at the start of this season regardless of what enhanced revenues they have.

 

The primary reason is that expensive veterans will be replaced primarily by internal options that will be making the minimum or inexpensive veteran bench bats or relievers.

 

They will sign a quality free agent or two but not enough to make up for free agent departures or players traded, and certainly not enough to make up gor the increased TV revenue.

 

 

The other issue is that there just aren't going to be enough good free agents for the Twins to spend their money on and there will be plenty of other teams with cash competing for that limited supply. The $25 mil the Twins get that supposedly should go straight to payroll will be there for all other franchises as well. There are not $750 mil worth of free agents hitting the market.

 

The good news in all of this is the team will almost certainly be better, perhaps even a fringe contender. But if you are basing your expectations for next year on payroll level you will be severly disappointed.

[johnnydakota]

Gonna need a link please.

 

I was referring to the game day posts (in game) where every one chats during the game.

[cmb0252]

There is no way they spend more next year than this year. With the money coming off the books, cheap minor leaguers coming up, no one due any significant raises, and Ryan's reluctance to go after expensive players, I can't see how it could be more than last year. Especially when you consider everyone else is getting that extra money too.

 

Have you seen next years free agents? I hope they don't spend that much on them. The group is horrid outside of Cano.