Pohlad Family Greed Killed the 2024 Twins

[TheLeviathan]

I am shocked at how many people in this thread want to carry water for billionaires who took public money and actively avoid investing in the product unless it suits them.

This article captures the root of the problem with both the Pohalds and funding for public education.  Didn't think I'd type that today....

[mikelink45]

I am overwhelmed by the comments. I don't really care what their budget is. What I want is good baseball. I want to see some speed on the bases, I want to see some good Fielding, and I'd like to see us utilize our players to their fullest extent. . But I can't get into the angst and name Calling that has taken over The comments here. 

[JD-TWINS]

6 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

Always complicated when you have a mediocre to bad ownership of a team. The "Cheap Pohlads" moniker probably got overused for a while, because we had a stretch recently where they were spending a realistic amount on the team, had landed a marquee free agent, etc. It's come roaring back this season...and it's hard to say that it's not deserved. Because while clearly there's a reckoning coming in baseball for teams reliant on local broadcast revenues...the Twins appear to have gotten ahead of the curve on this and rather than accept losses to contend, they started the "right-sizing" that a lot of teams of their ilk are going to be (probably) going through immediately. And very possibly before they actually had to.

They're almost certainly going to cry poverty in this off-season and claim losses from this season (without actually showing anyone their books, notably), but a) they don't have any credibility on this topic with the fanbase at all, and b) any losses from this season are at least in part self-inflicted. 

The Pohlad family is immensely wealthy, and they have a variety of business interests far beyond the Twins that generate wealth for them. This isn't a family ownership group whose only real source of wealth is the team. They certainly could operate the Twins at an operating loss for several seasons while the team has a roster capable of contending. Especially considering they had many, many years with payroll levels that almost had to have been generating profits on the club (no matter how they might have cooked the books) and the family.

They seem to be choosing not to, and that's out of step with the expectation for pro sports teams, especially ones that have received public subsidies with the Twins have been granted. And that's where this makes fans (rightly) crazy. $20M is an epic amount of money to me, life-changing in ways I can't even comprehend. To the Pohlad family, it's more like a rounding error. For the Twins payroll, $20M could have made a significant difference in the roster, ensuring they had a higher floor or ceiling. Maybe they get off to a better start or a less awful close and make the playoffs. There's no guarantee, but the odds increase a lot.

And if Falvey had that $20M to work with and they had a botch like this, I think it would be a lot easier to say "ya done effed up" to Falvey and told him to move on with Levine, because then clearly the issue would be beyond injuries and also about poor investments in free agents and/or trades. But with so few resources to work with...what did we expect? I didn't expect much from relievers like Staumont, Jackson, or Okert. My hope for this team was based more on improvement from younger players.

I don't disagree that the biggest share of blame goes on ownership for murdering this season. They cut everyone off at the knees for money. 

My hierarchy of failure:

1. Ownership
2. Players
3. Front office
4. manager & coaches

Bad year for ownership. Do they care enough about the fans and opinion to change it?

The “hierarchy of failure” is a concept I like because the level of responsibility doesn’t get lost in some narrative.

1) PLAYERS ……in mid-August they were 17 games over .500 with the roster the FO put together and the Manager/Coaches they had for 4.5 months and the level of spending Ownership signed off on through February. Correa had been out for a month already.

2) OWNERSHIP ……..when Ryan went down, after Paddack had gone down, there should have been a real starter option OR a recently acquired reliever to help shut things down when in a position to win. This needed to be anticipated and handled at the break ……,implementing/reverting to 2021 payroll in 2024 was a problem.

3) FO …….I spent a good chunk of the season sticking up for Margot and Santana and Farmer ……….Santana was a Good Acquisition as he POSTED daily & lead the Team in HR & RBI while playing fantastic defense. Vazquez played good defense and ended up tolerable at the plate after mid-June. Margot was OK or better v. LH pitching but his defense was sub-par ………due to all kinds of injuries…… even infield injuries that pulled Castro from OF availability……… also, ineffectiveness of Wallner & Julien ……..Margot was forced into action way TOO OFTEN v. RH pitching. He was not multi dimensional enough with the bat. Farmer was just rough (due mostly to shoulder issue) for 16-18 weeks and that turned out to be an unfortunate mistake signing. His bench presence and attitude couldn’t outweigh his lack of offensive performance.

4) MANAGER/COACHES …… too many details to cover here …….streakiness of success and complete malaise the group fell into late has to be combatted somehow. See #1 though for failure responsibility……, however, Tommy Watkins at 3B butchered up his job 4-6 times over a short 3 week period …..big problem! Batting coaches have been fired….. so there’s that …….

My slant …..maybe not popular but players hit, pitch, catch, etc. ………they are adults that have played the game from age 8 to 24 at a minimum (take responsibility for performance) ………….if the Players that make up the roster and the coaches that were in place through 4.5 months look GOLDEN (17 games over .500) to that point, how did what FO & coaches did over last 6 weeks screw up the Team so much that they couldn’t play level .500 ball?

[BH67]

52 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I am shocked at how many people in this thread want to carry water for billionaires who took public money and actively avoid investing in the product unless it suits them.

This article captures the root of the problem with both the Pohalds and funding for public education.  Didn't think I'd type that today....

Carrying water isn't accurate, but "caveat emptor" sure is. A business requiring subsidy to operate treats community spirit as a secondary concern at best.

And when student performance in public schools has stagnated or declined broadly across all races and socioeconomic strata since 1992, throwing more money per student in that direction is worthy of scrutiny.

We all have fixed perceptions of reality that drive our thoughts about making the world a better place and the Twins a better team. So the intention behind them is good, and I appreciate learning from yours, TL. Thanks.

[glunn]

Moderator note - TD posting policy allows vigorous debate but not personal attacks.

[Woof Bronzer]

 

6 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The Pohlads have made clear they won’t defecit spend on the Twins, and not wanting to lose money on a business is hardly a sign of moral turpitude.  

I truly do not understand this argument.  The Twins have literally made $1.5billion on the franchise for doing nothing.  They got a half billion dollar handout from the community for TF.  That's $2 billion dollars for doing nothing, and doesn't include operating profits.   Is $2 billion in pure profit enough to convince you that one of the wealthiest families on the planet would survive if they spent a little more money on payroll?  If not, what number would be enough for you?  

6 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

 Further decreasing the Twins revenue guarantees only one thing—the Twins payroll will continue to decrease.  So by all means, continue to act in ways that ensure the exact opposite outcome of what you profess to want.

Can you name one successful business in the world that operates until this philosophy of "hold customers hostage by refusing to improve your product unless customers give you a bunch of money for their crappy product"?  

[Woof Bronzer]

 

7 hours ago, Minderbinder said:

Simple solution, Cody.  Get Minnesotans to float a public bond issue to buy the Twins from the Pohlads and turn day-to-day baseball operations over to the Minneapolis City Council.  That would give you a respectable analogy.

Thanks for the dose of DFL-Pravda with my morning coffee.  No owners = no baseball.  Deal with it.

Comrade, this is like the 3rd straight post where you suggest turning the Twins over to the City Council.  We get it, you love communism, but we tried the communism once already by handing the Pohlads a half billion dollar subsidy - picking winners and losers, and all.  And we all know how that turned out.  

[Fire Dan Gladden]

And in other news of the obvious:

Water is wet!

[Western SD Fan]

42 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Can you name one successful business in the world that operates until this philosophy of "hold customers hostage by refusing to improve your product unless customers give you a bunch of money for their crappy product"?

Any current media company, bank, or food production company would fit your mold here.  I'm not here to argue the reasons why, just answering your question.

As for the ownership, they have been the only constant since Target Field has opened in 2010.  Again, if you refer to Sportrac for MLB payroll ranks since Target Field has opened (2011 is as far back as they go), you get the following ranks:  Average: 18.43, Mode (common ranks): 17th, 19th, and 23rd, and Median: 19th.  They have consistently operated in this range since the current FO has taken over and does not appear to change anytime soon.  If I was a MN resident, I would be livid as ownership lowered payroll after 2012 and has been happy in the doldrums ever since even though MN taxpayers have to foot the bill after being promised a competitive team if only, they built them a new stadium.

I, like many others on here at TD, were incredibly frustrated when ownership made a statement about "right-sizing" the payroll.  At first, I was understanding since the Twins were potentially losing a significant part of their revenue in RSN money. I just watched a YT video from Brodie Brazil pointing out that an average of 23% of a team's revenue comes from this source.  Given the cut in payroll, it almost looks like a similar amount.  Then they resigned for Bally for somewhere between $40-$50 million (as estimated by sources).  I once again had hope that they would spend some of the money they received for reupping with Bally, but no.  They had another chance at the deadline when it was reported by MLB that they would allocate up to $15 million to teams to try to get some trades moving.  While it is unknown how much the Twins would have received from this allocation, it's safe to say they could have done more than they did at the trade deadline and not hurt their own payroll allocation.

There is definitely plenty of blame to go around for this year's collapse.  The players didn't perform in the situations they needed to.  The manager and coaching staff inexplicable decision making and clear lack of communication to the players when it was apparent that they were heading for a collapse.  The FO failure to properly shop at the scratch and dent store of players.  Ultimately, the buck stops at ownership who failed all of us by not giving us the tools to believe in this team and now the direction of the organization.  We have all seen the letter penned by Diamondbacks ownership for the Jordan Montgomery signing and even Jerry Reinsdorf penned a letter to the White Sox fans taking some of the blame and promising to do better, and he is the most tone-deaf owner this side of John Fisher (maybe we have a new owner to claim that title 🫠).  This response to the season is John Fisher-esque stating to his team's fans: "We tried".  I tend to disagree.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

This may not be a popular opinion, but I am of the belief owners of big 4 sports team have a certain degree of civic duty to the cities and areas they play in.  Virtually every team is subsidized in some fashion by the local tax payers (think stadiums and arenas), 

I also believe perception is a HUGE part of this.  We, as fans, want to know that ownership cares about the outcome of the outcome of their teams as much as they do.  Reinvesting a portion of the TV revenue, making a reasonably cost move at trade deadline, other fan-friendly moves would have probably gone a long way towards rebuilding fan interest and faith.  It isn't always about winning the WS.  Don't publicly complain about a million here or there when you are swimming in billions.  It may be a solid reasoning, but we as fans do not want to hear it.

My biggest issue, the one I have been screaming about since last year, is just hold true to form.  When you say you are going to spend a % of income on salary, then you don't follow through, you deserve to get bashed.  $30m in tv revenue pocketed instead of $14m (or whatever the % is) reinvested would have killed a lot of this conversation.

Perceived effort matters. 

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, BH67 said:

Carrying water isn't accurate, but "caveat emptor" sure is. A business requiring subsidy to operate treats community spirit as a secondary concern at best.

And when student performance in public schools has stagnated or declined broadly across all races and socioeconomic strata since 1992, throwing more money per student in that direction is worthy of scrutiny.

We all have fixed perceptions of reality that drive our thoughts about making the world a better place and the Twins a better team. So the intention behind them is good, and I appreciate learning from yours, TL. Thanks.

I must've missed the part I was supposed to learn in demeaning this article as "Marxist".

We disagree that there is any "requirement" for public subsidy.  The Twins are under no strict obligation to consider the community, but they do so at their own peril.  As evidenced by the crowds at Target Field this year.

 

[BH67]

17 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I must've missed the part I was supposed to learn in demeaning this article as "Marxist".

We disagree that there is any "requirement" for public subsidy.  The Twins are under no strict obligation to consider the community, but they do so at their own peril.  As evidenced by the crowds at Target Field this year.

 

TL -- 

First, when Cody used the term "class struggle" in the context of his essay, that is factually the core of Marxist dialectic, not an opinion. I suspected someone might interpret that my use would connote my feelings thereon, but that's not why I used it.

And yes, the Pohlads wanted a new ballpark, and only a subsidy would make that happen, so it was required. I agree that such an attitude is perilous for them both for public opinion and profit, unless they sell the team. I commented as such in Matthew Taylor's article about shortsightedness. That attitude plus their apparent acceptance of mediocrity has drained my interest in following these Twins next year.

[Rufus]

KC, Cleveland  and Detroit all spent less money on payroll than the Twins.  It is not how much money you spend it is how you spend your money.  If the Pohlads were trying to make a bundle of money, they would have sold the Twins and invested the money in other areas.   The Pohlads expected that the Twins management would do their jobs and develop players and the players would do their jobs.  The players did not live up to expectations and management let them play sloppy baseball. . The Twins payroll is 47% of team income, which I believe is 6th in baseball.  the Yankees are at 46% of their income.  So tired of the Cheap Pohlad thing.   It is easy to spend other peoples money.   They did  sign Correa  to a big deal and that deal is going to be the biggest mistake in franchise history..  They now have him eating up a 1/4 of their payroll for the next 4 years as probably a part time player. So just going out and signing free agents don't work.  How did those dead line deals work out a couple of years ago?  They dealt away several top prospects and what did they get?  Who can blame the Pohlads for saying enough is enough, you get this much money,  You've got top prospects develop them.  So many of these players come looking  like future HOFers and within a couple of months look like little leagers,  the man problem with the Pohlads is they are too loyal.

[LewFordLives]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I just don't agree with the premise that "greed killed the Twins".  This team was almost a mathematical lock to make the playoffs as late as mid August. What happened after that will be the subject of continued dissection on this website. The Pohlad's certainly deserve at least some blame. The decision to slash payroll after the good vibes of the previous season was certainly curious. However, I don't see how that extra money would have prevented what happened.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Pohlad's. The entire contraction episode still stings. That said, their payroll has generally been league average, even when attendance was not. There are better ownership groups out there, and there are also much worse.

[NYCTK]

6 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I am shocked at how many people in this thread want to carry water for billionaires who took public money and actively avoid investing in the product unless it suits them.

This article captures the root of the problem with both the Pohalds and funding for public education.  Didn't think I'd type that today....

Uninformed masses cheering on a billionaire that doesn't give a **** about them? Nah, doesn't seem likely...

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Carl voted in favor of contraction, preferring to sell his team in a closed market sale to the league rather than an open market sale to the highest bid.
 

The league itself survives on Congress exempting it from anticompetitive law.

This was never some capitalistic heroism tale.

 

[beckmt]

One of the Twins problems is that times have changed around here.  There is competition for the sports dollar in this town and at the current time the Twins rank 4 out 4 major teams when it comes to fan support.  Wild and vikings(unless hopeless) were always going to be better, but now basketball has put a very good team for the fans to support.  Twins need to get the revenue stream figured out, but to get the fans to the park, they have to put a better product on the field. Or better leadership. 

Ticket prices for all sports are out of my range and the Twins are the cheapest of the 4.  But this club is boring.  They have still not caught up to what the other clubs have done.  Pitching is getting there, but the hitting approach sucks to say the least.  And that starts in the minors, not up here. 

[MesaTwinsFan]

As a Twins fan since day one I'm finally coming to the conclusion that when Carl P bought the team he acquired Calvin's book on economics and his children found it in the attic and secretly read it like a kid finding their older brothers Playboy. Just like the kids infatuation with the centerfold the brothers are still bonkers on how to scrounge a dollar and treat the fans like young kids and think they don't notice how real owners with significantly less resources can consistently put out a competitive  product.

[Johnny Ringo]

15 hours ago, glunn said:

Moderator note - TD posting policy allows vigorous debate but not personal attacks.

Let me premise this query to our moderator with a statement to all others:  I carry no water for ownership.  I don't think they are great owners, probably not even good owners but they aren't the devil either.   

Now the question: is it the view of TD and the moderator that the inflammatory title of this article, the contents of it and a prominent display of a photo of one of the owners does not qualify as a personal attack?  It is a serious question. 

Note to the TD writer: you might want to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. Just a thought. 

[Dave Borton]

12 hours ago, BH67 said:

First, when Cody used the term "class struggle" in the context of his essay, that is factually the core of Marxist dialectic, not an opinion.

The whole article was written as hyperbole to make his point: ownership failed to make good on deliverying anything other than mediocrity.

[Major League Ready]

16 minutes ago, Johnny Ringo said:

Let me premise this query to our moderator with a statement to all others:  I carry no water for ownership.  I don't think they are great owners, probably not even good owners but they aren't the devil either.   

Now the question: is it the view of TD and the moderator that the inflammatory title of this article, the contents of it and a prominent display of a photo of one of the owners does not qualify as a personal attack?  It is a serious question. 

Note to the TD writer: you might want to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. Just a thought. 

Players get slammed here as well.  The difference is that TD writers and posters often provide an array of statistics to support their assertions.  In the dozens of "cheap Pohlad" articles I have seen here, not once have I seen a writer or poster support their position with an objective measure.  This can easily be done by using percentage of revenue spent on payroll or payroll vs revenue rank.  Cheap is a relative term relatively easy to establish.  With all of the angst, not one single writer has provider the quantitative evidence to support their claims.  You would think someone would be anxious to provide that damning evidence.   

The dozens of articles proclaiming ownership is the problem would be far more substantive if they were backed up by objectives measures.  So, what do you say TD?  How about an article that compares Twins spending percentages to the rest of the league?  Let's see just how accurate these claims have been.  Then, we can rip into ownership from an informed point of view.

[Johnny Ringo]

1 minute ago, Major League Ready said:

Players get slammed here as well.  The difference is that TD writers and posters often provide an array of statistics to support their assertions.  In the dozens of "cheap Pohlad" articles I have seen here, not once have I seen a writer or poster support their position with an objective measure.  This can easily be done by using percentage of revenue spent on payroll or payroll vs revenue rank.  Cheap is a relative term relatively easy to establish.  With all of the angst, not one single writer has provider the quantitative evidence to support their claims.  You would think someone would be anxious to provide that damning evidence.   

The dozens of articles proclaiming ownership is the problem would be far more substantive if they were backed up by objectives measures.  So, what do you say TD?  How about an article that compares Twins spending percentages to the rest of the league?  Let's see just how accurate these claims have been.  Then, we can rip into ownership from an informed point of view.

I appreciate the comments sincerely. But I think the implications of this article are far more insidious than Joe Blow stinks at the plate. 

[Eris]

As a Twins fan for more than 5 decades, I have always understood that for the Twins to be competitive they have to develop talent. They could never compete with large market teams in FA contracts. There are multiple failures for this team related to drafting, trades, injuries, and on field performance. The list of players who failed down the stretch or were unavailable for large parts of the season would include almost the entire roster of hitters. It is hard to win with the level of offensive ineptitude exhibited by many of the players in September. 

For an unknown reason I’m not able to link the fangraphs search here. The list of players with 0 or negative fWAR for the final month of the season includes: Castro, Vasquez, Lewis, Lee, Miranda, Julien, Kepler, Margot, and Jeffers. This is the primary reason the Twins are not in the playoffs. If just 1 or 2 of these individuals would have stepped up during the final month of the season, the outcome would likely have been different. 
 

 

 

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, Johnny Ringo said:

Let me premise this query to our moderator with a statement to all others:  I carry no water for ownership.  I don't think they are great owners, probably not even good owners but they aren't the devil either.   

Now the question: is it the view of TD and the moderator that the inflammatory title of this article, the contents of it and a prominent display of a photo of one of the owners does not qualify as a personal attack?  It is a serious question. 

Note to the TD writer: you might want to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. Just a thought. 

Counterpoint: Eat The Rich 

[NYCTK]

55 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

How about an article that compares Twins spending percentages to the rest of the league?

Why the rest of the league? Why not a good owner. Every is well aware sports is full of bad owners. The old boys club of stupid, old boring billionaires that only get off by comparing their big number to their stupid old boring friends big number. 

Comparing the Pohlads to John Fisher and saying 'It Could Be Worse!' while true, isn't a defense. 

I find it hilarious the people here carrying water keep mentioning the AL teams to try to make their point...completely ignoring the NL which completely invalidates the point they're trying to make. Mets? Great owner investing in his team. Phillies? Ditto. Padres? Crazy good owner that sadly passed away and had to "right-size" as well and still have a payroll 40 million higher than the Twins in an objectively smaller market. 

Even the Royals and Guardians don't make the point. These two teams increased spending year over year in order to capitalize on what they thought was a window of opportunity. 

Defund The Pohlads. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Why the rest of the league? Why not a good owner. Every is well aware sports is full of bad owners. The old boys club of stupid, old boring billionaires that only get off by comparing their big number to their stupid old boring friends big number. 

Comparing the Pohlads to John Fisher and saying 'It Could Be Worse!' while true, isn't a defense. 

I find it hilarious the people here carrying water keep mentioning the AL teams to try to make their point...completely ignoring the NL which completely invalidates the point they're trying to make. Mets? Great owner investing in his team. Phillies? Ditto. Padres? Crazy good owner that sadly passed away and had to "right-size" as well and still have a payroll 40 million higher than the Twins in an objectively smaller market. 

Even the Royals and Guardians don't make the point. These two teams increased spending year over year in order to capitalize on what they thought was a window of opportunity. 

Defund The Pohlads. 

Because using all of the data in any given comparison is better than using only the data that supports a given point of view.  You find it hilarious that others ignore a set of data points and then suggest we only compare to certain examples.  The appropriate way to support a public proclamation that the Pohlads are cheap would be to compare their spending to every other team in the league.   Then we would know if they have been the cheapest relative to income or the 5th cheapest of the 15 cheapest, etc.  To date, not a single author that has asserted how terrible they have been has provided any objective measure so that we might actually understand how they rank them in terms of cheapness or greed or whatever label you like.   

BTW ... The Guardians top 5 players make the equivalent of Carlos Correa.  They spent virtually nothing on free agents and did not trade for an established players of any relevance.  They went from 76 to 92 wins which was the 2nd best record in the AL.  

[NYCTK]

19 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You find it hilarious that others ignore a set of data points and then suggest we only compare to certain examples. 

Nah man, I didn't ignore jack. 

Pohlads suck and the patriarch was a wicked man. Hope they're all miserable. 

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

 To date, not a single author that has asserted how terrible they have been has provided any objective measure

This work has been done many times for you to the best of the ability we all have as non-owners.  The truth is, when people do provide you what available evidence there is and it contradicts your narrative you choose to walk away from the conversation and then relight it again in a few days or weeks.  This is your dead horse and always has been.  You don't want objective measures of ownership and spending malfeasance.  You wouldn't accept them if they were provided.

Part of what makes that easy for you is the extent to which major league owners hide their revenues and profits from the public.  They do it to get weasely stadium deals.  To screw over the players in negotiations.  To protect themselves from such horrid ideas as.....*checks notes* not starving their minor leaguers and paying them poverty wages.

You know full well that a full accounting isn't possible and hiding behind that is tiresome.  If owners were losing their hat as much as you imply, sports leagues would have a much more difficult time expanding and finding new owners.  But, strangly.....they don't.  I wonder why.

Must be a sweet gig to build your business off taxpayers and then hide your revenues from those very same taxpayers while you cry poverty and get 20-40% of the fanbase/media to cover for you.

[thelanges5]

An owner for Joe the emulate? Can you imagine wanting a Joe Pohlad autograph🤣

 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

This work has been done many times for you to the best of the ability we all have as non-owners.  The truth is, when people do provide you what available evidence there is and it contradicts your narrative you choose to walk away from the conversation and then relight it again in a few days or weeks.  This is your dead horse and always has been.  You don't want objective measures of ownership and spending malfeasance.  You wouldn't accept them if they were provided.

Part of what makes that easy for you is the extent to which major league owners hide their revenues and profits from the public.  They do it to get weasely stadium deals.  To screw over the players in negotiations.  To protect themselves from such horrid ideas as.....*checks notes* not starving their minor leaguers and paying them poverty wages.

You know full well that a full accounting isn't possible and hiding behind that is tiresome.  If owners were losing their hat as much as you imply, sports leagues would have a much more difficult time expanding and finding new owners.  But, strangly.....they don't.  I wonder why.

Must be a sweet gig to build your business off taxpayers and then hide your revenues from those very same taxpayers while you cry poverty and get 20-40% of the fanbase/media to cover for you.

Bulls#!%.  The payroll numbers are a matter of public record.  I would suggest something like Statista for the revenue ESTIMATES.  Yes, they are estimates but reasonably reliable and unbiased.  I would be happy to accept numbers from any reasonable unbiased source but there has never been a reasonable attempt made to compare the percentage of revenue spent on payroll.

Show me an example where a TD write provided any reasonable attempt to compare the Twins spending percentage with the rest of the league.  Show me just one article that actually provides a revenue vs payroll comparison of the league.  TV revenues are reported for every team and the national TV revenues are provided from public companies and therefore relatively easy to attain.  The gate receipts are an estimate but it's not all that difficult to estimate those revenues within 10%.  Companies like Statista make a living putting together these estimates.  It would not be difficult at all to put together with a Statista subscription.