Article: On Terry Ryan, Truth And Gravity

[TheLeviathan]

Its one thing to try and still be bad and another to sit on your hands and fail. The twins were going to lose butts in the seats very soon without more effort. This offseasons spending could be argued as just as citical a financial down payment as a talent one. if we had repeated last season's inaction there was a strong chance public perception was going to sour terribly.

 

We may still finish fourth with this team next year but that doesn't mean our signings this year were bad moves. (One could flip some arguments here and conclude that) When your money maker is publicly financed and goodwill is critical to your profit margin, its not always about wins when you decide to spend.

[Mike Sixel]

The owner has said that a payroll of over $100MM is acceptable (esp. now that they get another $25MM in revenue, with no increase in expenses, it is all gravy)......so this whole line of arguing seems off to me. They clearly spent less money than they had available last year. So far, they are spending less money than they have available this year. All the other stuff is people arguing on message boards with insufficient information to draw rational conclusions (which was the whole point of the thread, ironically).

[jokin]

Did 10,000 more fans come out to watch Santana pitch on days he was sceduled other than opening days? 2000 per game more for Frankie V? There is absolutely zero historical basis for the idea there would be that great of an icrease of Twins fans coming out to watch a specific pitcher.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote, and the ongoing conversation that resulted in my posts? The qualifier, "potentially" was carefully and intentionally inserted for a reason- it's a hypothetical. Of course, the evidence you cited was based on a completely different set of circumstances, particularly an outmoded ballpark that didn't lend itself to expanded walk-up appeal on good weather days. And of course, baseball clubs are never mindful of ticket demand relative to appealing to the fans intense favorite player interests, vis a vis, marquis pitching matchups or players like Joe Mauer appearing in as many home games as possible, right Wise One? And all that PR talk from Gardy and Ryan to the media that they're ever-mindful about putting their best players on the field for home games for the fans who drove all the way from Wahpeton is just so much windage, right Wise One?

 

We do know that "premium pricing" exists for a reason, and has more than "absolutely zero historical basis for the idea"- that games that involve teams with more talent and more tradition create more demand for tickets, which allows higher prices to be charged. When the consumer walk-up ticket buyer has the discretionary option of attending a game pitched by Cole DeVries or a game pitched by Zach Greinke, it's pretty obvious where the stronger demand would lie. Would it be 10,000 more per game? Of course not, but again, we were using the extreme hypotheticals to flesh out the economics for the Twins in signing the top FA target of the previous offseason- a point that you so conveniently swerved right past in pursuit of your thread hijack.

[Major League Ready]

The owner has said that a payroll of over $100MM is acceptable (esp. now that they get another $25MM in revenue, with no increase in expenses, it is all gravy)......so this whole line of arguing seems off to me. They clearly spent less money than they had available last year. So far, they are spending less money than they have available this year. All the other stuff is people arguing on message boards with insufficient information to draw rational conclusions (which was the whole point of the thread, ironically).

 

How is “this line of arguing off”. Johnny made a very specific argument that they should have signed Grienke and Sanchez because they would have paid for themselves. We evaluated that premise listing all of the variables and assumptions. Granted, we would have had a more accurate profit contribution per fan number if we knew the gross margin for concessions and other products but the math does not fly even at 100% gross margin. We were able to basically boil this debate down to one assumption. That being the gain in attendance from signing these two players.

 

The one other assumption that was debatable was the use of an average ticket price to determine incremental revenue from ticket sales. As Kwak pointed out the addition attendance was more likely to be from “cheap seats”. I am sure the Twins FO has exact figures on the lost revenue opportunity and could calculate this rather precisely.

 

This specific argument is not if they have payroll capacity. Clearly, they do. However, using salary capacity is an very simplistic rationalization IMO. Capacity to act has little to do with the wisdom of an action.

[Mike Sixel]

We disagree. I think doing nothing much to improve a 95 loss team is a bad idea (indeed, they traded two starting OFers for 2 AA pitchers and Worley). I think given that they lost 95 again, shows that what he did did not help last year. It may or may not help this year, we'll see. It doesn't look like May or Meyer will help much this year, and if he believed Worely would, I'm not sure he'd be signing this much pitching. But that's a guess, maybe he does think Worley is good and will help this year, and he's signed this much pitching for some other reason.

 

We disagree that leaving money on the table is unlikely to make the team better, apparently. You believe not using your resources to get better is a fine strategy. I do not generally believe that. You seem to believe they are still 2+ years away from being good, I believe that if they spent anywhere near their budget, they could compete this year.

[PseudoSABR]

Too many are dismissing the good for the perfect.

[johnnydakota]

How is “this line of arguing off”. Johnny made a very specific argument that they should have signed Grienke and Sanchez because they would have paid for themselves. We evaluated that premise listing all of the variables and assumptions. Granted, we would have had a more accurate profit contribution per fan number if we knew the gross margin for concessions and other products but the math does not fly even at 100% gross margin. We were able to basically boil this debate down to one assumption. That being the gain in attendance from signing these two players.

 

The one other assumption that was debatable was the use of an average ticket price to determine incremental revenue from ticket sales. As Kwak pointed out the addition attendance was more likely to be from “cheap seats”. I am sure the Twins FO has exact figures on the lost revenue opportunity and could calculate this rather precisely.

 

This specific argument is not if they have payroll capacity. Clearly, they do. However, using salary capacity is an very simplistic rationalization IMO. Capacity to act has little to do with the wisdom of an action.

 

Just like the shinny new out door stadium , the fans of Minnesota want nothing more then to cheer for there teams , especially if the owners are willing to live up to there promises, signing both these guys would have driven up season ticket sales, and increased attendance, while i wouldnt expect them to go 29 -12

pitching with last years Twins defense, I would expect a 10-12 game swing directly from there efforts, and I would also expect the rest of the pitchers to step up there game,getting us to a .500 club and with that i would expect an additional 600-700,000 in attendance , maybe they wouldnt pay for them selfs, maybe ownership would have to cough up an extra 6-10 million per season...but to me it aint **** compared to having a chance to knowing your gona get bent over game after game..it also is ...they would ABOUT pay for themselfs

[Major League Ready]

Just like the shinny new out door stadium , the fans of Minnesota want nothing more then to cheer for there teams , especially if the owners are willing to live up to there promises, signing both these guys would have driven up season ticket sales, and increased attendance, while i wouldnt expect them to go 29 -12

pitching with last years Twins defense, I would expect a 10-12 game swing directly from there efforts, and I would also expect the rest of the pitchers to step up there game,getting us to a .500 club and with that i would expect an additional 600-700,000 in attendance , maybe they wouldnt pay for them selfs, maybe ownership would have to cough up an extra 6-10 million per season...but to me it aint **** compared to having a chance to knowing your gona get bent over game after game..it also is ...they would ABOUT pay for themselfs

 

An increase of 700,000 would get us back to 2010 levels. Are you suggesting that a 500 team would get attendance back to the level they were Target Field opened?

 

Of course, I was just taking this is an acedemic discussion to see if your hypothesis was reasonable. I think it would be a huge stretch to think it would make a 300K difference in attendance which equates to $15M. Of course, even this estimate requires to others assumptions that are very unlikely. One, the remaining tickets are of average prices. I tend to believe Kwak's suggestion that the remaining tickets have a value significantly below average. The even bigger assumption is that these guys remain healthy and perform at an elite level for the durationof thier contract.

 

In reality, unless I miss my guess, Grienke would not have been considered even if could have been persuaded to come here because it makes absolutely no sense for a rebuilding team, especially with the Twins revenue. The risk and performance/cost ratio simply do not make sense for the Twins.

 

Here is the test. Name a team in the Twins position (revenue & rebuilding) has ever signed the top FA starting pitcher. I have asked this question before. If this is a viable idea, where are examples. When fans are mad that the FO is not willing to make a move that other GMs have clearly demonstrated they would not make, the problem is the fan with a fanatical perspective.

 

Show me an example of a team in the Twins position, just one, and I will believe there is merit in signing the top FA starting pitcher where we were developmentally in 2012 or for that matter 2013.

[Mike Sixel]

MLR, are you suggesting that if no team has ever done something before, that it would not be a good idea for some team to do it in the future? At some point, someone was the first person to pay a player $1MM, or $5MM. At some point, someone was the first team to trade a proven player for a minor leaguer. At some point, lots of things happen for the first time in the world.

 

Now, arguing that signing the best FA pitcher, who some think will remain very good for 5+ years but is very expensive, is a bad idea, that's a different argument than you seem to be making. But maybe I'm not reading it right.

[Major League Ready]

MLR, are you suggesting that if no team has ever done something before, that it would not be a good idea for some team to do it in the future? At some point, someone was the first person to pay a player $1MM, or $5MM. At some point, someone was the first team to trade a proven player for a minor leaguer. At some point, lots of things happen for the first time in the world.

 

Now, arguing that signing the best FA pitcher, who some think will remain very good for 5+ years but is very expensive, is a bad idea, that's a different argument than you seem to be making. But maybe I'm not reading it right.

 

You are comparing milestones and accepted practices. They are two very different things. This has absolutely nothing to do with the premise you suggest. In this case, the opprtunity for clubs in the Twins position to sign the top FA SP has been present every year. Are you really suggesting the fact teams have not made such a transaction is NOT an indication that it is a bad practice.

[Mike Sixel]

For years teams thought walks were a weakness in hitters. We now know they were wrong (well, outside Cincy they know that). I am suggesting that if you think Greinke can be good for 4-6 years, as in, well above league average, that signing him last year was not necessarily a bad idea just because no one else has ever done it. If you don't think he'll be good that long, then I agree, the Twins should not have done it.

 

For years, in football, teams punted on 4th down. Now, in HS and some colleges, where real innovation takes place, there are teams not punting at all in entire games. Lo and behold, they get more possessions that way, and win more games that way. over time, I do believe that people become smarter about how games are played, and that strategies and tactics evolve. When and which players to sign for how much, I think that can evolve over time, yes.

[The Wise One]

Did you actually read what I wrote, and the ongoing conversation that resulted in my posts? The qualifier, "potentially" was carefully and intentionally inserted for a reason- it's a hypothetical. Of course, the evidence you cited was based on a completely different set of circumstances, particularly an outmoded ballpark that didn't lend itself to expanded walk-up appeal on good weather days. And of course, baseball clubs are never mindful of ticket demand relative to appealing to the fans intense favorite player interests, vis a vis, marquis pitching matchups or players like Joe Mauer appearing in as many home games as possible, right Wise One? And all that PR talk from Gardy and Ryan to the media that they're ever-mindful about putting their best players on the field for home games for the fans who drove all the way from Wahpeton is just so much windage, right Wise One?

 

We do know that "premium pricing" exists for a reason, and has more than "absolutely zero historical basis for the idea"- that games that involve teams with more talent and more tradition create more demand for tickets, which allows higher prices to be charged. When the consumer walk-up ticket buyer has the discretionary option of attending a game pitched by Cole DeVries or a game pitched by Zach Greinke, it's pretty obvious where the stronger demand would lie. Would it be 10,000 more per game? Of course not, but again, we were using the extreme hypotheticals to flesh out the economics for the Twins in signing the top FA target of the previous offseason- a point that you so conveniently swerved right past in pursuit of your thread hijack.

 

Potentially Kevin Correia can win 34 games next year and have an ERA of 0.02. Absurdity is what it is in a thread called truth. In all of the years that Santana pitched here with a more than half empty Metrodome, there was not a significant increase in attendance to watch him otherwise the Twins would have resigned him knowing they could recoup the cost. If you are making the claim potentially people will come out to see a pitcher for the home team and not when others pitch could happen it would behoove you to have an instance where it proved to be the case somewhere in the 30 team league in the last decade or so. Otherwise my statement on Correia stands without question.

[jokin]

Potentially Kevin Correia can win 34 games next year and have an ERA of 0.02. Absurdity is what it is in a thread called truth. In all of the years that Santana pitched here with a more than half empty Metrodome, there was not a significant increase in attendance to watch him otherwise the Twins would have resigned him knowing they could recoup the cost. If you are making the claim potentially people will come out to see a pitcher for the home team and not when others pitch could happen it would behoove you to have an instance where it proved to be the case somewhere in the 30 team league in the last decade or so. Otherwise my statement on Correia stands without question.

 

Missing the point completely seems to be your specialty, and blithely using reductio ad absurdum improperly seems to be your flawed method of delivery. Your argument flies in the face of logic, of a new outdoor Twins stadium, hardly worth dignifying even considering meeting the demand for evidence that you made, as clearly in your world, long-suffering Twins fans, as a group, would take no excitement in the breaking of all previous precedents- by signing the #1 or #2 pitcher in baseball- yup, they have the identical appreciation for this equational value for their sports entertainment dollar------- Cole DeVries/Pedro Hernandez start = Zach Greinke.....sure thing.

[JB_Iowa]

I wasn't a fan of them trying to sign Greinke last year primarily because of the timing but also because I'm just not a big fan of his.

 

But trying to pin all of this down in dollars and cents based on how many wins a pitcher may produce and how much $$$ each win will produce (or how many tickets it will sell) just seems like a ridiculous exercise to me.

 

As I recall, the Houston Astros were one of the most (if not the most) profitable teams in baseball last year ... despite going 51-111 and having an opening day payroll of less than $27m.

 

If everything just comes down to $$$, then obviously that is the way to go. Virtually no risk and great financial rewards. But I hope that ownership has a little more pride than that and a little more concern for the fans than that and is willing to TRY to put a reputable product on the field.

 

I still don't think they should have signed Greinke last year but I do think they could have afforded to do so.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, tone it down a bit everyone. There's no need to start getting snippy over this.

[johnnydakota]

I was suggesting that it would get us to 2011 attendence or more, let me ask you this,

would you like a rotation of Grienke, Sanchez,Nolasco, Hughes and Correia?

would you say that is a legit rotation top to bottom? well the only thing that keeps us from having it is money, (that wont be saved) that the shiny new stadium brought in

[Major League Ready]

I wasn't a fan of them trying to sign Greinke last year primarily because of the timing but also because I'm just not a big fan of his.

 

But trying to pin all of this down in dollars and cents based on how many wins a pitcher may produce and how much $$$ each win will produce (or how many tickets it will sell) just seems like a ridiculous exercise to me.

 

As I recall, the Houston Astros were one of the most (if not the most) profitable teams in baseball last year ... despite going 51-111 and having an opening day payroll of less than $27m.

 

If everything just comes down to $$$, then obviously that is the way to go. Virtually no risk and great financial rewards. But I hope that ownership has a little more pride than that and a little more concern for the fans than that and is willing to TRY to put a reputable product on the field.

 

I still don't think they should have signed Greinke last year but I do think they could have afforded to do so.

 

 

The debate is not about pride in product, if Grienke would perform at a high level for 6 years or anything else. A position was taken that this should have been a no brainer because these players would have paid for themselves. That was all I was debating and others offered good input on some of the variables. What is wrong with making an effort to fully understand the positions we take. Personally, I prefer to formulate my positions based on the type of exercise we did here. Anyone can cherry pick information to find information that supports their theory. That’s easy.

 

This might seem ridiculous to you or to others not accustomed to this type of analysis but this is a relatively simple exercise. The Twins FO has all of the information necessary to calculate the exact value of each additional fan. We have made assumptions for the contribution margin on concessions and products. They no doubt have that exact figure. We also assumed an average price for unsold tickets. The FO could produce the value of all unsold tickets. Actually, I am sure they have already calculated that value. In other words, this part of the calculation for them involves very little in terms of assumptions. They have all of the data for this portion of the analysis.

 

There are three values that are the productive of estimates.

 

The first is how many wins these pitchers would supply. Personally, this being a key variable, I would handle this using a most likely case scenario and then provide a profit calculation with best and worst case scenarios while keeping all other variable constant. This would provide a range as well as a solid estimate.

 

The second is impact of wins on attendance. This is easy to predict using win/loss and attendance date from previous seasons across the league and specifically for the Twins. Yes, it is an estimate but it would be likely. Actually, this would be an interesting question for Jack Goin. I would bet they can predict the impact on attendance with reasonable accuracy.

 

The third is a risk metric for under performance and injury. There is plenty of data based on previous FAs to provide a risk metric. That risk metric would need to be part of the most likely case scenario.

[goulik]

I would have no idea the full impact of a pitcher on attendance but I can affirm that I have chosen to pay for tickets to watch specific home team pitchers and avoided others. For example, I was a complete Radke Rube for a while and went to see him. Same could be said of Johan.

[JB_Iowa]

This thread is an example of one of the things that drives me nuts. The moderators around here do a superhuman job of trying to keep things on track and I am grateful for it.

 

But this particular thread was totally derailed by approximately 25 posts on whether signing Greinke and/or Sanchez could result in enough revenue to justify the contract. And what burns me the most is that it can't be proved one way or the other -- it is all hypothetical.

 

No one knows with certainty the impact that signing a free agent would have on the team or on the fan base. It is all entirely speculation. There simply aren't any FACTS on which to make the argument -- one way or the other. You can talk about average ticket prices, you can talk about concession sales, etc. BUT no one has any way of PROVING the impact that the player would have after what was then 2 losing seasons in an outdoor stadium that was less than 3 years old.

 

To the moderators, I'm sorry for being snarky about this but I am also angry that what started out as a wonderful philosophical discussion of the perceptions of the Front Office's moves this year has deteriorated into what we've seen the last 35 posts or so. And I am sorry that I made post #104 because all it did was add to the steaming pile.

[Kwak]

Perhaps there should be a limit on the total number of posts on a thread? After all, how many posts does one need to express their opinion on a specific thread?--there will be more threads in the future.

[jay]

The 2012-13 Offseason, the one that front office haters will forever hold dear.

 

Behind the 2017 WS title, you'll hear a few Twins fans proclaiming to other internet posters how this could have been 4 years ago if only TR would have spent his budget or been wise enough to understand the economic implications.

 

Signed,

Post #111

[Major League Ready]

This thread is an example of one of the things that drives me nuts. The moderators around here do a superhuman job of trying to keep things on track and I am grateful for it.

 

But this particular thread was totally derailed by approximately 25 posts on whether signing Greinke and/or Sanchez could result in enough revenue to justify the contract. And what burns me the most is that it can't be proved one way or the other -- it is all hypothetical.

 

No one knows with certainty the impact that signing a free agent would have on the team or on the fan base. It is all entirely speculation. There simply aren't any FACTS on which to make the argument -- one way or the other. You can talk about average ticket prices, you can talk about concession sales, etc. BUT no one has any way of PROVING the impact that the player would have after what was then 2 losing seasons in an outdoor stadium that was less than 3 years old.

 

To the moderators, I'm sorry for being snarky about this but I am also angry that what started out as a wonderful philosophical discussion of the perceptions of the Front Office's moves this year has deteriorated into what we've seen the last 35 posts or so. And I am sorry that I made post #104 because all it did was add to the steaming pile.

 

I am sorry but we don't agree at all on the relative degree of speculation. The speculation was removed by assuming these players maintined their performance level over the entire 5-6 years. Obviously, this is highly unlikely but there is nothing unusual about testing the best case scenario. It provides the potential upside once you determine the most likely case scenarion. If you add a worst case scenario, you know have the entire range of potential impact and can gauge the relative risk/benefit associated with the transaction.

 

The rest of the calculations are very basic financial analysis that is common in virtually every business. If done by a consulting firm, the supporting documentation would be 6-8 pages and very easy to validate. I just finished one for a $184M budget that required 88 pages to document and validate the findings. We would have more than adequate data to predict the financial impact of these acqusitions (assuming best case scenario for health and performance) if we were doing this on a consultative basis for the Twins.

 

Yes, it would assume performance but as I stated earlier it perfectly reasonable to assume performance and health as a best case scenario. From there it is subjective as to how much risk the team is willing to take. I am sure Jack Goin has data that would provide an accurate risk metric to calculate the most likely case scenario by adding the risk component. That calculation provides what should be expected. Very common stuff! Plus, any trade or prospect discussion is based on a speculative level of performance. We won't have much to discuss around here if we are to stop discussions that assume a given level of performance.