Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Leaderboard

  1. Hosken Bombo Disco

    Hosken Bombo Disco

    Community Leader


    • Points

      13

    • Posts

      14,754


  2. Squirrel

    • Points

      9

    • Posts

      30,904


  3. rdehring

    rdehring

    Verified Member


    • Points

      8

    • Posts

      2,386


  4. ashbury

    • Points

      7

    • Posts

      34,834


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/13/2020 in all areas

  1. You may call them greedy bastards. I expect the truth is that they are fighting for their survivals and for most, baseball is a small part of it. The Pohlad Companies have a major interest in many businesses. Two of the largest are United Properties and auto dealerships. Has anyone checked how many cars have been sold of late? Well, in Minnesota it is either none or very few. No one knows when those businesses will return to normal, whatever normal in the future is. Another major company is United Properties. Do you know that United has a major investment in senior housing? With most of the deaths in Minnesota coming from senior, nursing and assisted living housing, they are faced with a nightmare working to combat the virus attacking and killing many of their residents [i don't know if any of these have occurred in housing owned by UP]. Regardless of any deaths, the costs they are facing are huge as they battle these outbreaks in this type of housing. As for the rest of United Properties holdings, don't know how many tenants in commercial buildings aren't paying rent, but it doesn't take many to turn a profit into a loss. As for their hotels, expect they are closed with no income and lots of continuing expenses. That's the world those greedy bastards are in today. Thanks to Sconnie, we know that their average ticket price last year was $57. If they have zero fans in the stands during the last half of the normal season they would lose more than a 1,000,000 fans. So their revenue will be reduced by at least $57,000,000 for those 41 games. That doesn't take into consideration the other revenue related to those games that will also be lost, such as concessions. Yes, they won't have their normal game day expenses, however, they will have a lot of new expenses related to dealing with the virus and keeping the players as safe as possible. I believe I have seen that their revenue last year was around $250,000,000...someone can get this exact number. So half a season would have been $125,000,000. The $57,000,000 plus other game day income is probably at least half of their normal revenue. I don't know how to respond to those who believe it is realistic, much less fair, to expect them to lose half of their revenue yet pay 100% of their largest cost, player salaries. Like every small, medium and large company in America, the Pohlad Companies are fighting a battle to both deal with the effects of the virus as well as the survival of their businesses. I pray that they and the other owners will be realistic in dealing with the players. However, the players also have to understand that the world has changed and be fair in their dealings with the owners. If neither side is prepared to be reasonable, we won't have baseball. Personally, I am running out of books to read and really want to turn on the tv and see the Twins play whomever.
    4 points
  2. Bill James brought this up in his (I think) 1986 Baseball Abstract. It ain't strategy if everyone does it. It is a rote tactic. The pitcher is coming up to the plate late in the game so you pinch hit, or if the pitcher is up and he bunts. He showed there was a lot more "strategy" in the American League because the choices were much more varied (the standard deviation of bunting, pinch hitting, sacrificing, etc) in the American League vs. the National. Having the DH gave the manager a wider range of tactical choices than in the National. But his other point is why do people think "bunting" is such a big strategic concept?
    2 points
  3. Scholar and a gentleman
    2 points
  4. rdehring - Way too much logic and common sense for an discussion like this, and you could have added the stock market is down around 20% (which I think owners have quite a bit of money in)
    2 points
  5. Great comment, diehard. But there is one point in which I believe you are wrong. There will be no profits in baseball this year. What the owners are attempting to do is reduce their losses. Every action they are taking deals with this, such as reducing the draft to five rounds with 90% of the signing bonuses deferred for a year or two. That doesn't change the accrued loss for this year, but it does save each team several million dollars of cash-flow. I think they are approaching it in the wrong manner and should be negotiating what percentage of their regular game day salary each player receives. That is much easier for the players to get their hands around. Each player would know what he was playing for if the offer was 67% of his normal pay versus 50% of whatever the total revenue is. Expect that is where they will end, hopefully, it won't be too bloody to get there.
    2 points
  6. There are a lot of very good points on both sides of this thread, and I'd encourage everyone to try a bit harder to listen to each other here. I do think there are solutions, but it's likely going to be a compromise on both parts... and I agree... both sides need to tread carefully here, because doing 2020 wrong will likely mean no 2022 (and I'd argue that not playing in 2020 could still mean not playing in 2022). From an owner standpoint, I think this is a hurt a bit more by the fact that you have a huge disparity in revenue across teams, something you don't see in the NFL. The Yankees, Cubs, and Dodgers can literally print money, but the sport as a whole is going to be hurt badly if teams like the Marlins, Rays, and Pirates fold.. I'm not sure we should be rooting for that b/c that will ultimately lead to the death of a sport that we all love. Owners have already basically set a stop loss of 170M... I do think we forget that like any human being, they are likely not going to be too terribly interested in a season if their losses mount higher than that... That's even more true for smaller market teams, because what will likely happen is teams like NY and LA being profitable over the rest of the MLB landscape... That's why I really think some sort of temporary revenue sharing with the players getting the lions share of the profits is the best course of action personally... as long as everyone profits, I think it bodes well for a long term prospects of the sport since baseball in 2020 is likely to bring in a lot of new fans that would otherwise not give it another look... not to mention that this tells they players "we are in this together"... but that requires both sides to set down their agendas... Bottom line, I think the smart play is for everyone to put those issues down and try and find a way to play in 2020 where players are getting as much of their salary as possible while owners are breaking even or taking a small profit. It would require teams like NY and LA to share revenue they don't normally share... and I think that in particular is where the real problem sits...
    2 points
  7. Despite being a life long Twins fan, my viewing of baseball on TV was regulated mostly to Cubs, Braves and Mets games in my youth as my cable provider carried stations with these teams. I always found it frustrating and disappointing to watch pitchers flail at the plate. And I always have laughed at the "strategy" of inserting a PH in the 6th or 7th inning with a possible rally. That's not intelligent strategy, it's putting in a better hitter. Even in the AL that is done. I read an article, many, many years ago that discussed the differences in the AL vs NL game. The NL had the reputation as being a more defense minded league who played more to speed and situational hitting. (Things I enjoyed and still do). The jist of the article is the NL teams largely played in larger parks than their AL counterparts, and also had more turf fields vs grass. Thus they adapted their game as such. Everything from ballparks to hitting approaches have changed over the years. The entire bunting, SB and situational hitting format of years past has changed. Its time for a universal DH. Let pitchers pitch. Players aren't expected to pitch, so why must pitchers be mandated to hit? I've always felt AL teams in NL parks were at a disadvantage. While the arguement can easily be made that NL teams, at this time, are not necessarily equipped with a quality DH option, they are still replacing a generally poor hitter with a better one. Further, they may have a poor defender playing a position for his bat, but can let him DH in favor of a better fielder taking his spot against an AL opponent. It's time to make this a universal change.
    2 points
  8. I spent 25 years evaluating strategies for large companies. Never did one base their expectation or desire for profits on previous earnings, That concept gets batted around frequently by fans but it has no basis in reality in the real world. We could make the same type of statement about players. Their compensation is absurd relative to the rest of the world and we have no problem when they look to maximize their earnings. Somehow the same logic is not followed when assessing the actions of owners.
    2 points
  9. Trov

    Player Opt-outs

    While we think about if a season happens or not. I started thinking about the opt out clauses by players, and what they will do. I tried to do the research, but did not find much to get exact numbers, but believe most players will typically opt out of deals. So many over the past decade would sign the big seven plus year deal with a three or four year opt out. Many would opt out giving up money betting on fact they can earn more over that same period or at least get deeper into thirties and secure money. However, with so many questions of what future looks for not just this season but seasons to come for full ballparks. This will vastly affect the budgets for teams and how much they will pay players. If games need to be played at 0 or half capacity, that will cut what teams earn. Teams never expected something like this so it was not planned into future budgets. So how will that affect teams on what they will be willing to pay? I bet at least for next year or two much less long term deals and much less money attached. What that means is I expect the three players with opt out clause will opt in, or I would advise them too. Stanton, Martinez, and Castillanos all have options to opt out. Castillanos is and odd one as he signed a long term deal with a quick opt out, so not much historical data on how that would come out in normal year, and it would most likely depend on how his season went. Lets assume he does well, if a season is played. I would still argue he should stay with contract. He would have three years and 42 million left. I doubt any team would be willing to take on that much risk at this time if there is a chance states will not allow parks to get filled. Martinez had opted in last year and I bet he would have chose to stay with current contract, as last time he was FA Boston was only team really bidding. Stanton he would be the real question. He signed a huge deal that had he performed at his normal level he would opt out in a heart beat and sign an even bigger deal, but he has been injured a lot. Also, he has seven years and 214 million left. I strongly doubt he would get a 7 year 214 million deal next off-season. Similarly, I wonder how many teams will give qualifying offer and how many players would take it. For years players turned them down, until recently. I think very few teams will extend one and just hope to sign player, and I think if extended many players would take them. As stated I doubt few long term deals will be reached when projected budgets will be hard to factor in. Along same lines not many other teams will be willing to give up draft capital if the draft gets limited again to 5 or 10 rounds as has been discussed. Overall, I expect some interesting decisions for players and teams when it comes to long term deals over the next season or two.
    1 point
  10. no matter how greedy they are, business people understand that there is immense cost to renegotiating prior agreements, especially with a new CBA so close.
    1 point
  11. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/after-years-of-profits-mlb-owners-ask-players-to-subsidize-potential-losses/ The short version: The owners have made larger and larger profits over the last few decades, while the percent of revenue spent on players has gone down. NOW that they will lose money, or make less, they want the players to take a hit.....while not giving them more the record profits in previous years. Those arguing the players should give this year, do you expect owners to give more money in future years when revenue goes up? I mean, they don't do that now.....
    1 point
  12. The Angels play in Orange County.
    1 point
  13. You may be right about that... I don't know. I doubt any of us know what the non-player salary operating costs total per team and how much of that has been shaved off. Using the 52% number for salaries, which is really a Twins thing, I'm guessing your additional operating costs are likely around 30% leaving 18% for profit... That's completely a number I'm pulling out of nowhere, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'm also guessing that number (dollar figure, not percentage) is pretty similar across all teams.. As such, I think large market teams are still likely profiting to some extent while everyone else is not... That's my back of the napkin math, but I'd also guess that if they did revenue sharing that those teams could likely float baseball to pretty close to break even for 2020 while paying most of the players.. but ultimately you may be right. I'm still arguing at the end of the day that baseball would be best served to do a one time revenue share across all teams and do everything possible to give the lions share of whatever remaining profit to the players. To me that's the ethical thing that an owner should be doing so as to ensure the sport goes on and that no one takes a massive loss.
    1 point
  14. I enjoyed the Dozier videos. Guy was hot and cold but awesome when hot. Wish video had included the base hit he got off the end of the bat that landed foul and spun back fair. Couldn't find it anywhere.
    1 point
  15. The fact that the players do not want to be in a city they would need to rent a place. That was one of the major things I read players did not like about the AZ FL plans. They would be away from their homes and family for months with little to no chance to see them. Sure they could try to bring family with them, but that means uprooting their family as well. I know I would not be happy to have to be away from my family for 4-6 months I was not expecting. Also, the additional cost of having to have a second home in the short term home area. Travel is not an issue of safety, as they charter planes anyways so only team and team officials would be on plane, but an issue of time. With having less off days, this would be less travel days, so reducing the distance on the plane helps. I mean you can have 9 game road trip and between the travel sites never get on plane if you do Milwaukee, Chicago, Chicago trip. Fly to one, that takes an hour, then bus between Milwaukee and Chicago takes like an hour to two. Also, I wrote in another comment in the past that the home place is not just about fans, it is about the team set up for the park. Our team is set up to allow fly balls, but we are in a park that tends to be little in favor of that, not like some but much better than others. Imagine if we had to play all our games at Yankee stadium, not that it would be likely, just using as example. HR fly out of right field like none other. There are many other HR friendly parks that would not serve well for our pitchers. May be better for our hitters, but you build your team with fact that 81 games should be played in your park.
    1 point
  16. I can't see Plouffe being better than Sano but it's hard to put Cruz in there on one season. I guess there was not much else to choose from but you could put Sano at third and let Garver be the DH. As far as Buxton, we are still going on potential which has only shown itself in one season. I really liked Escobar and am sorry the Twins traded him.
    1 point
  17. The current situation is not the same as a strike or a lockout. I don't think revenue in the coming years will be affected whether they play this year or not.
    1 point
  18. Something I don't get is if there aren't going to be fans, why is it important for the games to be played in the home stadiums? Even with sticking to only playing teams in the same region, that still seems like a lot of extra needless travel.
    1 point
  19. My guess is once every NL fan has a year or two to get accustomed to the DH they'll never want to go back.
    1 point
  20. Good way to look at it. Also, if Cruz plays this year he might also play 90% of the games.
    1 point
  21. Bravo! Finally someone looking at this logically rather than emotionally. I was listening to MLB radio yesterday and they were waxing on about how the players should not have to take anything less than full compensation. My first thought was along the same lines as your first sentence. Passing judgment without even knowing the numbers demonstrates a point of view developed from bias. Normally, we could estimate revenue pretty accurately. In this case, we don’t know when or if fans will be allowed to return. The Twins TV Revenue is roughly $40M/yr or roughly 15% of last year’s revenue. Of course, there are other sources outside of attendance but gate receipts have to be in the neighborhood of two-thirds of the team’s revenue. No fans equates to total revenue of less than $50M for the Twins. Am I missing something? Half of player salaries would be $70M plus whatever it costs for travel and other operating costs. There is no chance owners are going to accept an agreement that potentially increases what they have already lost this year. I don’t think the player’s hang-up is the 50% number. Best case scenario is fans return in limited number for what would be the last quarter of the season. Accepting a revenue split would mean players would very likely take a substantial pay cut. From an owner’s perspective, it is highly unlikely a 50% revenue share will produce any profit. I would assume their desire to play this year is motivated by long-term concerns starting with maintaining fan support.
    1 point
  22. thirty some home games. It is entertainment money.It is not like they would have other baseball nearby. The revenue would go somewhere locally. It would as likely get spent somewhere locally. A college with campus classes is a far different thing than entertainment dollars. Far different in the local labor needs. The college has 115 administrative staff. Buildings and grounds crew. as there are more buildings and grounds There is more support staff for athletics than a minor league team. A closer example would be the circus not coming to town. What economic impact would the Badlands Big Sticks have on Dickinson?
    1 point
  23. I don't know who deserves to be shamed here, because I don't know the numbers. When parties are at an impasse, sometimes the solution is to expand the deal. Revenue sharing seems to work in other sports. Maybe the answer is to go to revenue sharing for three years, perhaps with the players getting 55% this year, then 53% next year and then 50% the following year. . Another solution would be for the owners to give any profits for this season to the players. This would make sense to me as an owner, because otherwise I will probably be facing a loss. In one of the worst years ever, if I were an owner I would consider any deal that allows me to merely break even. And an owner facing a $10 million loss would still be better off with a $5 million loss. I wish that we knew the numbers. I hope that the owners are sharing their projections with the players. If not, then shame on the owners.
    1 point
  24. I expect that there will be little to no independent minor league ball this summer. Even if some leagues do operate there will be way more players hoping to play than there will be roster spots. But in any case I think you are right about the free-for-all for those players if things are more or less back to normal by the off-season. I'm pretty sure they will all be free agents under the current rules.
    1 point
  25. but then why make that deal? It doesnt make sense
    1 point
  26. I probably should have clarified my comments in regard to some pushback by agents like Boras and other rumors that have been put it there. In truth, we don't have all the financial details. The owners won't open their books and I don't know if they should or shouldn't. I guess my point is an agreement was reached based on information/speculation as it was known at the time. I am not against the players and a flat proration of salaries at all. But if new information shows a very different prospectus for income/lost income, then I can see the point of owners wanting to open up conversation again and basically say; "look guys, when we talked about this a couple months ago projections were X. We now see an entirely different set of numbers we didn't anticipate at the time that shows Y." Every business has bottom lines they have to look at for the profitability and health of their business. My own company is privately owned and doing a great job for all their employees. But they are also capping salaries, bonuses incentives and the such to make sure everyone is taken care of and the company stays healthy. I don't know if the owners of my company are billionaires or multi millionaires, but they are very wealthy. But my company is only a single entity under their corporate umbrella. That means overhead and thousands of additional employees they are responsible for. The billionaire owners of MLB franchises are in a similar situation. Do the owners have some sort of catastrophic insurance to offset losses from the pandemic? I don't know. Maybe they do. I find myself somewhat dubious that even if they do, it fully offsets projected losses. And if they are playing games with the players to squeeze out a little more, then shame on them. (Especially with a new labor agreement due in the near future). But if there are honest new numbers that have come to light, then I understand them going to the union and stating as such and hammering out a different arrangement for everyone's sake. I hate to say this as I want everyone to play nice always, for the good of the sport we all love, but I hope the owners are being honest and the players will be open minded.
    1 point
  27. I have two people who have both said the same thing to me regarding the 2020 season, though in different phrasing: "If 2020 happens, 2022 won't." There are more than 50 players known who will refuse to play in any proposed scenario out there right now. That's all levels of players. There are parks that will not be allowed to even host games empty, let alone if they try to put any fans in the stadiums, due to their state laws. On top of all that, owners have been so heavy-handed in these negotiations that players are done with it. They don't want to talk 2021. Right now, there should be a dual discussion on making a 2020 season right and working on concessions to middle ground for the 2021 CBA negotiations. Instead, owners are essentially telling players how it will be. Those that own baseball teams are about to cost the game a season of baseball. It's as illogical as it sounds, but it's true. I'm not sure if there's a more obvious sign of just how out of touch the voices running the league truly are...
    1 point
  28. maybe with some time off in ‘20 he’ll hold up better on the backside of the contract?
    1 point
  29. Willie Keeler. "Wee Willie" was 5'4", 140 lbs. He hit .424 in 1897.
    1 point
  30. From the proposal submitted by MLB I do not expect players to agree today. I think they will come to an agreement, but as the players union president stated, the 50/50 split is a salary cap, something that has been sneaking into baseball with luxury tax, but players have been against since FA started. So they will not just say yes. However, if the alternative is no money, that is hard to swallow for players. Sure many would be able to survive for a year without getting paid, if they planned ahead. Not many people expecting to get paid plan to not too though. For the people that just want the owners to pay full prorated contracts and most likely lose millions of upon millions of dollars, because they can afford to, you most likely have never owned a successful business. The owners do not own teams because they are willing to lose money. Sure, some owners make so much money with other business and willing to just break even for wins, but those are also when owned by single owners. Most teams are owned by groups with a main owner. Many of the minority owners will not say, hey it is fine if I lose millions this year. Business do not live long if being operated in red for extended periods. I think both the players and owners should think about the "regular employees" that need the paycheck and what a full no season would like for them. Already, many employees are not working and won't work even if a season does start with no fans. Many teams have agreed to pay these people for now, but for how long? If owners need to pay players more that may make employees get laid off. Overall, the owners always hold all the power. They can just say no season no one gets paid go find a day job, to the non-superstars that have already been paid. It always comes down to the owners on if baseball happens. They do it for money, not charity. They do it get our money to put in their pockets. They need the players to have a product, but this day in age, this is not the owners main source of income, but a side job. Players have grabbed a lot of power for themselves with having no salary cap, but the owners could shut it down completely if they wanted to. I am not saying either side is right or wrong to want what they want. I am just point out who has the real power, but as these two side fight over money, it affects many people that need their paychecks. Owners want to make money, so do the players. For that to happen they need each other.
    1 point
  31. The easy knee-jerk reaction would be to say "1965, duh!" but of course that '69 team was great, and looking at this it's a wonder how the '67 team didn't fare any better than 91-71. Seems appropriate there was a mid-season managerial change. Jim Kaat was snake bit that season. Somehow the Twins were just 17-20 in games he started. In late August of that year, Kaat gave up one earned run over eight innings in back-to-back starts and the Twins lost both of them. Ugh. Seems like it was just a year where nothing synced up like it could have.
    1 point
  32. Proposing to base salaries off revenues is a joke. I'm shocked the owners have the nerve to even go public with this.
    1 point
  33. Concur. The rationale for why players don't get an even bigger share of the pie than they do, is that "the owners incur all the risk." So now in 2020, out of the blue and without warning, the risk turns into an actual decrease in revenue that may have lasting implications or may sort itself out by 2021. Instead of covering the shortfall, the talk is immediately about give-backs, and plenty of fans are on-board with the billionaires, whom they can identify with so much more readily than with the millionaires. What exactly is the value-proposition the owners bring to the table, again? They are acting like glorified CPAs, informing the players how the books look. Accountants aren't generally the highest paid employees in an organization.
    1 point
  34. And someone playing a game for tens of millions of dollars also has enough money. But that isn't the question. Yes, some or even many of the owners were billionaires. But I suspect many, if not all, are taking hits on some or even most of their other investments. Whether they can afford to take a hit isn't the question. It is whether they want to. And I repeat something I don't know to be true but is probably likely, losses of $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 may put several teams into or on the verge of going bankrupt. I know you won't agree, but I am of the opinion that in a time like this you can't expect only the owners to take a big financial hit while the players get 100% compensated for the games played. Even if the players agreed to a 50% cut of their per game salaries, the owners will still lose money this year...a lot of money.
    1 point
  35. The Twins have claimed to operate on a model that calls for investing 51% of revenue into payroll. We all know that wasn't happening from 2012 through 2016 or so (at the very least). You tell me where that money is going. I dunno. I would assume back into the Pohalds' pockets. To my knowledge it didn't go to employees or charity. And no, I would not say it is the same thing as what you laid out, since MLB owners are billionaires by rule (restaurant and small business owners not so much) and baseball teams by nature have extremely variable spending patterns. The Twins for example were slated to spend about $60M (70%) more on payroll in 2020 than they did in 2014. Do you think they were planning on 70% more revenue? In any case, I don't think it's appropriate to treat this situation like business as usual. To be frank, I believe that ultra-rich people and billionaires should be making sacrifices in all phases of society right now. I understand that baseball players are also generally quite rich, but much less so, and they are assuming ALL OF THE RISK in this scenario. If you disagree with my basic philosophy here that's fine, but it's how I feel.
    1 point
  36. I'm not sure what guarantees for revenue exist in MLB. I mean, in the NFL, for example, they negotiate a perecteage of total revenue to be paid to players. I'm not sure that exists in MLB. I want to say, in this circumstance, players are always pro-rated by games played. But is that flat based on TV/radio revenue or is there some clause that equates to total revenue based on gates and parking and food and drink, etc? Don't have a clue. Glad I'm not in charge. At the end of the day, we're still talking about a business. And all business is affected at this point. There is going to be a big loss in revenue and salaries. They just need to come to some sort of compromise. Even in a multi-billion revenue sport, there is going to have to be an acceptable loss in both sides. Sounds simplistic, but part of something is better than all of nothing.
    1 point
  37. I read about this a few weeks ago. In that article, there was a mention of some language in the prior deal that alluded to future economics. Agents like Mr. Boros immediately jumped on this issue staking out their side of the argument. At the time that deal was struck, there wasn't a lot of talk about games being played with no fans. With ticket sales being somewhere in the vicinity of half of revenue, it is ridiculous, in my opinion, for players to maintain they should get their full per game salary based on their contracts. If the players refuse to a reasonable compromise, they aren't going to look good to most folks who are living thru these trying times.
    1 point
  38. Tomj14

    2020 MINOR LEAGUE SEASON

    You could just tell everybody to report to their team location (MN, Rochester, Pensacola, etc...), and tell them to protect themselves like the people working at the grocery stores, target, walmart, home depots, lowes, do. let them practice for two weeks, see how that goes, if everything is pretty good, start playing other teams for two weeks and if that is good, start the darn season, letting the fans decide if they want to attend or not. (Block off the first few rows keeping the fans away for the first couple of weeks)
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-06:00
×
×
  • Create New...