Behind the Minnesota Twins’ Low 2024 Payroll is a Big 2025 Increase

3 hours ago, Beast said:

This is an asinine defense.

Every team in every season of history faces arbitration.

They almost certainly will not carry all of those players listed into 2025.

A $20M increase in payroll from where it is now is peanuts, and still way too low.

We need new ownership and less propaganda.

YES! Less propoganda. Exactly. OMG the posts about how rough its going to be to ensure the Pohlad oligarchs have sufficient excess money in the bank. Its really hard being a billionaire. Tale as old as time. The few have more than they could ever need and they need more from you. 

Or in this case, understand why the men with more money than they could ever need have to cut a community asset because they need to get wealthier. 

Insight into the moral depravity of the wealthy.

31 minutes ago, TopTwinsFan said:

YES! Less propoganda. Exactly. OMG the posts about how rough its going to be to ensure the Pohlad oligarchs have sufficient excess money in the bank. Its really hard being a billionaire. Tale as old as time. The few have more than they could ever need and they need more from you. 

Or in this case, understand why the men with more money than they could ever need have to cut a community asset because they need to get wealthier. 

Insight into the moral depravity of the wealthy.

Yep. Like during that pandemic, big box stores are allowed to be open while Mom and Pop stores are forced to shutter. While Amazon, who MLB now wants to be in bed with, makes trillions upon trillions. Now that the trillions have dried up to mere billions and billions after they have pilfered the public they do massive layoffs. They no longer need these people and pay them 18 bucks an hour. Now that the corps own America, have fun.

7 minutes ago, JD-TWINS said:

So, I see there was discussion on the BAM money and where it came from - what it was, on 2/11.

Baseball Advanced Media $$ is my understanding. No luck googling BAM relative to MLB so I have limited knowledge.

I see your comments from the 11th. My comments were parallel to “don’t all teams get these $$?”. Assuming yes.

If the Twins historically spend between 15-19th in MLB payroll (w/o BAM $$) ……pretty accurate? ……….& they spent 17th in baseball in ‘23, why is there such a need for a step back?

Is every other team in baseball stepping back $30M in ‘24? If yes, no problem. If Twins were the only team to get BAM $$ in ‘23, no problem.

Not sure if I’m completely apples to apples here - open to be educated! Looking at a source that compares last 4 years of Twins Payroll (starting in ’22) & where they ranked among 30 other teams, I see the following:

‘23 - $154M …….17th (based on what I’ve read)

’22 - $134.4M ……18th

’21 - $125.3M……. 16th

’20 doesn’t matter - 60 games - 18th

’19 - $119.6M …….18th

Why would the Team/Organization spend in ‘24, at a level that is less than where they were at in ‘21? That doesn’t seem to have anything to do with BAM money in ‘23 & none in ‘24. Seems, if teams typically increase payroll 5-10% (we’ll call it 7%) annually, the Twins should be in the neighborhood of $155M in ‘24.

$134,400,000 in ‘22 + 7% = $9,400,000

equates to expected payroll in ‘23, w/o BAM $$, of $143,800,000

$143,800,000 in ‘23 + 7% = $10,000,000 = $153,800,000 with normal increases year to year.

Where is this flawed? Would be open to any thoughts. Thanks.

IDK what every other team is doing.  You are introducing a new measure (rank) now.  That would be a good exercise but we don't have the data.  The fact that they ranked a little higher in 23 would suggest they were stretching a little, would it not?  I have seen others put up the data and the twins were consistent in terms of rank and spending on average.

 I was responding to many other posts that basically said that TV revenue was only reduced by $15-20M so why are the Twins reducing payroll by $30M.   This is either an uniformed position or intentionally misleading if someone is aware of BAM.    Revenue is going down by approximately $45-50M.  That's it!  I was objecting to the omission/misrepresentation.

They gave a range of $125-140.  If we take that at face value, it's in line with revenue.  However, they are not going to just spend for the sake a spending if the right opportunities don't present themselves.  

BAM Payment

It is an opinion post, nothing more.

No one knows what the Team will spend, who will be here and who will no longer be here.

Not worth getting hemorrhoids over.

45 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

Yep. Like during that pandemic, big box stores are allowed to be open while Mom and Pop stores are forced to shutter. While Amazon, who MLB now wants to be in bed with, makes trillions upon trillions. Now that the trillions have dried up to mere billions and billions after they have pilfered the public they do massive layoffs. They no longer need these people and pay them 18 bucks an hour. Now that the corps own America, have fun.

Average people think greed is disgusting. The wealthy believe it is a way of measuring their greatness.

4 hours ago, Karbo said:

Were you around during Calvin's years? I was and I'll take the Pohlads over that all day long.

The fact that other bad owners exist in the world does not give the Pohlads a pass in my book.  

43 minutes ago, JD-TWINS said:

So, I get they got $30M in BAM $$ in ‘23. Only a one time thing.

The problem or, a problem, I have with the logic is that IF their payroll increased as it should have in ‘23 & parallel to what they had been doing, the ‘23 Payroll would have/should have been $143.8M. They did NOT spend $30M extra on payroll - it appears they spent an additional $10M. They were a year ahead of themselves - stay the SAME in ‘24 and let the years catch up to your payroll …..don’t go backward 3 years.

A real stretch at a rationalization saying they went up a bit in ‘23……..

’21 - 16th …… ‘22 - 18th ….  ‘23 - 17th

Not into being argumentative for debate sake ………. I just want the team to maintain commitment in the 30 team mix & commensurate to market size revenues.

My bad.  I did not pay much attention to what you were saying about rank.  It's a poor measure of a given year and a very good measure when averaged over a period of 5 or 10 or 15 years.  In that context it will tell you how the twins spend relative to our teams.  I would like to see that data for a 10 year period.

In terms of their 23 spend.  It's quite possible they had additional spending capacity and elected to put part of that windfall in their pocket.  It's possible they spent all or part of the difference on a combination of infrastructure and personnel or some other investment in the team.  IDK.  

4 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Were those deals not done at arms length?  

The stadium deal?  The one where the Twins invented a secret group of investors that was going to move them to North Carolina if the Twins didn't get the stadium?  The one where, when that tactic failed, the Pohlads went all in on threatening contraction as their next hostage strategy.  The Pohlads literally sent out a letter to their staff saying fans didn't spend enough on the team so they were going to get contracted, oh well.  The TF stadium saga was done in bad faith, in smoky backrooms, with the sole intention of getting a public handout and lining the Pohlad pockets with millions of dollars of other people's cash.  

4 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Which AL Central team’s ownership would you swap for the Pohlads? How about the AL West, other than Texas?

It's interesting how selective you are being with the options.  Why?

The entire AL Central has had more postseason success than the Twins under Pohlads 2.0.  So, all of them?  How about Houston in the West?  7 straight ALCS's, might they be doing something right?  To answer your questions, probably every owner except Oakland's.  Cleveland's and KC's might be a push.

If we may expand this exercise to the rest of the league, the model that none of the water carriers ever mention is St. Louis.  Very close model to us, very similar market size and that franchise is a well run organization that proves that consistent investment in the product leads to long term revenue gains in TV, fan engagement, etc.  They've won Series, they're consistently good, and fans love them.  But I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse why we can never be like the Cardinals.

I see the author has been reading my comments as I’ve said this many times already in the comments.

They will have even less TV $$ last year. Joe Pohlad is going around crying poor and saying they admire the Rays. So a payroll of about $90 million next year shouldn't shock anyone.

35 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

They will have even less TV $$ last year.

I believe this, because if there is one thing this management team has proven it is that they can consistently negotiate the worst local television deal in all of major league baseball.

9 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

lol.  Propagandist for the Pohlads.   Hilarious. Trust me, I have no desire to carry any water for the Pohlad family.  

Were those deals not done at arms length?  Do you not believe that the Twins have brought value to the Twins Cities/Minneapolis? Do you really think the Twins have bad owners?

Again, the expectation from some is that owners should be blindly willing to spend in order to satisfy their egos and/or deliver a championship to their city.  Sure, both those factors can be relevant, but it’s just not the same for an every owner. The Pohlads on the whole have been solid owners.  The product they deliver has been overall good. The franchise is well run for the most part.

Have the Mets done that much better? How about the Angels?  Which AL Central team’s ownership would you swap for the Pohlads? How about the AL West, other than Texas?

I have no idea what the annual cash flow or the operating margins of the Twins are - I’d wager that they are mostly positive but very lean.  And they are lean for precisely the reasons you point out - they want to win and, yes, they want to deliver a championship to the Twins Cities. However, there should be no expectation that they, or anyone, should run a business at a annual loss - regardless of capital appreciation, 

 

 

There is a fine line between taking a loss every season and taking a loss occasionally. Nobody is advocating for the former. I think it is more than reasonable that in some seasons, especially those when the team seems ready to compete, that the owners take a minimal loss and invest in the team. Businesses take annual losses to invest in future  opportunities all the time, I don't see why the Pohlads and the Twins can't do this. In fact, for a normal corporation, it would be considered malpractice to forego a prime opportunity to invest and to grow the product, just to pocket the savings.

I'm not quick to criticize the Pohlads because I don't have any facts to go by and I grew up under the Griffins. I loved the '60s Twins & going into the '70s but after they let Carew go, they were bad. Every year I vowed I'd quit listening to the Twins but because of TonyO, I kept coming back until TonyO retired. Then I completely gave up on the Twinkees (I hate that name).

I came back when the Pohlads bought the Griffins out & brought back the pinstripes. We have a great core of players. I can accept that there is a money crunch because IMO we can still improve under those parameters through proper evaluations & execution.  But it didn't happen.

8 hours ago, Rik19753 said:

There is a fine line between taking a loss every season and taking a loss occasionally. Nobody is advocating for the former. I think it is more than reasonable that in some seasons, especially those when the team seems ready to compete, that the owners take a minimal loss and invest in the team. Businesses take annual losses to invest in future  opportunities all the time, I don't see why the Pohlads and the Twins can't do this. In fact, for a normal corporation, it would be considered malpractice to forego a prime opportunity to invest and to grow the product, just to pocket the savings.

I think it would be great if the Pohlad's operated the team at break-even once a decade when the dollars had a good chance of putting us over the top.  Should we consider this expectation in the context of understanding they lost the equivalent of 2 or 3 years profit in 2020 and I suspect they took a loss in 2021.  Should we also take into account we can't sign an impact player for 1 year.  It's a 5-10 year commitment.  

Would we expect the same from a player.  Correa was not worth anywhere close to what he got paid last year and Buxton was worth nothing.  Do you think they should kick in $25M between them so that we can have a better team this year.  It's only one year.

Thanks for pointing out the financial challenges going forward. Shedding the contracts of Farmer, Vasquez, and Kepler will provide about $26 million of flexibility. It wouldn’t surprise me if Farmer is traded this year, as he is an expensive backup infielder. The Vasquez contract makes it difficult to trade him. The Dobnak contract, although not that big, was always a head scratcher, given how little he accomplished as a four inning starter. And it does add to the payroll challenge. 

Very good article.  Well researched.  It certainly brought out a lot of discussion.  To that end it definitely served its purpose.  I would think one possibility to help the Twins bottom line that wasn't been discussed much is an increase in ticket prices.  That should add at least s few million to the bottom line.  After all the Timberwolves announced a 20% increase in ticket prices for next season.

Did anyone hear what Joe Pohlad had to say yesterday about payroll. Apparently his interview was a disaster and they will be talking about it at 11am 🕚 on KFAN.

5 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Did anyone hear what Joe Pohlad had to say yesterday about payroll. Apparently his interview was a disaster and they will be talking about it at 11am 🕚 on KFAN.

Talk radio is always about getting more listeners (revenue). It can be fun, even interesting to listen. Listen and enjoy, but remember that just like cable tv, it is entertainment. Johnny Carson, Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, Bill O'Reilly and his cable offspring among many others all remind me of Mad Dog Vachon, Vern Gagne, and Kenny Jay; entertainers (I apologize for putting the good guys in with the bad guys). 

Joe Pohlad said, "No."

The Twins are not going to add a player for $30 million, but Falvey always has plenty of lattitude to bring ideas to the table and that continues. The Twins are trying to win a World Series according to Joe.

Nothing he said should be surprising in the least to folks who follow the Twins. Some people may want to see the comments/interview in a negative light and free will says you may. Those who feel that an interview or comments by Joe Pohlad can be a disaster ..... I can't relate. Even when I was paid for baseball, it was a hobby.

Just to be transparent, I'm not much of a fan of the corporate world and neither a supporter nor condemn the Pohlads. I'm just an old man and a little confused how so many people were so sure that the Twins would suddenly change their habits after four decades.

23 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Talk radio is always about getting more listeners (revenue). It can be fun, even interesting to listen. Listen and enjoy, but remember that just like cable tv, it is entertainment. Johnny Carson, Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, Bill O'Reilly and his cable offspring among many others all remind me of Mad Dog Vachon, Vern Gagne, and Kenny Jay; entertainers (I apologize for putting the good guys in with the bad guys). 

Joe Pohlad said, "No."

The Twins are not going to add a player for $30 million, but Falvey always has plenty of lattitude to bring ideas to the table and that continues. The Twins are trying to win a World Series according to Joe.

Nothing he said should be surprising in the least to folks who follow the Twins. Some people may want to see the comments/interview in a negative light and free will says you may. Those who feel that an interview or comments by Joe Pohlad can be a disaster ..... I can't relate. Even when I was paid for baseball, it was a hobby.

Just to be transparent, I'm not much of a fan of the corporate world and neither a supporter nor condemn the Pohlads. I'm just an old man and a little confused how so many people were so sure that the Twins would suddenly change their habits after four decades.

I haven’t heard any of his interview and I do understand his stance on not signing a pitcher for $30M. As a fan, do I want to see Monty or Snell in a Twins uniform, absolutely! 
If thats all the disaster was, it wasn’t a disaster. We have a very good team going into ‘24. Maybe one of the best in a very long time. 

23 hours ago, Heiny said:

I think this scenario is toally accurate.  The best scenario for this season is to sign someone to a one year deal with team options.  And although I have a lot of confidence in Varland, I think the best way to spend on a one-year contract is to sign Bauer.  High reward - low risk.  He is willing to sign a major league minimum deal to prove himself.  If there is a problem with attitude or behavior or a lack of performance he can be DFA'd at a minimal cost.  I think he deserves a chance.  And with the great attitudes of guys like Correa, Lopez, Lewis, Farmer and Vasquez, who knows, he may really like a manager like Rocco.  I realize I am in the minority here but it almost seems like a no-brainer to me.  This could really improve the strength of our starting staff.  And the key here is the low risk factor.

I don't think it's a no brainer; however, it is quite odd that no team has gone for the minimum to sign Bauer.  Almost seems like he is black listed by the league.  And if the guy is signed and is poisonous to the clubhouse, that could be disruptive even if outrighted.  My pie in the sky is the Twins get Montgomery for one season.  1 800 unlikely!

50 minutes ago, JD-TWINS said:

So, based on comments and data from the Pohlad interview/article in TD, I hi-light the following:

Pohlad - “……since 2008…….,,Twins are, have been, committed to spending 50-52% of their revenues” on payroll.

Article states the Revenue Share from MLB is $200M + TV revenue of $40M (I thought it was 85% of last year or $47M??) + with a decent club & playoff excitement carryover Attendance of 2,000,000 in ‘24 at last year’s avg ticket price of $33.89 = $67.7M. Last, NET revenues from concessions & merchandise sales at the Park ……….a CONSERVATIVE $8/patron = $16M.

$200 + $40 + $67.7 + $16M = $323.7M 

52% of Revenue = $168.3M

50% of Revenue = $161.85M

Per Pohlad, team should spend $164M…….so what if the article numbers are off a bit and the spend should really be $145M…….please spend it! Wisely!!

To me, this seems reasonable and it reflects what the owner has said they are committed to spend on payroll, as %, this week.

Assumes they draw 25,000/game up from 24,300/game in ‘23. Assumes they do not change ticket prices. Assumes $8 total profit from each patron on concessions and merchandise ……this seems fairly conservative to me!

Go get Clevinger and Max out at $138-$140M ….,ALCS bound! Everybody’s happy.

 

You did not account for local revenues that are split with visiting team.

Can you point me to the source of the $200M revenue share.  I did not see this in the article.  This article 2022 Revenue Sharing states the share is $110M/team.   I will look for other articles.

8 hours ago, ashbury said:

To the team, a player's contract is just a tranche in an overall portfolio.  The team can handle the ups and downs.

To the player, the contract is the whole kit and kaboodle.

You've taken the corporate stance by equating two very different things.

 

I was being a bit facetious here to make a point.  The team's relative success/failure took a big hit because the highest paid players (Correa / Buxton and Vasquez) all performed very poorly.  Not only is their little complaint but there are a whole lot of people going off the deep end as if spending is absolutely crucial to success.  The larger point is that the players are looking for every dime they can get even when they don't earn it and we are also talking about someone making generation wealth and retiring at 35. 

I would like a lot of businesses I patronize to not care about profit.  That would be great.  What I object to is people publicly trashing a business for acting like a business and expecting that business to operate to a different set of standards then the other MLB teams.  It seems appropriate to collect information that confirms the team retains more income than other teams and present it before publicly disparage the team and their owners.  Is this an unreasonable expectation?