Rangers Could Drop Nathan Eovaldi, Others On Waivers. Could the Twins Nab Pitching Help?

13 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

No, No. No.  Stop reverting back to these articles and discussions that are complete fantasy.  Never mind the waiver process and availability of players...

THE TWINS ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY MONEY!!!!!

This is categorically false!  

I was in line behind Jim Pohlad at KwikTrip the other day and I saw him WITH MY OWN EYES buy a pack of gum. 

Money spent. 

22 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Plus Texas hasn't waived anyone, and it'd be a really bad look if they did.

They will not until the last few days of the month.  The reason why is they need to have someone claim the player, to get the contract off their books.  If they did it now, if a team does not claim them, then they pass through and get to be a FA and any team can sign them but Rangers are on hook for the contract, and the other team signs for min.  If you wait until last few days of month, the only way the player can play on playoff roster is if they are claimed due to having to be on roster by 9/1.  Waivers takes a couple of days, and just like last year teams will place players on them right at last min to allow teams to claim and have on post season roster, but not let them pass and sign to have on post season roster. 

19 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Bad look for sure. Especially since Seattle and Houston are two teams who ARE in position to grab these guys. No way in hell Texas wants either of those teams to win a championship with one of these guys.

They would if it manages to save them millions of dollars in tax payments.  If they can get below the tax line they not only save the money on the guys they cut, but also the percent on each contract for each player for being a tax payer.  Not only would they save some money, knowing they will not make playoffs, but they were tax payer last year, and would again be this year.  If you continue to be tax payer, the penalties grow, but if they dip 1 time it resets.  If they do not dip down, they will not want to be a tax payer next year else they would have 50% bill, but if they dip this year, not only do they not have a 30% this year, but they can go out spend a bunch of money on FA next year and only have 20% bill. 

They will have a lot of incentive to get below the tax payer this year if they can. 

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

I worked in executive compensation, business planning and investments for over 20 years. You don't appear to have even a rudimentary grasp on how businesses are run or why they're run that way.

The Pohlads have run the Twins like most owners have run their teams. It's not a matter of net value. In a very crude example, buy a house, but make no house payments for a year. Invest those payments into a kitchen remodel and a new roof. Then try to refinance and tell your mortgage company it's okay because the house went up in value.

I'm not going further on this, but I strongly suggest everybody who thinks cash flow or net operating income is not relevant to large businesses take a few weeks to really learn about finances. If you don't understand the basics of your life insurance policy or your retirement account or you don't think you could do your own taxes, take some time and learn all that stuff. Even if you don't think it helps you now or for 10 or 20 years, it likely will save you some enormous stress and sleepless nights down the road.

I love the internet, when you can be condescending and at the same time have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.  I am not going to post my resume, but needless to say my business grasp is slightly more than rudimentary.

First, using your example, making capital improvements on a property will most assuredly improve the value of said property.  You also must not understand the concept of flipping houses, as taking short-term interest only loans or balloon payment while you improve and then sell the house is extremely common.  But that is not really germane to this discussion.

There are only a few reasons to own a big 4 professional sports team.  One is status, another is sentiment, but mainly it is financial.  There is basically no other investment where the value of your business is guaranteed to rise, regardless of how you treat it.  In the case of the Twins and Pohlad, he got the team on the cheap in '84 for $44 million.  They had a few years of success (mainly 87-92), but were otherwise pathetic until 2000, when they were going to be contacted and receive $250 million.  The were fantastic for most of the 2001-2020 era, and as of 3/24, Forbes has the current value of the Twins around $1.5 billion.  They increased in value when they lost, they increased in value when they won.

You are right in the Pohlads run the team like others.  They run player payroll mainly as a percentage of income/net income.  Like I said, there is an income threshold they do not want to go below.  The Dodgers and Yankees bloated TV deals directly translates into those teams spending more on player salary.  But that percentage is arbitrary, not fixed.  Ownership showed that by pocketing the late TV deal money, instead of re-investing it into the Twins.

I have never said that cash flow or net operating income do not matter.  I am saying that you need to look at those items in conjunction with your overall return on investment, meaning business value.  According to your business acumen, a business that has a neutral or negative, cash flow but the overall value is a net positive every year is a poor investment.  That is insane, especially for the uber wealthy that do not require that net income to live off of.  

Lastly, team owners have a certain degree of civic duty when owning a team.  They know this when the join the fraternity.  Owners that spend money on the team and fan experience are loved, while cheap owners that look to squeeze every last nickel from the team are hated.

Back to baseball....