Setting the Stage for the 2023-24 Twins Offseason

41 minutes ago, umterp23 said:

not sure what the love affair is with Gordon, but do we really need $1MM 5th/6th type of outfielder when you have the following if they are retained:

Buxton (may never see OF again), Wallner, Castro, Larnach, Kepler.  

Gordon is a lefty swinger which we have many already and has a pretty weak outfield arm.  

Martin, Lewis can man CF when Lee is ready or we keep Taylor.  DFA Gordon and see what club takes a swing on a guy who really hasn't played since he broke his leg

I agree with what you say but think Gordon should remain an option due to lowest cost option among the backup options.  Budgets

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not a Gordon believer (swing rate just isn't conducive to success), but are we really sure Castro and Larnach are better than him? Castro is certainly faster, and a better defender, but are we sure he's a better hitter? Or that Castro is even a major league hitter moving forward? Are we sure Larnach is better than him at anything? I'm not suggesting Gordon be handed a starting job. Not even suggesting he be handed a roster spot. But is $1 million really so much that we don't think it's worth at least keeping him around until we have someone we know is better than him to take his 40-man spot?

I would say bring him to spring training to compete for a roster spot.  if he doesn't make the team he is owed the title X 100k big deal.  better to push the ones who do make the team and have injury insurance on hand at that cost.  

12 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

I think the best thing we could do as an organization is offer Montgomery $85-$90M for 4 years……it would make our staff elite. 6’6” & 230lb with a 9 year career ERA of 3.68 - he’s 30 yrs old v. Gray at 33. Durable lefty with playoff success!!!

Every time I look over these lists I keep landing on Montgomery as the only guy to add for big money and Montas or Severino as guys on a one year prove-it deal. The playoffs have changed the numbers perhaps. I would be surprised if Snell, Nola, and Montgomery aren't looking for $25M per year and 6 years too. The month of November should set in motion what the current market will bear. The idea of adding a top starting pitcher is so appealing but the numbers may be prohibitive for the Twins. 

13 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The point is that they shouldn't be losing TV revenue. This issue didn't sneak up on them. They've known this situation was coming and they shouldn't be losing any revenue because they should have a plan in place to replace it. The only acceptable time for them to have lost TV revenue was this season when Diamond was attempting to not pay them. "Our TV contract ran out and we couldn't figure out how to solve that problem" isn't an acceptable excuse for cutting payroll. Their market doesn't shrink because their contract ran out.

No, but the TV market has changed a fair bit as well and sports packages like this are struggling to command the same kind of rates from cable companies that they used to. It's not that the market size has changed but the delivery methods and control that cable used to have to command bigger fees is falling apart. Look at the number of people who are "cutting the cord", because the cable companies sure are when Bally or the equivalent demands a kicker for being on a certain tier. Now, if they properly manage their streaming rights as part of this contract, it could make up for significant drops in fees for the cable rights...but streaming fees have been pretty volatile lately. And beyond that it means they're adding an additional channel that doesn't really generate more revenue, but instead is trying to make up for losses in old revenue.

Again, I still think the Twins generate enough revenue and are backed by a substantially wealthy ownership that can easily afford to maintain a payroll in the $150M range. But the collapse of the RSNs through colossal mismanagement by Sinclair (and some seriously shady business moves) is a real problem for any team that was generating TV revenue this way. (going to be very interesting to see how the Wolves and Wild navigate out of this as well)

18 hours ago, umterp23 said:

not sure what the love affair is with Gordon, but do we really need $1MM 5th/6th type of outfielder

Do people realize $1M is almost as little as you can possibly pay a player? The league minimum is $740,000.

14 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The point is that they shouldn't be losing TV revenue. This issue didn't sneak up on them. They've known this situation was coming and they shouldn't be losing any revenue because they should have a plan in place to replace it. The only acceptable time for them to have lost TV revenue was this season when Diamond was attempting to not pay them. "Our TV contract ran out and we couldn't figure out how to solve that problem" isn't an acceptable excuse for cutting payroll. Their market doesn't shrink because their contract ran out.

Not to mention the Twins previous TV contract was well below average in MLB

Let’s Update the Estimated Local TV Revenue for MLB Teams | FanGraphs Baseball

I don't think this is an issue as much as it is an opportunity. The downside is being overestimated and the upside is being minimized. The Twins WILL HAVE A TV CONTRACT next summer and it will make them between 75% and 150% of their previous contract.

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Do people realize $1M is almost as little as you can possibly pay a player? The league minimum is $740,000.

But how many folks complain that we have way to many LH hitters playing in the outfield.  Gordon isn't needed regardless of $1MM vs league minimum of Wallner, Larnach and potential a Martin next year.  Gordon really was a one year wonder and was to a horrific '23 season.  Not sure he is a fit anymore

17 hours ago, umterp23 said:

But how many folks complain that we have way to many LH hitters playing in the outfield.  Gordon isn't needed regardless of $1MM vs league minimum of Wallner, Larnach and potential a Martin next year.  Gordon really was a one year wonder and was to a horrific '23 season.  Not sure he is a fit anymore

I'm on board with finding a RH hitting outfielder to take Gordon's spot in the outfield but his salary is not of any concern. They have needed a RH bat since before they signed Gallo last year.

On 10/23/2023 at 6:21 PM, chpettit19 said:

The point is that they shouldn't be losing TV revenue. This issue didn't sneak up on them. They've known this situation was coming and they shouldn't be losing any revenue because they should have a plan in place to replace it. The only acceptable time for them to have lost TV revenue was this season when Diamond was attempting to not pay them. "Our TV contract ran out and we couldn't figure out how to solve that problem" isn't an acceptable excuse for cutting payroll. Their market doesn't shrink because their contract ran out.

Just because they knew about the issue doesn't mean they had options to pivot to for a same or better TV contract.  We just have to wait for this to play out and the Twins don't usually sign their players till late in the offseason anyways.  Sonny Gray will likely sign before the Twins are able to offer anything.  

15 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Is it your belief that MLB teams are suddenly all going to start making payroll cuts as their TV deals run out because there's just no TV contracts available for them anymore? Their TV contract ran out. I can promise you the Pohlad's expectations are that the Twins don't lose a single penny in revenue. There's no professional sports team that is ever ok with revenue going down year over year. They know it may happen due to unforeseen circumstances (that's the nature of doing business), but no team owner is going to sit in a conference room with their business departments and accept "our TV contract ran out and we just couldn't replace that revenue, sorry." The whole room would be fired.

One interesting tidbit - the national TV money went up enough in the most recent contract to cover whatever decrease in local TV money they might see. There's no way their 2024 TV revenue is less than their 2020 TV revenue.

On 10/23/2023 at 8:36 AM, chpettit19 said:

It better not be. The Twins are in way too big of a market to be in the bottom 10 in payrolls in baseball. 153 mil landed them at 17th this year. They are in too big of a market to be 17th, let alone start cutting payroll now and drop into the 20-30 range. They knew this was coming and should be prepared for it by now. There's no excuse for cutting payroll.

MSP is the 16th largest market in the US.  Two of the markets that are larger have two teams but are also far more than twice the size of the MSP market so it's almost like 17th is right where we should be in payroll.  And the RSN money IS gonna be an issue whether you want it to be or not.  Sorry.

On 10/23/2023 at 12:03 AM, ANDREW WEBSTER said:

Playoff money may be like blood in the water. I assume the Twins made 10 to 20 million in pre selling playoff strips, add a few million per game in single game tickets, throw in 4 games of concessions and merch, and don't forget the added sales in September for pennant race baseball compared to a team just playing out an average season; If the Twins were poised, and expected, to be a third place plus team in the central, then I might also agree that $150 M would be a stretch. I believe, and my Twins fan fingers are crossed here, that spending will be within +/- 3.5% of 150M.

Keep dreaming that dream if the RSN money dries up.

On 10/23/2023 at 12:03 AM, ANDREW WEBSTER said:

Playoff money may be like blood in the water. I assume the Twins made 10 to 20 million in pre selling playoff strips, add a few million per game in single game tickets, throw in 4 games of concessions and merch, and don't forget the added sales in September for pennant race baseball compared to a team just playing out an average season; If the Twins were poised, and expected, to be a third place plus team in the central, then I might also agree that $150 M would be a stretch. I believe, and my Twins fan fingers are crossed here, that spending will be within +/- 3.5% of 150M.

The Twins played in 6 games, 5 of which the Twins received 12.5% of the ticket sales (60% to players poll, 15% to MLB and 25% split between the participating teams).  On the 6th game the would receive 42.5% as no tickets are allocated to the players pool.   At $5 million per game, the Twins take would have have been $5.25 million for all six games.  They would receive a percentage of the concessions and merchandise sales.  It's to bad the don't have set up like KC for parking.

On 10/30/2023 at 10:33 AM, chpettit19 said:

The Twins should never be below 17th in payroll, so we can agree on that. But we will not agree on the TV revenue. Dave St Pete and the folks in the business department have the best boss in the corporate world if they're able to go to the Pohlads and say "we've lost the largest revenue stream we're responsible for and we just can't replace it, sorry" and have the Pohlads be ok with that.

The Padres and Diamondbacks business departments may have an argument for having to cut payroll because they had their contracts ended in the middle. The Twins contract was already set to end after 2023. Dave and the business department already knew that, and knew the state of Ballys/Diamond/Sinclair, and should have been talking about possible options for years in preparation for the end of the Ballys deal. Not a lot of corporate owners who just shrug their shoulders and accept their largest revenue stream going away without heads rolling. The end of this TV deal was a known problem, and the Pohlads absolutely expect the business department to have a plan to replace that revenue. So why shouldn't we expect the payroll to stay the same?

Big difference between having a plan to replace that revenue and actually having someone to stroke that check.  Until someone does all bets are off.

On 10/25/2023 at 2:09 PM, chpettit19 said:

Is it your belief that MLB teams are suddenly all going to start making payroll cuts as their TV deals run out because there's just no TV contracts available for them anymore? Their TV contract ran out. I can promise you the Pohlad's expectations are that the Twins don't lose a single penny in revenue. There's no professional sports team that is ever ok with revenue going down year over year. They know it may happen due to unforeseen circumstances (that's the nature of doing business), but no team owner is going to sit in a conference room with their business departments and accept "our TV contract ran out and we just couldn't replace that revenue, sorry." The whole room would be fired.

My firm had several clients over the years where their industry / market changed and it simply was not possible to generate the same level of revenue for a given revenue stream.  We don't know exactly what how the alternatives are going to shape up or exactly how long it will take to develop a new distribution channel.  Simply pounding your fist saying this is not acceptable has little value.  

The key would appear to be raising viewership through providing a wider range of options to get coverage and then capitalizing on advertising.  I am sure a plan is in place but that pan could take 2 or 3 years to fully develop.  The Pohlad's are not going to have a problem with a plan that loses 30% of revenue this year but provides a sustainable increase in revenue by year 2 or 3.

59 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

What would cause a loss of 30% of revenue in 2024 while providing a sustainable increase in revenue by year 2 or 3 in this situation? Going more over the air to bring in more fans by being able to provide their product for free this year while partnering it with a streaming option through MLB? Do we think that plan works well if they cut payroll at the same time and piss off the fan base?

Is the hope just that the older generation being able to get their product for free while cord cutters pay to stream it balances out with the anger you'd get from the fan base when you say "thanks for packing our stadium for the playoffs, but we're going to take a step back in payroll now?" The teams that have made these sorts of moves haven't cut payroll to do it, they've simply bet on the idea of losing now to win over time. The story I'm getting around here is that the Twins will cut payroll and that's OK and fans shouldn't be upset. I don't buy it. If you cut payroll at this point you're going to destroy all the goodwill you just built up. They finally have momentum and destroying it by slashing payroll sure sounds like a horrible business decision if you're making your way towards a subscription based revenue stream.

I too hope that the Pohlads "eat it".  That however is a very different argument than insisting there is no reason revenue should go down because they knew it was coming which was your original argument.

The market has changed.  Will it be possible for them to regain this revenue and how long will it take?  The industry experts MLB brought in probably have a good blueprint by now but we don't have the benefit of the information and planning they have been working on.  Spending is going down if the decrease in revenue generated by local TV is permanent.  What we can hope for is the Pohlads take it in the shorts for at least a year while the team and the league work on a new model.  Who knows, it's possible that new model will generate even more revenue through advertising that actually puts the first teams with cancelled contracts at an advantage.