drjim

Brilliant post and thought process.

Nope, pretty much a fact. I took the Twins rankings in revenue (via Forbes) and their ranking in payroll each year since 2009 and posted below. 2015: 18th in revenue, 18th in payroll 2014: 22nd revenue, 24th payroll 2013: 14th revenue, 22nd payroll 2012: 16th revenue, 13th payroll 2011: 13th revenue, 9th payroll 2010: 9th revenue, 11th payroll 2009: 24th revenue, 24th payroll You are much too caught up in absolute numbers for the Twins that you are missing the bigger picture of what the Twins do relative to other franchises. 2013 is the one negative outlier, but can, in my opinion, be somewhat excused by the fact that the team was at the nadir of the rebuild and would reasonably have a lower relative payroll based on baseball cycles. EDIT: I would also add that 2013 was a terrible year for free agents, especially pitching. The Twins probably would have signed a Nolasco or Santana type if they had been available (rather than or in addition to the Correia and Pelfrey deals they did sign). A signing like that would have made the gap between revenue and payroll rank even less glaring than it was. I fully expect the team, as it continues to compete and regain rankings in annual revenue to adjust the payroll accordingly.

Uh, yes. I'll add my own personal perspective as a postlude. I took this topic on a little more aggressively than I have others recently. I like the board and I like conversation about the Twins and I really like engaging opinions different than mine, if for no other reason than to sharpen my own thinking and explore what I really think. But I think this topic is poison, a big lie. The revenue rank and the payroll rank more or less line up every year and pretty much have since the Twins got good again in 2001. Anything before that really doesn't really matter anymore. It's fine to say they should blow past the limits set by basically every other team, but probably not realistic. I just find the payroll/revenue situation so boring because, based on all evidence we have, relative to all organizations, it is about where it should be. As jay mentioned, constantly falling into thay discussion distracts so much from what should be interesting discussions (in my mind anyways) about resource allocation and priorities and strategies and player performance and the like. And in a more real sense it lets Terry Ryan off the hook. Some people say they are fans of Ryan but hate the Pohlads. What does that even mean? The Pohlads give him the budget the market allows and Ryan makes the decisions. The Pohlads didn't force him to pump $49 mil into Nolasco. I guess more than anything I'm amazed at the lengths people will go to to convince themselves that the team they are a fan of is trying to screw them.

And I would argue this is precisely why they didn't sign the relievers that have been advocated for this offseason.

I agree with you in a general sense if not necessarily specific signings. Who they have signed and the structure of contracts is certainly a mixed bag (to be kind). I personally think signing one of the relievers that signed this year at the contract it would have taken is not worth it and a bad use of resources, but I appreciate the other position. That said, this strikes me as a different discussion than what was mostly talked about in the thread so far. I think starting with a realistic baseline of what their payroll range should be is pretty important and much of the talk here had unrealistic assumptions and much of the angst is misguided and never, ever going to be resolved satisfactorily based on fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

Maybe, maybe not. I suspect his base, such as it is, is primarily people who aren't all that engaged in politics on a day to day basis and probably don't watch much of any cable news. I don't buy it's Democrats either, as nice as it would be for a Cruz supporter to think.

I'm sure people would line up to slam Trump for helping out wounded vets.

I'm not sure his base is all that into Fox News compared to say Cruz and Rubio.

They all bear them, which is why the Twins have a payroll more or less in the same range of other teams that have similar revenues.

I would agree with points 2 and 3 so much that I would argue that every other team in baseball does the same thing almost all the time. Point 1 does strike me as a more uniquely (though not exclusively) Twins consideration.

OK, here's another shot with estimated ranges: Assume absolutely no changes, what would be the expected inflation rate on personnel expenses? 10%? That is about $5-6 mil. Do you think there is additional personnel expenses in the org, including, but not limited to, additional personnel to run documented beefed up operations in Target Field, Ft. Myers and the Dominican? At least a couple mil. Increased costs in amateur talent acquisition, even staying within the boundaries - about $5 mil a year on average Increased operating costs per year on Target Field vs. Metrodome - about $20 mil a year Money that has been pumped into Target Field improvements each year (think patios, etc) - about $5 mil a year, some years even more Money pumped into Ft Myers and Dominican Academy above the government layout - about $5 mil, plus there will be increased operating expenses for staff, upkeep, etc each year These are off the top of my head without even really trying and shouldn't even really be that debatable. And they equal about $40 mil more per year. I wouldn't be surprised if the inflation of current personnel is even higher and I suspect strongly that they have beefed up operations behind the scenes more than we fully realize. All that said, I would concede they are not tapped out on payroll of what they could spend. But I generally buy that Forbes is directionally correct with expenses and revenue. And I do think if they have the talent they will extend it and they would have a higher payroll right now if they hadn't taken such a revenue hit by being the tank for 4 years (and would have players actually worth paying). They could certainly spend a little more on free agents - but they have pumped well over $180 mil in free agent contracts since Target Field opened. That's at least something.

That is all fair, I'm not especially enthusiastic with how they have spent their money either. I'll feel much better when it is used to extend Sano, Buxton and others.

That's probably true about Forbes, but it seems to be a reasonable estimation. If we don't use it as at least directionally correct then anyway can't make up any number they want in either defense or anger. Perhaps that's the better way. Everyone would be correct!

You don't think Forbes factors in Advanced Media and TV revenue in this calculation? I generally agree with your second point, but I think part of the payroll calculation is based on renewal rates, both with season tickets and corporate sponsorships.

Why stop at $150mil? Let's do $180 or $200 or $250. Though, to be fair, according to Forbes a $150 mil payroll would have been about a $25mil loss for the year. Not sure there is a team, no matter how much the owner prioritized wins, that would be willing to do that. You can keep asking the expense question, keep getting answers, keep choosing to ignore the answers, and keep asking the same questions. Admittedly no one can lock it down perfectly, but directionally seems pretty close.

It was kind of a joke. You threw out that all people basically want is a $3-4 mil a year reliever. Cotts or Thorton is what you are going to get for that. I'm pretty sure there are reasons beyond payroll that the signing hasn't happened yet.

I more take the position that he probably doesn't care a whole lot for getting called out, but might find it politically advantageous to make it seem so.

For those interested, the Touch Em All Podcast covered this very topic for this week: http://www.1500espn.com/touch-em-all/2016/01/ep-44-payroll-arguments-and-do-the-twins-innovate/

This certainly helps explain how discussions on payroll have a much lower standard for facts and accuracy relative to any other topic.

Neal Cotts?

I agree with this. The dustup with Fox/Kelly is just a ruse to get out. And he is going to spend the time leading up to the debate helping wounded veterans and then as soon as the debate starts he'll be live tweeting in response - all the criticisms of his opponents and won't have to face them. And the media will still be almost exclusively focused on him. And he'll likely go up another 5 points. I'm starting to wonder if he is a mastermind and we're all just living in his world.

That statement didn't make you chuckle? Even a little? I can't get too worked up about a Republican candidate tweaking Fox News. Oh no, whatever will we do without a seventh debate...

So much to dislike about Trump and then he goes and pulls off something this awesome: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/692171744845664258 Just making a perfect mockery of the farce that is Presidential campaigns. I hope they keep an empty podium in honor of him during the debate.

The biggest revenue boon was suites, now it's TV money.

You actually have this backwards. The Twins paid a small rent (relatively) for the Dome and operating expenses were paid by the Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission, who owned the Dome. The Twins now own Target Field and are now responsible for all operating expenses. Expenses have increased significantly for the Twins in the operation of their park, but of course this is offset by significantly increased revenues. But also partially explains why revenue increases can't 100% be pumped into payroll in the move from the Dome to Target Field.