Jump to content
Our top free agent ranking is up to 75 names; click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

drjim

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,759

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by drjim

  1. drjim
    I think it does. The Dome was absolutely terrible for revenue. Which, to bring it all the way back, is why it was justified to call the Twins a small market team. Though, I would admit it is probably more accurate to define that by revenue potential and not explicitly market size.
  2. drjim
    While true, I don't think that means you should hand out 3 year deals to non elite guys. I really, actually believe this myself. This strikes me as good, smart roster management in mlb. I'm happy that the Twins agree.
  3. drjim
    I think they would happily add a guy on a one year deal right now. And I don't think any mlb team is as flippant about potentially cutting guys as it seems you are.
  4. drjim
    I would have aimed a little higher and been more strategic on targeting guys to flip, but they are one year deals, pretty much exactly what rebuilding teams with emerging farm systems should focus on.
  5. drjim
    To me, years are about committing roster spots and blocking younger guys. Different circumstances have different calculations.
  6. drjim
    So, so good.
  7. drjim
    The trend of the franchise until the collapse. I suppose the alternative is what we see here.
  8. drjim
    Years. And overpaying for the player. You can have payroll space and not want to overpay on a contract, right?
  9. drjim
    Of course this will never be resolved on a board, but I would counter this by saying it wasn't a lack of payroll space that stopped them from signing a reliever, it was a dislike of the contract it would have taken.
  10. drjim
    I would say they found competent people and let them do their work, didn't meddle, and stuck by them. You can certainly interpret a different way.
  11. drjim
    To put it another way, I think the Twins had plans in good faith to maintain a payroll in $120-130 mil range, give or take a couple mil, in the time following the opening of Target Field. But with this plan was also a thought they would maintain the relative competitiveness of the aughts. A complete organizational collapse can change things a little, as it should.
  12. drjim
    I would build on this by saying that if the Twins had been good from 2011-14 they would be making significantly more money, even if the payroll was $10-30 million (or more) higher. I don't think that is really that debatable. An underrated aspect of what happened is how much they got crushed with season tickets and, more importantly, corporate sponsorship because they went in the tank. The debate of course is whether spending that much more money would have made much of a difference. I've always been more of a skeptic on that front. Talk of "payroll promises" and the like is fine, but really it is just about winning right? Other than maybe Dodgers fans, every fanbase complains about payroll always, but winning certainly mutes it a little bit.
  13. drjim
    I really disagree. They find people they like at the top positions and stick with them. And actually the old man made frequent changes at first, but that shifted once MacPhail/Kelly came on board.
  14. drjim
    That's fair. Of that group being a fan of the Marlins makes the least sense to me. I would still differentiate between incompetence and underhandedness, which is what I was trying to distinguish in my comment (though admittedly probably did a poor job and probably read too much into the original comment anyways). I'm not sure that would apply to the Browns or Mets as much, though admittedly I'm not as close to those situations. For example, I think the T-Wolves are basically a bunch of clowns (though perhaps turning a little), but I wouldn't stop being a fan, and will follow them even more closely once they start winning. The Vikings, on the other hand, are disgusting me enough at the ownership level, and NFL in general, that I have basically jumped ship. It would take quite a turn to get me back to follow any more closely than I did this year, which was very little. For the Twins, I certainly follow them closely, but will actually spend even more of my actual cash now that they are winning again.
  15. drjim
    This distinction makes sense to me and I agree. It would be madness to accept the clown show of the past 5 years. But you were certainly implying (at least in my mind) much more with how you described the Pohlads previously. It strikes me as difficult to follow a team if I had the same feelings, which is why I said amazing. But to each their own.
  16. drjim
    I didn't exactly say this. You can root for anything you want. I'm just amazed that someone could be as disgusted as you clearly are and still root for them.
  17. drjim
    Best I can find, operating costs are about $20 mil, which Twins cover completely, vs. Metrodome, which were significantly less and mostly covered by Metropolitan Association. Plus, Twins have covered multiple millions in upgrades each year - which is a use of some of that difference. So, I would say at least $15 mil a year in operating costs just from the stadium increase. Twins put in about $8 mil just for Ft Myers dormitory, plus other undisclosed expenses around the complex not covered in $42 mil received from city. There will certainly be new operating expenses for these upgrades. I can't find numbers on Dominican Academy. While Twins stay at the level prescribed, it is still additional millions each year on talent acquisition. Additional staffing and operating costs throughout the organization I presume. So to say all the money was pocketed since Target Field is indeed inaccurate. Should more be spent on payroll? Probably, and I think we'll see it as young core starts getting paid.
  18. drjim
    For the record I'm not "defending" the Pohlads, I don't care about them one way or the other, and I think their actions around 2000 were self-evidently terrible, but the old man is also dead. Might be time to move on. If the family sold tomorrow I wouldn't be all that moved one way or the other - I would hope for a great owner, hope it wasn't a terrible owner, and likely accept that financially it wouldn't change all that much. Real change, for better or worse, will come in the form of changing the GM. That said, I do think people criticize them quite unfairly now, using inaccurate facts and making assumptions about how they behave that don't jive with the behavior of the vast majority of other owners. Which is their prerogative. I suppose I am amazed at the lengths people will go to bad mouth them at any opportunity, and twist and turn any narrative to fit that criticism. And I would repeat something I say often, if you believe they operate in such an underhanded way, how can you support the franchise? They aren't going anywhere.
  19. drjim
    You don't expenses changed from the Metrodome to Target Field? You aren't counting documented changes to the Dominican Academy and the Ft. Myers complex? Increased International and draft expenses? Saying nothing has changed and it all goes in the owner's pocket is as nonsensical as blindly accepting the 50% number imo.
  20. drjim
    While I generally agree with the second point, it's a mixed bag. You mention a few notable exceptions, but I think I prefer an owner that is a little conservative but sets a budget and stays out of the way to the type that would meddle all the time, especially if they aren't giving a massive payroll. In this way, and in baseball the Pohlads are more typical than outlier. The other thing the Pohlads bring to the table is uncommon loyalty, which does bring stability but is balanced out by the same people keeping the same positions, perhaps longer than they should, and making it difficult for many new ideas to penetrate, especially initially.
  21. drjim
    1. I don't believe Pohlad ever lost money, would never claim otherwise - especially since pubically stated he wanted to run the team in such a way that wouldn't lose money. And I don't even think they said they were losing money, only that without new revenue they couldn't compete (which was also proven false in the aughts). Though I absolutely believe pre-Target Field they were a "small market" team in the sense that they were in the bottom 5 of revenue. 2. I don't necessary disagree, but also not my money. 3. Again, not my money. And Im not sure on the solution you offered, nothing would gum up an industry more than putting under public control.
  22. drjim
    Money quote in this article when thinking about next year. 60 games is just so few reps, makes sense that he would struggle. I really think it clicks next year if he can avoid injury.
  23. drjim
    Such is life when you lose 90+ 4 years in a row - probably not a lot of elite talent worth extending. And even with that they signed 2 guys to pretty significant extensions (and arguably shouldn't have done either).
  24. drjim
    What are you talking about?
  25. drjim
    Who said or implied that?
×
×
  • Create New...