Jump to content
Our first free agents ranking has launched, click here to see the top 40+ names in free agency! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

drjim

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,759

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by drjim

  1. drjim
    Kris Johnson. I knew it!
  2. drjim
    They will have to outbid the Red Sox too. Marlins are probably in no hurry to move him so they can be patient.
  3. drjim
    Replace that last piece with a pitcher and I think you are on to what it would take. That, combined with the extension, is a healthy ransom.
  4. drjim
    Not enough in prospects to acquire Stanton and not nearly enough money/years to sign him to an extension. Minimum of 8/200. Would take Sano, one of Meyer/Berrios, and more. Not even certain that would work with the injury concerns of the three prospects at the moment.
  5. drjim
    If Molitor wants the job and is passed over he isn't coming back as a bench coach.
  6. drjim
    I agree with all of this and especially the bolded part. That said, I do wonder if we are reading a little too much into a throwaway question in the broader question of Gardy being fired. But he would have been much wiser to sidestep the question.
  7. drjim
    I'm thinking more lineup depth/slotting, matchups for pitchers as they attack a lineup, and the like. I will admit that statistical analysis might not be on my side and I haven't dug deep enough myself. But I think there is a mental side that can be more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than a statistically proven phenomenon.
  8. drjim
    Not nearly enough for Stanton, might be close on Latos.
  9. drjim
    I don't know if I quite buy that it had little or nothing to do with Cespedes. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between the media narrative and a straight analysis of the numbers, though leaning towards the latter. I think removing a cleanup hitter will always have an impact on a lineup.
  10. drjim
    And they have spent more and I suspect will spend more when the time comes. As a fan I'm actually quite happy that they don't have a bloated payroll while rebuilding.
  11. drjim
    I don't understand why that is a problem, if it was actual cash or approved financing. If you buy a house does it matter if it is done in cash or an approved mortgage?
  12. drjim
    I think they sign a better starter but that is the plan, unless they are able to unload Nolasco somehow. I'll wait and see who they get, but I'm actually OK with it.
  13. drjim
    I think this is the heart of the matter in my opinion. Looking at raw numbers they get killed, but I personally think that the Twins spent a proper amount from 2012-14 for a rebuilding team, and I think St. Peter is probably right that payroll is not going to change much and I even think that is defensible based on what the team is probably going to do. It may seem like I am defending the Pohlads, I'm really not. I don't really care what they said to get the stadium passed, the county was taken to the cleaners no matter what. I don't really care if they make a bunch of profit either, as a fan of this team I want them to make good baseball decisions - and while they made mistakes and we can disagree about specific signings, I think the big picture is pretty close to right. I know others really disagree. So, I'm not discouraged by his comments, I think they are reality and really won't have much impact on what happens in the offseason.
  14. drjim
    2011 too, despite loss of revenue sharing money. And then they started to rebuild. Probably not a coincidence that payroll went down.
  15. drjim
    Loan repayment would have no impact on total revenues. It would be an operating expense and show up in lower operating income.
  16. drjim
    Not sure where you got the 2013 figures. I would use this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/ Admittedly it is only a $7 mil difference. And I am not the least bit surprised that operating income went up since they moved to Target Field. Would anyone claim otherwise? I'm actaully surprised it only went up that little, it appears operating expenses are a lot higher at Target Field than we think, which may explain why the payroll won't be quite as high next year as we might think. Revenue is going to take a massive hit this offseason.
  17. drjim
    I don't necessarily buy "b" here. Funding a stadium didn't guarantee a good, competitive team. Incompetent management can certainly derail the best of plans. I don't parse all of their quotes because I don't really care, but if the Twins promised this there were fools.
  18. drjim
    They don't have $150 million sitting in their pockets. It is tied up in assets that make a higher return than the interest they would pay in loans (and they can also write off a percentage of interest of that loan). It is much more profitable deal for them to finance than to pay cash. If they paid $150 million cash by selling off assets, they would probably "repay" themselves through amortizing the cash spread out over some time frame into the future (probably the length of the loan). That doesn't strike me as particularly hard to understand either. The bigger point is that you think the means of financing would make a difference in how the account for credits and debits. No it wouldn't. And I don't think they are exactly against their payroll ceiling anyways so this discussion is extra moot at the moment. The big test will hopefully be in a couple of years when the team is good and players are starting to emerge and need to get paid. It will be interesting to see if they hold on to all of them.
  19. drjim
    I think revenue this next season will be much lower than you might think.
  20. drjim
    They have higher payrolls in Target Field than they ever had at Metrodome, so that part was true, if not to the extent we might have expected.
  21. drjim
    Hunter and Santana left well before Target Field was done, Cuddyer wanted to go (and was good one out of three years anyways), and using Kubel and Nathan as examples is a little comical considering their production since they left. The Twins aren't in the position because they let Cuddyer, Kubel and Nathan walk, especially since they signed free agents that basically replaced the first two. But yes St. Peter is Pohlad's mouthpiece, that's his job.
  22. drjim
    I certainly wouldn't argue that sports stadiums are unique because of the scale, but this is also upfront money instead of no interest loans or tax incentives/breaks that local governments provide other businesses. So in that sense, it is at least transparent. Your second paragraph baffles me. How else would they pay for it? You can say there should be another way, but capital projects are funded through initial financing that is paid off through future revenues/profits. I'm not sure what other model there would actaully be. If they paid 100% of the costs they would still use this model. Your last line is the right question. I'm not a fan of publicly financed stadiums, and the last two deals really took our state to the cleaners. No argument here. One place I won't go and I sense you are hinting at is that I would never agree that there was some master plan to get financing and then slash payroll as much as possible (if that was the case, they wouldn't have signed Nolasco among others), but the fiasco of the last couple of seasons were not part of the plan. As much money as they still made the last four seasons, it is a fraction of what they would be making with a $110-120 million payroll team that was playoff caliber and selling out most games. And finally, every payroll in Target Field has been bigger than any payroll in the Metrodome.
  23. drjim
    Businesses don't fund investment with taxpayer money? Really?
  24. drjim
    But they have spent the money. If they didn't, it would be even more profit to a smaller annual payment to repay the loan. But your parenthetical statement is absolutely 100% correct and is the actual scandal and worthwhile to criticize, both for the Pohlads and for the Hennepin County commissioners who passed it.
  25. drjim
    Isn't this how every single business pays off capital investment? They finance through a low interest loan, write off the yearly amortization, and pay off the loan through future profits with the hope of even bigger profits. There is much to criticize, but slamming generally accepted business practices seems like a bizarre place to start. From a state level it would have been nice if they paid a higher percentage of the total cost, but it wouldn't have changed a bit the underlying business practice you mentioned.
×
×
  • Create New...