Otto von Ballpark

Molitor has spent one year of his 15 years post-retirement working for another organization than the Twins. And it was disastrous and 10 years ago. Molitor was apparently considered for the Minnesota manager's job 13 years ago, but passed over for Gardy. Molitor was brought back to the MLB dugout for the first time in 10 years last winter, to be Gardenhire's bench coach after Gardy was nearly fired himself. I've got nothing against him and I wish him well, but he's not much of an outsider.

The video game perspective was the idea there would be an ordered list of prospects with a number attached, and increasing or decreasing the number would be the primary effect of these different approaches. Like I said, I don't think it's a major effect, but it's probably there and it's not necessarily a bad thing either. Think of it less like altering the trade, and more like altering a team's valuation of a player. If some team calls us about Eddie Rosario, I think that could/should alter TR's valuation of him, to some degree.

You're looking at it from a video game simulation perspective, which is problematic by itself, but there are a whole lot more outcomes that you're not considering. How about, if you call about trading for a minor leaguer, you're slightly less likely to actually land him than if the other team calls you? (Of course, once you factor in that the other team may not call you at all, it's probably a wash. But there are other ways to approach it too -- you can discuss other players before bringing up the guy you want, or you can discuss a player at the trading deadline and then revisit it later, etc.) Of course it varies too what kind of player you are calling about. Minor leaguers and less-heralded prospects are going to be affected by this much more than an established MLB player. For example, if the Twins called the Braves last winter about Gilmartin, maybe they don't simply give him up for Doumit, or at least not as quickly -- they had no pressing need to unload Gilmartin at that point, who required neither a 40-man roster spot nor much money, so any sign that he had more value to other teams might have caused them to re-evaluate. (Of course, the Twins could call the Braves about pitching help in general and find their way to Gilmartin indirectly... or more likely, they have Gilmartin and others on a list for every team which they reference whenever a trade inquiry comes in, and rarely target such players so precisely.) On the other hand, if it is the summer of 2001 and we call the Mets about Rick Reed, they're not going to hold out for more just because they didn't call us for Matt Lawton first. I'll admit, it's going to be a minor effect and perhaps undetectable given the multitude of other variables around trades, but given the lack of structure and many possible outcomes, I can't say there wouldn't be an effect. (A related approach and effect might be seen in teams that seek/offer lots of trades, versus teams that don't. TR's restrained approach might nab slightly higher returns and/or close deals quicker than a team that comes across as more reckless in its approach.)

For Maddon, or free agents -- I agree it's bunk. For player trades, I think it plays a part (although obviously a relatively minor one). It's a much less structured market.

Actually I found that nugget about TR's trade approach -- waiting for others to initiate talks -- fascinating. It's actually a pretty good (albeit obviously not aggressive) approach to trades -- when you inquire about a player or players, it does naturally follow that you lose a lot of leverage. If the Twins call the Nationals about Alex Meyer, the Nationals probably ask for the moon (and they probably did initially anyway); but if the Nationals call the Twins about Denard Span, and the Twins keep coming back to Alex Meyer in their discussions, it's a whole different situation. (The problem, naturally, is you need to have desirable assets to make this work, and even then you're operating more on other teams timelines.) It's a little more problematic when it comes to free agents, since there is an obvious defined market and time frame for them. Although he showed some signs of bucking that trend last winter. (Similarly, TR's pre-2008 approach to international players might best be described as "waiting out the market" given the results he got from it.)

More related thoughts: The Twins franchise history in inextricably entwined with payroll philosophy. From the self-sustaining Griffiths in Washington then Minnesota, to the Pohlad years in the Metrodome, to the near sales/moves/contractions, even now with TR's general approach to team-building. It's actually quite interesting how elements of that philosophy have persisted all through relocations, ownership changes, stadium constructions, and the dramatic modernization of the business of professional baseball. Also, I don't follow any team nearly as much as the Twins, but it seems like many Twins fans have an interesting frugality about them too. Sure there are posters here and elsewhere that want the team to "spend spend spend", but taking a step back, several of the founding members of Twins Daily, some of the most prominent and vocal Twins fans ever, are full endorsers of the conservative FA approach. And I think of someone like Aaron Gleeman, no stranger to criticizing the front office, and how often his positions are centered on value and optimizing resources. I mean, we have a thread going right now about basically acquiring Buehrle for a throwaway prospect, and a number of posters are against the idea because Buehrle's 1 year, $19 million deal, while short-term and easily affordable for this club, still seems sub-optimal to them.

The job seeker cold-calling a prospective employer is not the standard expectation here (unless perhaps the job seeker had a strong preference for this particular employer, i.e. home nearby or past professional history). Should Jon Lester be expected to call the Twins this offseason, just to inquire interest?

It was worth my price of admission! Seriously, it was a quality piece. In an informal chat, St. Peter seems like a fine guy, and you set a good tone (even if we didn't feed you the best questions ). I don't normally seek out podcasts/webcasts, but this was an entertaining listen, and I will definitely check out the next one. I'm not really obsessive about payroll, but there are some good baseball minds running this club and I don't like to see them hold themselves back in any area of talent acquisition, as compared to their peers. Even though the results weren't perfect, last winter was great in that we could finally debate how TR performed in free agency rather than why he didn't participate. I just hope that trend continues and it wasn't seen as special circumstances (due to our league-worst starting staff). Plus, I think it's interesting to examine the tendencies and practices of my favorite team. Whether it be their approach to finance -- why do observers consider the Twins perhaps the most consistently profitable MLB team? -- to TR's approach to trades (he generally waits to be called rather than initiate contact). Nothing beats the actual games but hey, we're coming up on a dry spell here...

I know. I don't really want "specifics" anyway -- my post upthread was just a post, not intended to be a question. ashburyjohn's phrasing above works perfectly for me. I'd change "Forbes" to "Forbes and Bloomberg" because they used some different methodologies, so it is interesting to me that they came up with a similar number (and makes it a little harder to simply respond that "Forbes is wrong" ). Journalistic-ly, I'd even reach out to Forbes and Bloomberg in advance to see if they'd be willing to share any more general detail behind their estimates (local vs national revenue, stadium vs media revenue, etc.). Would be interesting by itself, and it could also lead to interesting follow-ups. St. Peter may not be the guy to answer this question, though, at least not in any meaningful way. Thanks for taking question suggestions, though -- it's really awesome to participate like that! Next time I'll try better to contribute/re-phrase in the most journalistic way I can.

The context of that "comparable" is that the 2015 payroll will be comparable to the 2014 one -- and the 2014 got as high as $90-some million so there is a range for possible increases. It had nothing to do with league average.

Thanks, I didn't realize the podcast and video were different. Just listened, but I still don't think I heard anything specific about revenue and why it might be different than the Forbes estimate. He went into some tangent about the CBA and debt service.

I don't think they are lying/misleading either, but I still think they are working from a very different definitional foundation. Like back in the stadium debate days, I am pretty sure that "breaking even" and "making money" frequently became "losing money." It was nice to hear St. Peter clarify the definition of "player payroll" but in retrospect I suppose that should have been assumed, given the published nature of player salaries and context of those discussions. I'd be more interested in their definition of "revenue" in that equation. Does it fully include everything (local/team revenues, shared league revenues, possible revenue sharing)? Gross or net -- is anything deducted or depreciated off the top there, before they look at their 52% payroll target? Taxes? Construction costs? Loan interest/payments? Revenue sharing? They own their own radio station -- how does that figure in? I know for revenue sharing purposes, MLB won't let him shift or deduct things anymore, but for their own internal calculations and considerations, it's quite possible that the Twins do. Heck, just what IS their revenue? If 50-52% player payroll is standard and they've been meeting or exceeding that figure regularly, what's the harm in disclosing how the Bloomberg and Forbes revenue estimates are way off base? (Consider it a courtesy to the Bloomberg and Forbes folks. ) I know Bloomberg specifically contacted MLB teams for comment and information, and some responded -- did the Twins provide any? Maybe the estimates are wrong for this market? Maybe the Twins are under-performing the market from a revenue standpoint? I did post ashburyjohn's revenue question in the suggestion thread, but I don't think it was asked. Although perhaps it was and I couldn't hear his response after "three hits from the bong."

Travel and the salaries of other personnel probably don't amount to anything close to "a large chunk of the other 50%". How much do you think they make? Players might make 50%, but they make a TON. Also, "thousands"? I doubt the Twins personnel rolls are quite THAT numerous. There are 372 names on the "Front Office" page at the Twins site, and it seems to be a fairly exhaustive list -- a number of them even appear to be part-time employees, so I would guess anyone not on that list is either part-time/seasonal and/or minimum wage. Only a very small handful on that list would be traveling with the team. I think they outsource concessions and probably some other things. Maybe if you count every part-time employee (grounds crew, custodians, etc.), you might get close to a thousand, but by that point you're basically adding exclusively seasonal minimum wage employees, which have about as much effect as minor league player salaries (which I notice you left off your list).

For an outside candidate, Pohlad might be playing the role of recruiter rather than interviewer. (Or cheerleader -- my guess is he just wants to meet the guys. Not sure if this is unusual in MLB managerial searches.)

Who's holding the football in that picture? And why is Madden so excited?

"We can't even give our money away", manager edition. As I've stated, I'd love to see them be aggressive with Maddon even if he doesn't really want to come here and/or the Twins ultimately don't want to pay his price (and I wouldn't blame them if we somehow had to significantly top $5 million annually). The message that a Maddon interview and token offer would send to the other prospective managers ("this is the kind of manager and culture we want to establish here") would be good (not to mention a good message to the fans too).

I've posted this elsewhere, but it's not so much spending. TR and the Twins have consistently demonstrated a real aversion to competitive bidding situations, regardless of cost. At the time TR stepped down after the 2007 season, the record bonus for a non-Cuban Latin American player was still under $2.5 million, or less than what TR guaranteed Ramon Ortiz or Rondell White for their services in 2007. The Twins just had zero activity in that market (or in Cuba or Asia). Just going off memory, I don't think the Twins ever went above "slot" for any draft picks prior to the cap system in 2012 (maybe Mauer in 2001?). Bill Smith got Miguel Sano in 2009 and tried posting on a few Japanese players (regrettably getting Nishioka), but obviously stayed fairly modest in the draft and domestic free agency. And even since his return, all of TR's domestic FA signings have been for fairly modest amounts and/or early in the offseason, suggesting only modest bidding markets for them. To his credit, there were finally reports of late activity last offseason for the Twins, in offers to Garza and Ervin Santana. Both involved special circumstances (historically bad starting staff, Garza as a former Twin, and Santana unsigned well into March) so I am still not sure if they represent a trend or mirage. We should see some similar activity (and hopefully an actual signing) this offseason if TR and the Twins have indeed turned a new leaf in this regard.

Oh yeah -- don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but apparently Maddon speaks Spanish fluently.

Do we really want to be locked in with an expensive guy on the wrong side of 60, just a year or two before our own younger, cheaper manager prospect is ready?

Even if it is a long shot and Maddon isn't particularly interested in the job, I think pursuing him a bit communicates something good to the other candidates about the kind of manager/personality/culture the Twins want. (And communicates the same to the fans.) Kinda the same with big-ticket free agents -- I don't expect the Twins to sign many or any of them, but just knowing they are interested in the best talent sends a good message.

He is definitely a personality, and in a good way. "Why Joe Madden is the craziest person in baseball" http://www.businessinsider.com/why-joe-maddon-is-the-craziest-person-in-baseball-2013-5?op=1

Here's a couple examples I ran across of Maddon's in-game strategy: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/buster_olney_on_twitter_sources_manager_joe_maddon_has_exercised_an_opt_out

Has no one brought this example up in our managerial search yet? "Billy" Pohlad could be the next Billy Heywood!

"Never been swept in the playoffs" looks good to this Twins fan. Although a closer examination does show a Gardy-like "win 1, lose the next 3" routine in the 2011 ALDS, he also has a full 5-game ALDS loss in 2010, and in the 2012 ALDS, they actually won a game when down 2-0 in the series (in addition to the 2008 WS appearance, of course). He's also won more games over the last 7 seasons than Gardy did in his first 7, with a greater per-season win average than Gardy in our glorious "6 division titles in 9 years" run too, despite playing in a much tougher division. From 2008-2014, 3 WS participants (and 2 winners) have been from the AL East, and 7 ALCS participants. From 2002-2010, only 2 AL Central teams made the series (1 winner), and only 4 even made the ALCS (all 4 franchises except KC). So to answer your questions, I don't know.

Is MLB pissed off that this news broke during the World Series?