Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Major League Ready

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,965

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

 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

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 Major League Ready

  1. Major League Ready
    Prove your point. Show us a source that verifies spending has not gone up. Even better show us data that illustrates that the Twins spending rank is not consistent with their revenue rank. These numbers have been posted here before. Do you understand the impact of a strike on the bottom line or do you think that the odds of a work stoppage or so low that a competent management team would just ignore it? Does revenue generally go up or down after a team has a terrible season?
  2. Major League Ready
    Because revenue never goes down?
  3. Major League Ready
    I agree. It matters that Berrios would not be playing for them without being compensated $20M/year. Stated a different way, their option was 1) pay Berrios $20M/AAV or 2) take two prospects and keep the $20M/year. They now have the option to spend the $20M they are not paying Berrios on another player. Maybe you like this better. The Twins sign Stroman for the exact deal Berrios was given. Roughly $20M AAV. They now have Stroman and two prospects for the exactly the same money. I believe this is the point of the OP. He would rather spend the $20M on another player and have the two prospects.
  4. Major League Ready
    What if they project revenue to be significantly lower? Would that be a reason.
  5. Major League Ready
    I heard this very discussion 2 or 3 years ago on "the front office" which of course is a couple former GMs. They both said the fact of the matter is that quite often the players have a city or two where they want to play. The utilize the process to get the team they want to match the highest bid or in some cases accept an offer that is close. They were quite sure emphatic that the players are going to play where they want to play, especially the better players. Of course, none of this is universally true and I don't have any direct knowledge but they do so, I am inclined to take their word for it. Not exactly real complex negotiating. Hey team X. if you match this offer, my player will accept or if you offer X we will accept. Obviously, if choice 1 or 2 won't go there this doesn't work but I would guess it works when we are talking about highly sought after FAs.
  6. Major League Ready
    The OP is comparing having the two prospects and $20M to spend vs having Berrios for the next 6 years at an AAV around $20M. How is this comparison in error? Sorry, but I just don't see the error in this comparison. He is assuming of course that they spend it which could be called into question but there is nothing wrong with his basis of comparison. Let's try this ... The Twins could have signed Berrios or player X. If they use that money to sign player X for $20M/AAV. They have player X and two prospects, right?
  7. Major League Ready
    Is he better than anyone as a utility player at this point?
  8. Major League Ready
    I don't follow. Toronto is not going to pay him an AAV of $20M for the next 6 years? I don't see how his previous salary has anything to do with future cost. His current year contract is 10M plus $5M signing bonus and the total is $131M. How does that $131M not factor? Don't get me wrong, I think $131M over 7 years was a reasonable deal but that does not change the fact the $131M can / should be spent elsewhere. I am also not saying they will spend it but how is "there no $20M" or more precisely $131M?
  9. Major League Ready
    Honestly, I don't know what to think. He was incredible early this season. One the other hand, that was a very small sample compared to 5 years of very modest offensive performance. I find myself hoping they sign him but if I get objective for a moment it could be detrimental to the team if they get exactly what they got the last 5 years. Yet, I am still hoping they sign him because I want to believe he will perform more like the early 2021 season and less like previous to this season.
  10. Major League Ready
    Actually, it means he is playing it has nothing to do with how well he is playing. The CBA prohibits any of the incentives to be based on quality of performance. Try to get that deal working in any other profession. If I show up, I want you to pay me like an elite performer regardless of how I perform. I really hope they sign him too but I don't have any problem understanding their caution.
  11. Major League Ready
    I am going to use your favorite term. Which teams with below average revenue operate in a manner expecting to contend every year? There are not any. Once again, you will just ignore the facts. Prove me wrong with examples. Who said the add has to be a JA Happ type? Second, are you saying that it does not matter if our prospects get innings/experience at the major league level? Don't expect to respond with anything other than where are your examples if you follow your normal pattern and avoid backing up your statement by providing examples of teams that expect to win every year.
  12. Major League Ready
    The implication is the same regardless if you say could or should. Are you really going to dance this way after constantly harping on they should spend more. Framing it now as could does not change the fact the only way they can cut into the revenue advantage is to earn far less profit or none at all while every other team goes on making whatever level of profit they have been making. The outcome you suggest has the clear implication of the Twins being the only team to operate at a very meager profit or none at all. As stated earlier, if other teams were willing to do the same the revenue discrepancy would actually grow. So, could means the Twins make nothing, all other owners continue to make a healthy profit. Of course, we expect players (ours and all others) to go on maximizing their income. This is an undeniable result of what they could do. Should they do this? Is it a fair expectation? Should our players be willing to take a cut if the Twins are willing operate at break-even. They could but she we expect them to operate differently than all the other players?
  13. Major League Ready
    They could also add a couple guys to help with the transition to the guys coming up. That gives them a decent product (sells tickets) and provides a better opportunity to build a homegrown pitching staff which in turn will provide a better path to building a contender. There is often a presumption among fans that every year is a go for it year. That presumption does not exist in a FO.
  14. Major League Ready
    I sure thought it was more fun winning 100 in 2019 then losing 89 in 2021.
  15. Major League Ready
    When the Twins were out of it we all wanted the prospects to get a shot and we hated it when players that were not part of the future got playing time. The same is true of these other teams. Are we supposed to penalize them for trying to rebuild their teams. I don't believe they are trying to lose. They are trying to develop players and the practices which best facilitate getting better result in losing for a period of time.
  16. Major League Ready
    Amen!
  17. Major League Ready
    Team revenue is relatively easy to construct. Most of their revenue is taxable and therefore traceable. Sponsorship is generally public record and tv revenue is widely distributed. Here is STLs revenue the last 20 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/196684/revenue-of-the-st-louis-cardinals-since-2006/ Here is the Twins revenue the last 20 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/196669/revenue-of-the-minnesota-twins-since-2006/ 2109 $83M incremental revenue or 26% more than the twins. 2018 $87M or 32% more. 2017 $58M or 21% more. 2016 $61M or 24% more 2015 $60M 0r 25% more. We could go on but what is the point. This is not news. You elect to believe what you want to believe and ignore even the most definitive information if it does not suite you. I bet you still won’t and don’t acknowledge that you used one set of logic (that was reasonable) for expecting the Twins to spend more than the Rays and then completely ignored the Cardinals revenue advantage suggesting the Twins should spend like the Cardinals.
  18. Major League Ready
    Actually, yes, we should ignore a covid year. We don’t have 2021 data yet. In 2019, the Twins had a great season so their revenue was up to $300M, the cardinals had revenue of $383M. The $83M incremental revenue is 26% more than the twins. In 2018 the Twins had $269M, the cardinals had $356M or $87M / 32% more. You are not nearly this ill-informed. You know STL is a higher revenue team. We can go back the last 20 years if you like but you know this to be true yet you stick to this obviously flawed position. Doubling down using a covid year is just another very clear demonstration of how fans sometimes only consider the information that supports their position. You know that the Covid year is a very poor representation of anything statistical but you use it anyway. I give you another chance. Do you really want to maintain the position that STL does not have a significant revenue advantage over the Twins?
  19. Major League Ready
    You have very clearly illustrated how reason goes out the window when spending is discussed on this site. I am not singling you out here. This is common on this site. You just provided a very clear example. You recognize the Twins spending advantage means they should do things the Rays do not which I have said on a number of occasions. So, we agree on this premise. Then, in the same thread suggest the Twins should be able to do what STL does when STL's revenue advantage over the Twins is the same as the Twins over Tampa. The difference in opinion here is objectivity. Of course, we don't acknowledge these things here and I am guessing you won't either. We prefer to ignore them so that we can insist the problem is management or ownership.
  20. Major League Ready
    I think STL is a great franchise. However, the size of the market is not relevant. Miami is a huge market and their revenue is among the lowest in the league. STL generates enough incremental revenue to sign three significant free agents and have the Twins budget left over. For example, they had 83M more in revenue in 2019. So, the difference is roughly the same difference as the Twins vs the Rays. I would expect the Twins to do things the Rays don't in terms of spending just as I expect the Cardinals to sign some deals the Twins don't do. Is that reasonable or does the $80M delta only apply Twins vs Rays and not Twins vs Cardinals?
  21. Major League Ready
    I did not ask if the Pirates have ever had any success. Which teams result would you prefer and whose team would you like to have for the next 5 years.
  22. Major League Ready
    That's on the fans. They could have made several deadline trades going for it or none. It has no relevance in the relative merit of trading away Buxton / Berrios / Snell / Samardzija or any of the others.
  23. Major League Ready
    No. But would you prefer their results or the Pirates. KC had a couple good years and has been terrible for 20. It's very unrealistic to believe a bottom revenue team will be consistently good. Their recent success has been great and they are positioned to stay that way for several years. Oakland actually has the best track record of small market teams.
  24. Major League Ready
    I did not miss where you were going with this for a second. I simply think it's a separate issue. I responding to a post stating the fact the Rays would do this is not relevant because they are the ne team that has been able to pull off such trades. I gave examples that contradict that position. Now, it appears you are suggesting that their failure to make a different type of trade is somehow relevant to the specific type of trade I was debating with Mike. Had they made the deadline trades you desired that also would have no validity in the relative merit of trading away players before losing them to free agency.
  25. Major League Ready
    OK but these are two very different topics. Mike suggested that only one team (the Rays) has been successful in these types of transactions. I provided examples of why that's not true. Instead of acknowledging these examples and that they have been good for the teams that made these trades, you have shifted to an entirely different complaint. Am I missing something. Were we not talking about an entirely different practice / strategy?
×
×
  • Create New...