Major League Ready
-
Posts
7,751 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
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 Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Major League Ready
-
The 888 is revenue per attendee which of course includes concessions. The problem here is your meager understanding of financial analytics. It's hilarious you think you are qualified to assess their competence.
-
You insinuated they lost $20M as a result of lower attendance. I provided the difference in attendance of 22,508. We don't need any revenue numbers to calculate your inference that a $20M loss would mean that the average fan spends $888/each which of course is 10-12X overstated. The math is undeniable. Why do you want to continue to illustrate a thorough lack of analytical competence? Do you get it. You provide the revenue difference! I provided the change in attendance. The rest is a simple calculation.
-
2024 attendance was 1,951,616 down 22,508 from 1,974,124 in 2023. Are you under the impression that the average fan spends $888 to attend a game or did you just exaggerate by more than 10X for affect?
-
It's not remotely necessary to have their books to produce a meaningful comparison (estimate) using an unbiased source like Statista. All you need is a subscription. There are also numerous sources for revenue rank and there are multiple sources with very accurate accounts for payroll. It would be very easy to produce revenue vs revenue rank. It's obvious you don't want to be informed but perhaps others would like to have some factual data by which to form an opinion.
-
There is not a single topic that has gotten nearly as much play as how much this organization spends. There has been countless articles and thousands of posts insisting the team is cheap. People here absolutely love to rant about spending. It's become a primary function of this site. I would assume a TD writer would love to provide the facts surrounding their cheapness. It would be a huge hit to illustrate their cheapness. I would think there is a TD writer that would want the glory of illustrating these facts. writers and posters here a generally quite good at proving factual basis for their opinions on player performance opinions but the most commonly asserted fact on this site has never been supported by fact. I think the Pohlads, in general terms, are mediocre owners and I am reasonably confident the new owners will better overall. I am quite aware you don't complain. However, the majority rant constantly without supporting facts which is not exactly rational or intelligent. Is TD and their followers interested in the facts. I will join in the condemnation if it's actually proven the Pohalds are cheaper than most or even average?
-
I have already done a fair amount of it but I also know that you any many others would just completely ignore it if it was me posting it.
-
It took a five-part series to come to this conclusion? Do you think people are that intrigued by the reason they are selling? Let's be real. This much effort was a product of wanting to complain. Nobody really cares why the Pohlad's are selling.
-
How is this history relevant to what is happening today or why does anyone care? I bet nobody would care how they got their money if we were in the top 10 in spending. The purpose is to rant about how the Pohlad's spend. So, why not cut to the chase and do an article on how the Twins spending rank vs revenue rank compares or how their spending as a percentage of revenue compares to other teams. We get a five part series on the Pohlad's business history but not a single Twins Daily writer willing to actually layout the facts on their spending vs other teams of similar revenue. Sure seems like TD does not want an article that would actually quantify/illustrate the relative spend. Why is this so?
-
It seemed that Bean5302 was trying to illustrate the relative increase in market cap for the Twins vs other potential investments. I assume he did this because there have been countless posts suggesting this increase in valuation was phenomenal. What Bean5302 showed was that this was not remotely close to the return on something like Apple. Anyone that has done any investing can pull up an online investment calculator, plug in the number and determine a future asset value or a rate of return. For all the ranting here, it would appear that the people doing the ranting have never bothered to check the validity of their theories. Bean5302 made it really simple but anyone who does not like the facts, ignores them. The takeaway here should be that the increase in valuation has been slightly less than what any of us would have made in a S&P 500 fund which I would bet are part of some of the member's 401K.
-
I completely agree but there are always going to be fans insisting that players don't understand it's a business. I seem to recall lots of posters saying that Buxton would never sign an extension. Some even were critical that they would not give him $150M+ guarantee. Now people are complaining about him getting $15M/year when he has produced quite well in 3 or the past 4 years. Now we are complaining that they avoided arbitration with every single player.
-
Dan Hayes Ownership update
Major League Ready replied to Carneal&Gordon's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Buxton has been a bad investment in one of the last 4 years. The other 3 years he produced a total of 11.3 WAR or $4M per WAR which is double the average production for free agents. How is that a disaster? -
Bean5302 went through the trouble of illustrating the rate or return and then compared it to other investments. The fact that he used the S&P 500 is a very fair an unbiased comparison given anyone could buy an S&P 500 fund. All of the moaning around her about the Pohlad's outrageous return is put in perspective. So, Bean did provide a lesson in finance even if you don't want to learn. He actually overstated the return because the $44M is not the only capital investment they made in the team. They put $185M in Target Field and probably made some other investments along the way.
-
That's a good point. I guess it could be a Cody Bellinger type deal. Alonso has not been good not great the last 2 years. He might not get anything close to what he was asking for in years or total dollars. Alonso/Boras might take a Bellinger type deal a hope he has a big year while being able to fall back on two player option years like Bellinger. I would not have wanted the Bellinger deal last year or Alonso on the same type deal this year because if he is good he is gone and if he is not you live with the deal for 2 more years.
-
No doubt some teams will have reduced revenue and you definitely have a point that this will create some opportunities. This is a good year to have payroll capacity like Detroit for example. Unfortunately, even if Alonso doesn't get what he is expecting, his contract would still mean a record payroll for the Twins and the only way that is even a remote possibility is if the sale is completed in the next few weeks and that's highly unlikely.
-
Alonso turned down $150M from the Mets and he is not signing a short-term deal as you suggested earlier. To frame this as "afraid to spend a single dollar" is fanatical. While I understand that those of us interested enough to follow the off-season and come here to discuss it are all at least a little fanatical. However, if we remain rational it's not at all hard to understand why Seattle and Minnesota have not signed Alonso. Refusing to accept the reality that baseball is a business will result in perennial disappointment.
- 94 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- derek falvey
- pablo lopez
- (and 5 more)
-
The Guardians never spend but Detroit seems very likely. They finished last year strong and right now only project at $107M payroll. Detroit also has all of their most expensive contracts (other than Baez) expiring at the end of this season. They will have $40M coming off at the end of this season. Detroit also has one of the best farm systems in MLB. It's not a stretch top say they are the best positioned among all of the AL Central teams for a prolonged run of success. Can they keep Skubal is the big question, but they can afford it given all the cheap talent they have now.
-
I am sure you understand that there are a number of teams that generate 150 or 200% of the revenue of the Twins and therefore can spend 150 or 200% of what the Twins spend. If the Twin's roster produces the same WAR per dollar spent, it is absolutely certain the twins will not be remotely competitive. Therefore, it could be argued that productivity per dollar spent is crucial to building a winning roster. As a result of this revenue disparity, acquiring and developing cheap young talent is by far the most crucial aspect of building a contender in a small/mid-market. When you ignore this fundamental need to produce more per dollar spent in many of your posts, it suggests that you simply refuse to acknowledge this reality. It's not that we want to be bankers. It's that we understand we have to be twice as productive per dollar spent to compete with teams with twice as much to spend.
-
The reason I asked is that all MLB teams in 2023had a $50M anomaly in the form of BAM money so all of those revenue numbers are probably in the neighborhood of $50M less in 2024. In the Twins case, their TV revenue also went down so they were probably down $60-70M. Therefore, comparing 2024 payroll with 2023 revenue is going to skew the percentage of payroll numbers fairly significantly. That said, I know you usually just compare to teams with similar revenue which is perfectly reasonably in terms of determining level of spending to expect.
-
Cleveland went from 76 wins in 2023 to 92 wins in 2024 without a significant addition. It has been very common for teams building a young core to make significant improvement based on the development of young players.
-
Are those revenue numbers from 2023?
-
Are you advocating they dump Correa and Buxton for salary relief and reinvest the money? If they are the problem you suggest, the most straight forward solution would be to trade Correa and Buxton even if it was only for salary relief and then reinvest the money. Most here seem to be very much against dumping Correa and/or Buxton and I agree. Their presence is not causing the Twins to get rid of anyone in order to keep them.
-
A trade for a "final piece" can be a great move but historically teams are not built on trades for impact players. The top 30 teams (measured by most wins) since 2000 among teams in the bottom half of revenue have not been built this way. Trades for established players have represented 11% of WAR. Players acquired as prospects represented 30% of WAR across the best 30 teams constructed since 2000..
-
I got it now. I thought you meant WAR was broken. I missed the bWAR part because you were using fWAR stats. My bad.
-
Yes, "Castro had a nearly identical bat in 2024 as he had in 2023." However, he played in 34 more games in 2024. I am sure you know WAR is a cumulative stat so why are you surprised Casto's WAR was higher in 24?
- 41 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- carlos correa
- matt wallner
- (and 1 more)
-
Last year his productivity was $4M per WAR so he produced roughly double the average free agent.
