Major League Ready

We have article after article on TD about them being cheap. Has there ever been even one article that actually compared the Twins percentage of revenue spent on payroll to the other 29 teams? Cheap is a relative term, right. Isn't anyone here interested in how they have actually compared over a decade or two? The amount of criticism by TD writers without any objective measure suggests an unwillingness to present what has actually happened. Why wouldn't just one writer here put a little effort into illustrating what has actually happened given the amount of play this topic gets here?

He has produced 2.9-5.4 WAR when healthy accept last year when he had 2.4 WAR. That's a pretty good player but he has not played at all in 2024 according to BB Reference and Fangraphs. Am I missing something?

The valuation of baseball teams baffles me a bit. The Yankees are valued at 7.55B. The average return on equity in the US is 10% and billionaires are not the guys making an average return. 7.5B would be expected to return $750M. Even if the Yankees make $150M/year that's 20% of expected return on capital. This kind of earnings multiple is common with Tech stocks or BIO tech that are expected to increase revenue and earnings by 5 or 10X but the talk around here is that baseball is in trouble.

Here this the link. NASDAQ - Atlanta Braves It looks like $70M in depreciation. A paper loss is a loss that has not been realized. Depreciation is an expense that recognized over a period of multiple years. If a business buys an asset with a 5 -year life, they don't recognize $50,000 in expense when they pay for the asset. They recognize $10K/year. That certainly does not change the legitimacy of the expense.

The option should make the cost in terms of prospects less. He is either a rental or a liability in 2025 becasue the only way he opts in is if he gets hurt or performs very poorly.

I agree they should be able to generate more revenue. That however is a different discussion, and it does not change my desire to have them follow strategies that are the most likely to succeed. We can complain about revenue all we like. They still have $100M or $200M or $300M less than the top 1/3 of the league. That's our reality. Do you want to pursue strategies that are effective for teams with that economic reality, or do you want to follow strategies that have literally never been effective for teams with this economic reality? Be mad they are not generating revenue but don't be mad they are not following a strategy that has an exceptionally low probability of success?

The Tigers and Royals both have lower payrolls than the twins and if you check the standings the Twins and Guardians have better records than the Royals, Tigers, and Padres. Twins Adjusted Payroll Total Royals Adjusted Payroll Total Tigers Adjusted Payroll Total

Can you come up with a single example (even 1) of a 90-win team in the bottom half of revenue that spent $100M on 4 players? The last team in the bottom half of revenue to win the WS was the 2015 Royals. They spent $41M on their top 4 players. There have been 3 other teams in the bottom half of revenue that have made it to the WS in the past 10 years. The 23 Dbacks spent $34M on their top 4 players. The 20 Rays spent $37M and the 2016 Guardians spent $28M. The best team so far this year would be the Orioles who are spending $45M on their 4 most expensive players. The top 2 position players rank 5th and 12th in terms of WAR among position players. The top 2 pitchers rank 1st and 8th in WAR among pitchers. Show us some evidence that spending $100M on four players is a good position to be in. If you are correct, there should be plenty of examples you can use to illustrate your position.

They have about $70M/yr invested in Correa/Lopez, and Buxton through the 2027 season. Had they added another high-profile free agent they would have had in the neighborhood of $100M in four players. That's just not a good position to be in.

That's why I asked for the source of the quote supplied by chpettit19 which indicates there are stipulations that require the money to be spent on improving the team. He tends to be well-informed, so I am inclined to believe the requirements to get these funds have been determined. I will do some digging on my own this weekend.

That's a pretty big part of this story. I did not see this information in the article so I assume you saw another article or news bulletin. Can you provide a link? It would be great to have all the information that has been reported.

In Correa's case, sure. Lewis has only played 24 games and Stewart has only pitched 14 innings. Topa may or may not be a boost, but he has not played at all. Of course, you know that 3 of the 4 have not contributed nearly as much as they could so why ignore the positive?

They are actually $361K under on their allocation which covered Carpenter. Allocated Actual Diff 1 Kaelen Culpepper $3,934,400 $0 1C Kyle DeBarge SS 2,766,100 2,400,000 (366,100) 2 Billy Amick 3B 1,450,000 1,450,000 0 CB Dasan Hill P 1,168,000 2,000,000 832,000 3 Khadim Diaw C 759,700 597,500 (162,200) 4 Jaime Ferrer OF 567,400 425,550 (141,850) 5 Caden Kendle OF 411,000 150,000 (261,000) 6 Derek Bender C 320,800 297,500 (23,300) 7 Eli Jones P 251,500 212,500 (39,000) 8 Jakob Hall P 207,800 147,500 (60,300) 9 Jason Doktorczyk P 189,500 187,000 (2,500) 10 Peyton Carr 3B 179,700 42,500 (137,200) (361,450) ($271,650)

Oakland had 97 wins in 2018 & 2019. We all know that small market teams go through these cycles. Let’s compare how others in the bottom half of revenue have done. Twins - (1) 90-win season since 2019. Royals - Have not won 90 games since they won the WS in 2015 and that’s the only 90 win season they have had since the turn of the century. White Sox – (1) 90-win season since 2007. Padres – (1) 90-win season since 2000. Reds - Last 90 win season was 2013 Marlins – Last 90 win season was 2003. Pirates – Last 90 win season was 2015 and they have had (2) 90-win seasons since 2000. Tigers – Last 90-win season was 2014. Rockies – (1) 90-win season in the past 15 years Mariners -Been bad since 2014. Dbacks have had (1) 90-win season in the past 12 years. Mariners won 90 in 2021 & 22. That’s their only 90-win seasons since 2004. Among modest revenue teams, the Twins and Brewers have been pretty good but over the past couple of decades Oakland has been better than every team in the bottom half of revenue except Cleveland / Tampa and better than half the teams in the top half of revenue. The sad truth depicted in the summary above is that it is very difficult to put together a playoff team with the current revenue disparity. Cleveland, Oakland, and Tampa have recognized the need to employ tactics that are contrary to what many fans believe drives success. Should we ignore the fact that these teams have done far better than any other team with revenue limitations. Think about that. Let’s not do what has proven to be successful because not every team has followed their lead. You also assume employing their tactics means spending at the same level. The irony is their tactics produce more cheap talent which would allow a team like the twins to spend more on extensions and free agents. They don’t have to operate below their spending capacity just because they utilize the tactics of teams with even lower revenue. This is a list of 90-win seasons since 2000. Oakland, Cleveland, and Tampa have done much better than any of the other teams outside the top half of revenue and as well as many with considerably more revenue. 1 Yankees 16 2 Dodgers 13 3 Red Sox 13 4 Cardinals 13 5 Braves 12 6 Oakland 10 7 Cleveland 10 8 Tampa 9 9 Astros 8 10 Angels 7 11 Giants 7 12 TWINS 6 13 Mariners 6 14 Rangers 6 15 Cubs 5 16 Brewers 5 17 Dbacks 5 18 Phillies 5 19 Nationals 5 20 Mets 4 21 Tigers 4 22 White Sox 4 23 Orioles 3 24 Blue Jays 3 25 Reds 3 26 Rockies 3 27 Pirates 2 28 Royals 1 29 Marlins 1 30 Padres 1

People keep saying this but it's not true. I am not sure how you are measuring success but since the turn of the century Cleveland and Oakland have both been more successful by win percentage. Tampa is actually significantly lower win a win percentage of .497 compared to .518 for Oakland and .516 for Cleveland. Oakland and Cleveland have both had ten 90 win seasons compared to 9 for Tampa. If you bump up to 92 wins Oakland has 8, Cleveland has 7, and Tampa has 6. Let's not ignore that these three teams have been significantly better than all of the teams in the bottom 1/2 of revenue over the past 2+ decades. If you look at how they built their most successful teams, you fill find all three organizations did a great job of trading for prospects. See the table below that lists the percentage of WAR based on acquisition strategy. TaP is traded for as a prospect where a player is considered a prospect that has never had a season where they produced 1.5 WAR of greater. These three teams have produced far more WAR by trading for prospects than the draft. BTW ... Using KC as an example makes absolutely no sense. They have the lowest win percentage of any team in the league and they have had the fewest 90 win seasons of any team in the league. The got good after collecting high draft picks for a decade. 8 Oakland Athletics WINS Drafted Intl TaP Trade FA 100% Oakland 2002 103 36.0% 12.0% 43.0% 0.0% 9.0% 100% Oakland 2001 102 65.9% 14.3% 11.4% 8.3% 0.0% 101% Oakland 2019 97 25.0% 0.0% 54.0% 10.0% 12.0% 100% Oakland 2018 97 51.8% 0.0% 29.1% 19.0% 0.0% 100% Oakland 2013 96 24.5% 5.0% 39.3% 10.0% 21.0% 100% Oakland 2003 96 46.2% 21.1% 27.7% 5.0% 0.0% 100% Oakland 2012 94 10.7% 0.0% 37.4% 5.3% 46.6% 100% Oakland 2006 93 23.0% 0.0% 45.0% 9.0% 23.0% Oakland Total 97.25 35.4% 6.6% 35.9% 8.3% 14.0% 7 Cleveland Guardians WINS Drafted Intl TaP Trade FA 100% Cleveland 2017 102 22.9% 20.0% 43.9% 8.0% 5.0% 100% Cleveland 2007 96 31.3% 36.5% 32.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2016 94 6.4% 17.3% 76.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2019 93 23.0% 18.0% 44.7% 14.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2005 93 7.5% 21.8% 51.4% 2.5% 16.8% 100% Cleveland 2022 92 26.8% 24.0% 49.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2013 92 14.9% 0.0% 50.1% 10.2% 24.8% Guardians Total 94.57 19.0% 19.7% 49.6% 5.0% 6.7% 6 Tampa Bay Rays WINS Drafted Intl TaP Trade FA 100% Tampa Bay 2021 100 25.0% 6.0% 45.8% 7.0% 16.0% 100% Tampa Bay 2023 99 13.8% 9.8% 66.2% 0.0% 10.2% 100% Tampa Bay 2008 97 45.7% 0.0% 33.2% 4.5% 16.6% 99% Tampa Bay 2019 96 18.6% 0.0% 45.8% 9.0% 26.0% 100% Tampa Bay 2010 96 64.7% 0.0% 22.1% 9.1% 4.1% 100% Tampa Bay 2013 92 50.7% 0 28.6% 8.5% 12.2% Tampa Bay Total 96.67 36.4% 2.6% 40.3% 6.4% 14.2% Average All 96.16 30% 10% 42% 7% 12%

It would help if Lewis, Correa, and Miranda were not out.

There are a lot of assumptions here we can't validate. The first one is that they spent all of their allocated budget. It's quite possible for example that they had a budget of $130M and the additions they felt fit best left them with a little extra. It's also possible the TV deal was a little better than they expected but by the time they figured that out the roster had been constructed. We also don't really know what they forecasted for attendance. It's quite possible that their messaging was they were hoping for 2M fans while they used 1.9 for constructing a budget. The attendance deficit you cited was also decreased by about 38,000 in the just the last 3 games. With Lewis, Correa, Miranda, and Stewart all back very soon, they might believe they can still beat last year's attendance, especially with an addition that boosts fan confidence in this team. I don't know what they projected or budgeted either. You might be spot on but we all just guessing.

I tracked his defensive stats all of last year to see if the numbers supported what I thought I was seeing and the numbers tracked as you stated. I was down low near the IF last night and his defense was fantastic. I don't understand why some people to take a negative view and won't give credit when players improve their defense.

As does the constant bitching. The appropriate measure of the entirety of the twins FO is Levine getting a job elsewhere that he doesn't have here? Had they followed the advice of the majority here we would have Polanco at 2B, Jordan Montgomery and his 6+ ERA instead of SWR, Hoskins at 1B instead of Sanatana with Lee still in the minors.

The Wolves and Wild TV deal just expired. This is a great opportunity for them to collaborate on a solution which would serve Minnesota sports fans far better than a baseball only service. A few people brought up the failed Victory sports model last spring but that was a far different time. There are a multitude of ways to distribute the product now and fans are more than ready to participate. It seems plausible that far greater accessibility could lead to equivalent revenue but that remains to be seen. What will happen starting next year is greater availability and I doubt we see any form of blackouts.

There was an article a couple months ago where teams were polled on how they rate other FOs? I don't remember exactly where the Twin's rated but 8th is stuck in my mind.

It would be nice to get Stewart back. Royce should be getting close. It's also good to see the high upside Milb players returning. Having Jenkins, Prielipp, and now Mercedes back makes for a little greater anticipation when reading the minor league report.

What if they would have kept Polanco and had signed Montgomery and Hoskins. Those were the three most common wants as I recall. Would attendance be up? As fans should we be happy with a better team and a brighter future or should we prefer they spent more money?

Not exactly sure I understand your point. Regional sports on cable TV are going away. It's a dying model. Streaming services are a lower cost alternative to cable.

I don't know exactly what all the services provide but I switched to one that carries ESPN / Fox / TBS and MLB on a single service. There must be others.