Major League Ready

I am it sure there is one too many times. His ineptitude with the media has not been his undoing yet so I doubt it ever will. Falvey is plenty sharp at managing the financial aspect of the business. A marketing guru would be great. It sure seems like they could use some help growing revenue. I was at the Milwaukee game with almost 42K fans. More nights like that would be great for this franchise.

IDK. My guess is Lopez and Buxton, Yes. Correa, Maybe not. I was not trying to comment on how they were spending the money. Just responding to a poster that said the money saved via young talent was not being spent. If I were the Pohlads, I would not let St Peter or Joe Pohlad answer questions because they have no moxie. That's why Falvey "gets stuck" with it. Would you let St. Peter speak to the media?

They are spending it now on Correa, Lopez, and Buxton? That cheap talent will make it possible for them to keep the team together as Ryan / Ober / Duran / Jax / Alcala / Jeffers / Castro / Lewis, and Miranda all become more expensive.

I just saw this MLB New Offer It appears fans we can get out of market games for $6/month. Wow! That's going to have a huge impact on the viability of RSNs. I have been of the mindset that the new model will be wide distribution where they rely on increasing advertising revenue. It looks like that's where they are headed.

With a little luck, we won't have to worry about them signing any 4-5 type SPs for the next few years. That would really help because those guys are getting $12M+.

While they have not done much to inspire confidence in their marketing department, wider distribution is just not that tough given the available options. Lots of details to workout for sure. This is not something you put together in 90 days. That would explain the interim solution. Now they need to make the most of this opportunity significantly increase accessibility to their product. That exposure is the key to increasing fan participation and ultimately increasing revenue.

That's the point. The teams could form a united effort to provide coverage to all of the sports team on a single provider like the YES network. It's the ultimate control over their product.

Two completely different issues. I agree that their messaging has been really poor. However, these articles and posters here don't suggest the Twins need to get better at marketing so that they can spend more. They say the Twins don't spend more because they are unwilling to spend. The vast majority of complaints here about spending don't complain the Twins need to market better so they can spend more. They complain the Twins are cheap. Let's say you and your brother work in sales for the same company. You are the much better salesman and make $200K to his $100K. You both spend $100K. Is your brother cheap because he didn't make as much money as you. Point being, I doubt anyone argues the TV deal and messaging did not hurt revenue. That has nothing to do with if they are cheap or not.

I don't think you understand the core concept. If they are all equally cheap the twins would not be at a disadvantage, would they? The suggestion of most of these articles is that an unwillingness to spend prohibits the twins from signing players and creates a disadvantage for the team. If all of the other teams are as cheap as the twins, what's the complaint? That's not what people are saying. They are saying that the Twins don't sign the players that other teams do sign because they are cheap. If the Pirates are cheap or not is absolutely irrelevant. Would you prefer to make these arguments from an informed position? I would love to know how the twins compare to all the other teams.

I hope they are on Bally's but without any exclusivity. Being on Bally's is ideal for fans who want to keep their current provider. In some or most cases that will likely mean an additional fee for regional sports. You have to believe there will be substantially change next year. The league is not going to just punt. Either MLB will take greater control, or we could see the Twins / Wolves / Wild and Lynx form an entity to distribute their product.

Does half of that 30M go to the players?

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