chpettit19

None of it is a complete picture, right? The point is they're not really operating at a loss. And the Twins aren't either. Dave St Peter has been the president of the Twins organization since 2002. If the Twins were operating at a loss constantly like some people suggest they are I highly doubt he makes it 20+ years running their organization. I'm not asking the Twins to do crazy things and throw 20 mil out the window every year or anything. All I'm asking is that they don't slap their fans in the face by cutting payroll as they lead into a competitive window. I'm asking them to run their business better so they actually maximize this market. I'm asking them not to have their president and CEO come out after a season they struggled to stay above .500 before completely collapsing and question fans because they didn't turn out to watch that team (Dave St Peter after 2022). I'm asking that they don't have their president of baseball operations announce a payroll decrease weeks after their first playoff wins in 2 decades (Derek Falvey just a few weeks ago). I'm asking them to at least pretend they care about winning and not just their profit margins. And, yes, they are profits way, way, way more often than they're losses. Either that or St Peter has some very incriminating stuff on the Pohlad family.

Oh, I certainly wasn't saying there's no shot he fixes that, but that's the next test for him. The league knows his weakness now, and he's going to need to make the adjustment to the adjustment. He seems like a hard worker, and clearly has talent. But he has a very real weakness that will need to be addressed or his career will look very different than we all hope it does.

The Astros exploited the massive hole Wallner has on the inner 3rd of the plate and if he can't close that hole in his swing he's going to be in trouble moving forward.

Their OIBDA was 51 million through September. It was 71 million for 2022. And 104 million in 2021. The day to day Braves business is doing quite well. Were their losses on intergroup interests realized or unrealized? They had 62 mil in unrealized losses through June. They didn't actually lose that money, it's just on paper. The 83 million in the next report could absolutely be unrealized losses. Their depreciations aren't necessarily real losses either. Very likely those are just paper losses to increase their tax deductions.

If the Twins can get Pete Alonso for Yasser Mercedes and Aaron Sabato they need to have that deal done before I finish the piece of apple pie I'm eating.

I don't care what you want to label the Twins, a product or whatever other term you want to use. The question isn't weird. The Pohlads want to make more revenue. You keep telling me over and over that they can't/shouldn't invest in their team until they have more revenue. That's not how business works. The Pohlads need fans to invest their money and time in order to make revenue. You're arguing that the fans should do that regardless of the team on the field, or the investment the Pohlads make. Your argument, at it's core, is that if the fans want a better Twins team they should spend their time and money on the bad team so the Pohlads can make money and then hopefully invest in the team and make it better. What other businesses run that way? What other businesses tell you that if you want the company to spend you have to spend first?

Crazy that you can charge more for a better product, huh? After they invested in their team their revenue went through the roof. Crazy that a company has to actually invest in their product to earn customer dollars, huh? Do you buy a lot of other products where the company selling it tells you they're actively going to be investing less in their product until their customers buy more of it and then they'll maybe invest more and make a better product? Isn't the general approach to business that the company actually invests in their product so it's worth the customer buying it, and then as they make more revenue they continue to improve their product so the customer buys the new version and they make more revenue and the cycle continues? You seem to think the correct way for a baseball franchise to be run is to force the customers to pay for a worse product with the hopes that the company will someday improve their product. Why are the fans the ones who need to be investing in this product instead of the Pohlads?

It went from 115 to 130 overnight after 1 NLDS appearance. The Twins are going from 155 to 140 or lower (according to the reports) overnight after 1 ALDS appearance. Do you see the difference? The Braves after 4 straight playoff appearances, after having increased, instead decreased their payroll at the opening of their window, jumped from 130ish to 190ish and over 200 this last year. It's almost like they did exactly what I'm asking for and invested in their team which then lead to long-term financial gain so it was a maintainable model. I don't know why it's crazy to suggest the Twins invest in their product as their competitive window opens in order to increase their revenue moving forward. But maybe I really just don't understand how any of this works.

See above comment about your repeatedly saying I'm saying things that I'm not saying. We've come to the end of this road. We're taking over this thread so it's time for us to just move on our separate ways.

It's in the MLB CBA. You can look up the MLB CBA. Yes, it is absolutely the market potential. I don't maintain that. This is now the 3rd time I've said I want them to run their business in a way that allows them to maximize their market so they can spend to those levels. I don't know how else to say this. I am mad that they're running their organization in such a way that they can't spend to those levels. For 2024 I am asking them to make the long-term decision to not absolutely slaughter their momentum and increasing revenue by doing things like announcing they're cutting payroll. I have never, and will never, ask them to maintain a payroll equal to their market score if they're losing money hand over fist to do it. I am asking for a 1 year business decision so that they are able to maintain those levels moving forward because they've reengaged their consumers. They're actively taking the opposite approach and torpedoing their own revenue streams. I won't be responding to your claims that I'm asking something I'm not. I am asking that they run their team to maximize the market. You seem content with just shrugging our shoulders and saying "I guess this is the best this market can possibly do." You don't think MLB spent a month doing that research? You think they just made up numbers and owners were good with that considering it has direct ramifications for revenue sharing? Your firm the only people in the world that can figure out market potentials? The $11 billion MLB juggernaut made up of 30 orgs I believe all of which are valued at over 1 billion each, run by some pretty wealthy and successful people couldn't figure out accurate market potentials? You're totally fine assuming forbes, etc. outside numbers are good even though they have no access to MLB books, but you can't possibly trust that MLB, and the 30 owners, invested time and resources to figure out which markets can do what? I sure hope John Fisher called you before he decided to move his team to Vegas. Apparently he couldn't possibly figure out that market's potential.

And, as I said, I'm more than happy for the Twins to lock up some of their young guys. But I get the same responses in the threads where we discuss that idea "the Twins are a small market team and just can't afford that. They're doomed to never be able to afford anyone. How can we expect them to spend in such a tiny market?" The Braves are run incredibly well, yes. And I've literally spent this whole thread saying I want the Twins to be run like them but you've spent the whole thread telling me they can't.

Which source? The front office lists for Atlanta and MN, MLB CBA and Atlanta's books are all publicly available documents. Google them. Again, I'm asking them to run the team to the market's potential. Do you think they've maximized revenue in the Minneapolis market? I don't. I responded to you and openly said I'm mad they're not making what they could. Them failing at their jobs isn't acceptable to me. Do you think having the best atmosphere in the short history of target field while finally getting some playoff wins and within weeks telling your fan base you're slashing payroll is a high quality business decision? I get emails and calls weekly from the ticketing department about season ticket packages. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one. Do you think they've maximized their chances to sell season ticket packages by releasing that information? Yes, if they have to eat it for a year to maintain momentum to continue to grow attendance and viewership I think they should. I'm not asking them to eat 100 mil, but I do believe it's a sound business decision to invest in this particular team at this particular time to grow revenue moving forward. I can't imagine you'd advice many businesses to finally get consumers excited about their product and then immediately announce you're going to actively make it worse while asking them to buy the worse product. Especially a year after your president or ceo or whatever St Peters is blamed the fans for not being excited about a team that couldn't stay above .500 for a week before completely collapsing. I'm asking them to run their business better so they can afford to run out higher payrolls while the Pohlads still take home a nice happy chunk of change. You seem to think they're doing a bang-up job of running this organization. We just don't agree.

Cost controlled players like Matt Olsen who they traded top prospects for and then signed to a massive deal? I'm more than happy to lock up a few of our young guys to longterm deals. Austin Riley is "cost controlled" at 21 mil next year. Acuna at 17. Iglesias and Ozuna 16 a piece. They just signed Reynaldo Lopez for 3 years and 30 mil. Where are all these discounted free agents?

Fine, don't want to compare sports? We can stick with Atlanta and MN baseball markets. Braves brought in 3.2 million fans last year. 18% less would be 2.6 for the Twins. The Twins hit 3 million during the first couple Target Field years, but had been consistently in the 2.3 to 2.7 range before and after those years. They were back up to 2.3 in 2019. But they've consistently failed to put a good product on the field so their attendance levels have dropped. So, yeah, I'm going to stick with the idea that if they build a better product fans show up because they've shown up in the past. But you build a perpetual loser and then slash payroll immediately after getting fans excited about your team again and you struggle to bring them in. Not exactly rocket science.

This article is literally about predicting what both Alonso and ERod do moving forward. I don't know why you don't get that. I predict his stats will bounce back to career norms whether he's with the Twins, the Mets, or one of the 28 other teams. It has nothing to do with "what (I) want to happen," it's simply what I expect. He had a .205 BABIP last year. That's extremely low for any hitter let alone a guy who's usually in the .275 range. Yes, he struck out 150 times, but that, as the article said, is basically league average at just 22.9%. He has multiple seasons below 20% K rate. Just looking at his 150 Ks and implying he's a K machine is inaccurate. I didn't ask anyone to pay any of his salary to take him. Why can't we sign him for 25M moving forward? That's Kepler, Farmer, and Polanco with some left over. All I'm told by you and others on these boards is that the kids are here and we don't need the vets anymore so we should have money to spend while the kids are all arb and pre-arb. Shoot, there's people on this very thread saying we don't need Alonso cuz we have Kirilloff. Are you confused by them predicting Kirilloff has his first healthy MLB season ever while hitting better than he's ever hit at that level? I'm happy that's what you'd do. That'll make an offense that is already not good enough for the playoffs even worse, but they do need another pitcher. I don't expect them to trade for Alonso, but it's what I'd do.

If I could turn Ryan and his extra years of control into an actual playoff caliber starter with fewer years of control I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think he's peaked, and he's closer to the guy we saw in the 2nd half than the guy we saw in the first half. HRs are always going to be part of his game because he just has such a small margin for error with his stuff. If he misses the top of the zone with his fastball it's batting practice and hitters are going to continue to tee off on him. If I could turn him into Burnes or Bieber and extend them with the Polanco and Kepler contracts being moved I think that's an absolute win for the Twins.

How much is Alonso going to cost to re-sign? Could you take Polanco and Kepler's money and turn it into 6 years of Alonso? If yes, then I'd do this trade. I agree with the idea that frontline pitching should be the Twins #1 priority this offseason, but I'd do this trade if it is available and they can extend Alonso for between 20 and 25 per year for 6 years. For reference Matt Olsen just signed for 22 a year, Goldschmidt got 26, and Freeman is at 27. I think his .205 BABIP in 2023 was an outlier and he gets back to being a .260-.270 hitter with 40 homeruns a year. Which is exactly what the Twins need to plug into their 3 or 4 hole for the next 6 years.

I'm asking the Twins to have a payroll consistent with what MLB has said it should be compared to Atlanta's, yes. Why do you have a feeling the Twins have the same number of scouts, etc? What does them doing right by their employees in 2020 have to do with their non-player payroll being bigger than Atlanta's? That's an assumption based on nothing. The Twins list about 332 (I counted quickly so some names may appear multiple times so it wouldn't be exactly 332) members of their front office on their official site. The Braves list 383. Both teams include medical staffs, ticket sales, clubhouse employees, analysts, etc in their listings. The Braves had a total revenue through the end of September of $572 million. Their baseball revenue was $528.7 million. If the Twins were doing roughly 18% less than the Braves like their market score indicates they could (if you don't want to believe that MLB based those scores off real things, or that the MLBPA doesn't think they're real but signed the CBA anyways, cool) they should have had about $433.5 million in revenue before the playoffs even started. I don't think the Twins are hitting those revenue numbers. But the Braves also account for every dollar in with a matching dollar out that doesn't include any dollars into an owners pocket. That's where a bigger difference in non-player payroll comes from. Far more than a few extra analysts making $20/hr that you think the Twins may have despite them not listing them on their website.

Build a better product worthy of fans going to the park and spending money. Get your product in front of more fans on the TV side so you build a larger fan base and can get more fans to the park to spend money. Don't take the excitement of the playoffs and immediately kill it by announcing a payroll decrease while you're trying to sell season ticket packages that get fans to the park to spend money. I have no idea what the Twins actually make. I know they're not losing money year after year, but I don't know what their actual numbers are. I do know what MLB expects the Twins to be able to make, and I know that MN sports fans sell out other stadiums/arenas and those teams make money, but those teams are far better run, with consistently good teams. The Wolves were terrible and had half empty arenas until new owners came in and started investing in the team, had it run significantly better, and now they're selling out that arena. MN fans will show up if you give them a reason to. Instead the team decided all on it's own to destroy fan excitement immediately after the playoffs. If they're struggling to meet the expectations of this market financially it's not out of their control and just some impossible hurdle to overcome. Run your team better.

I want them to spend what this market is worthy of spending. And I have no expectation that they do that without actually making what this market should be making. If they're not making more then that's what I'm mad at. The "exploring" has been done. The Twins signed a CBA agreement based on the "exploring" MLB did on what this market should be generating. The Twins failing to meet the expectations is on them. And you're just assuming they aren't making that money. You throw around your own projections for what they're actually making on these threads all the time in order to justify them not spending. You don't have any actual knowledge of what the Twins make, but you're more than happy to tell us we shouldn't expect them to spend more. You're doing nothing but assuming they're spending what they "should" based on what they're bringing in. But you don't have any idea what they're really bringing in. You're doing the same thing as me, only I have actual numbers for the Braves, and all the research MLB did (far more than what anyone on here has done) that the Twins agreed was an acceptable number when they signed the CBA. Finally building a product worth being excited about, getting your stadium filled for some playoff W's and then immediately announcing you're cutting payroll is at least partly why they don't make more money (assuming they're not making more money). That's a terrible business strategy.

Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc is a public company that owns the Braves and The Battery (the area around their stadium). Because of this we can see what their financials are. The MLB CBA includes a "Market Score" ranking of all 30 teams. The Braves are a 97 and rank 14th compared to the Twins at 17th and a 79 (like OPS+ it compare to the league as a whole). The Braves payroll for 2023 was about 203 million compared to the Twins at 156ish. According to MLB's own numbers on what teams should be able to make in their markets the Twins were 10 mil below the number they should be able to hit for payroll based on the Braves publicly released information. I'm not asking the Pohlads to dig into their personal fortune to keep the Twins competitive, I'm asking them to run their business to the mark the CBA they signed says they should be able to. The Braves brought in $271,824,000 in revenue in Q3 2023. $15,558,000 of that was from The Battery. So their total baseball revenue was $256,266,000 for Q3 which included 37 home games. The Twins should be 18% lower ($46,127,880) than that so they should be at $210,138,120 in baseball revenue for Q3. They claim they spend 50-52% of baseball revenue on payroll. So Q3 alone should put them at $105,069,060 in payroll (50%). Q3 covers July, August, and September. So March, April, May, June, and October games aren't even included. The Twins very clearly aren't hitting those numbers. And it's all rough math lacking a lot of context. But the Braves are the team that we can actually see the real numbers on. Are they significantly out producing their market score, or are the Twins underperforming theirs? One team has spent and built a team that looks like a juggernaut for the foreseeable future and watched their YoY baseball revenue increase by 11%. The other is slashing payroll. I'm sure one, or two, or three, of the much more educated business folks on these threads will slice these numbers up and tell me my expectations aren't realistic. But from the actual numbers we have we know that Atlanta is expected to be a basically average (3% below) market for producing baseball revenue while the Twins are supposed to be solidly below (21%) average market for producing baseball revenue. We know the Braves actual revenue. We know the Twins payrolls don't match the marks they're supposed to compared to the Braves. We know the Braves are publicly speaking about adding payroll while the Twins publicly speak about cutting it. I think it's pretty fair that we ask the Twins to step it up and improve their numbers.

If they can get him for something reasonable I think it'd be a really big swing they can take. His ceiling is higher than Lopez, but this last season was a disaster for him. Injury would make a lot of sense. If they could do a Kepler/Polanco plus Winder type deal to get him I'd do it in a heartbeat, assuming they get medicals and there's nothing too concerning so it's likely he's not a AA player moving forward.

I don't think Meyers raises the ceiling for the Twins at all, so I wouldn't give up anything of any value for him. If they just want to dump him for a system reliever I'll take him, but he's just another guy as far as I'm concerned so I don't think there's any reason to try too hard to go get him.

I can't read the article so I'm not sure what the package they suggested there was. If we're going to play the hypothetical "Angels are starting a rebuild so they're going to move Trout" game I think Kepler probably isn't a piece they'd want back as they likely can't spin him into much at the deadline so they'd probably prefer a full package of prospects. From there the question is what can the Twins offer in comparison to other teams, and how much are teams willing to pay for an "aging," oft-injured, expensive Trout. I do think his contract lowers the prospect package they get if they don't eat a significant chunk. I'd guess they'd eat a chunk, and the amount would depend on what the prospect return would be. So its a little hard to get too specific, but I'd think a package likely starts with 2 of Lee, Jenkins, or ERod and the rest depends on what the Angels kick in for $. Probably looking at another top 10 system prospect (likely an arm) plus another 15-25 system type guy (again, likely an arm). I think that kind of package would be competitive compared to others, but not sure it'd be the winner. Just Trout the player is worth more than any team could/would ever give up. But that contract, and his recent injuries, do change the calculus, and makes it pretty difficult to truly judge what he'd fetch in return.

It's sort of a weird situation when you have someone like Peralta. He's so good and so cheap that it almost makes him untradeable because you simply can't get an equal return for him unless somebody completely blows up the top of their system, and nobody does that (or at least it's very, very rare). If he's traded it's almost guaranteed to be for less than they should get for him. I don't think they'll trade him, at least partially because of this.