Article: Should the Twins Emulate the Royals?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Someone actually did the legwork on the average cost of an MLB game per stadium. Kauffman clocks in at $192 per family of four, or roughly $48 per person.

 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2014/07/12/cost-attend-majorleague-baseball-game/12578975/

[Mike Sixel]

I don't spend anything close to $75 per person per game... And that's not including material costs of food and whether KC gets revenue from Kauffman parking (I literally have zero idea of the parking situation in Kauffman, having never been there).

 

Just checked, it is about $45 per person in KC....so new number: $9,477,000---still real money, but not a ton more.

[Mike Sixel]

Ha, slightly different sources, but very similar numbers....

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yep. I'm not arguing, just curious to know the actual expenditure by the average fan. It's not something I think about a whole lot.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Just checked, it is about $45 per person in KC....so new number: $9,477,000---still real money, but not a ton more.

Brock's link says "The study compares all 30 big-league teams on what they charge for four mid-range tickets, two small beers, four small soft drinks, four regular hot dogs, parking for one car, two programs and two baseball caps."

 

I doubt that the team sells 2 caps for every four tickets sold.  Particularly not marginal ticket increases.  So this would not be a good number to use when estimating added revenue.

[Mike Sixel]

It also assumes that the mid range tickets somehow reflect the actual "average" value of tickets sold. I don't know if that assumption is valid or not.

 

Whatever, I don't care about the revenue. It is icing on the cake to the other stuff.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It also assumes that the mid range tickets somehow reflect the actual "average" value of tickets sold. I don't know if that assumption is valid or not.

 

Whatever, I don't care about the revenue. It is icing on the cake to the other stuff.

Well, I think we can safely say the Royals' gross ticket income was somewhere between $7-11m more than 2013. That doesn't include the implied increase in television revenue the team will receive next time their contract is renewed.

 

That's a significant chunk of change. Not enough to cover a guy like James Shields but it's a significant chunk of change.

 

It's an interesting thought exercise, trying to physically attach dollar revenue to improved play.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, I think we can safely say the Royals' gross ticket income was somewhere between $7-11m more than 2013. That doesn't include the implied increase in television revenue the team will receive next time their contract is renewed.

 

That's a significant chunk of change. Not enough to cover a guy like James Shields but it's a significant chunk of change.

 

It's an interesting thought exercise, trying to physically attach dollar revenue to improved play.

 

Right, I should have just gone ranges right away......but didn't. Alas. 

[tobi0040]

They would only have 4 years left of Myers at this point.....

 

Would the RF for the last two years play if Myers was there? Would the Royals pitchers have the same size delta in FIP and ERA with Myers out there? Are you sure the delta between Myers and the RF they will have the next 4 years is really big? Not having Myers means someone else plays RF, and unlike the Twins, the Royals put legit OF out there after making their trade, not Aaron Hicks.

 

IMO, people aren't looking at ALL the things that happened/happen when a trade is made.

 

They got relevant.

they made the playoffs.

they replaced Myers with legit MLB player(s)

they would likely only have Myers four more years after this, if he turns into a superstar, if not, then the trade looks even better

they also got a RP in the trade, not just Shields

 

Regarding Myers contract, he seems like a guy that would fit into the mold of an extension that buys out a few years of free agency. Oddorizi has 5-7 or whatever.

 

An equivalent trade would be a year from now, the Twins are a .500 team and trade Buxton and Berrios for 2 years of Shields.  At the time, Myers was 3rd overall and Oddorizzi was 35th. 

 

I would be irate and the reliever would not help my fury!

Edited September 30, 2014 by tobi0040

[markos]

Holy crap, I thought their attendance was better than this:

 

2014: 1,956,482

2013: 1,750,754

2012: 1,739,859

 

That's only 2,600 more people through the turnstiles per game since 2012.

 

For what its worth, this season's attendance for the Royals is the highest since 1991, and 80% of their attendance peak in the 1980s. I'm interested to see how the attendance bounces back in Houston. Despite a slight uptick this year, they are only at 55% of of their MinuteMaid Park peak. To put that in perspective, the Twins would need to lose 20% of their attendance this year to match that level (though it could very well happen). I wonder how long it will take for the Astros to rehabilitate their market.

[ashbury]

Despite a slight uptick this year, they are only at 55% of of their MinuteMaid Park peak. To put that in perspective, the Twins would need to lose 20% of their attendance this year to match that level (though it could very well happen). I wonder how long it will take for the Astros to rehabilitate their market.

I was in Houston in late July and took in a couple of games, and was amazed/disappointed that the city isn't getting behind a team that, while still losing, seemed fun to watch.  Several exciting players, some good starting pitching, already on the major league team.  I am virtually certain that the PA system was piping in cheers at appropriate moments, because it didn't seem possible the noise could have been generated by the number of fans I could see - but the roof was closed and maybe they do get enough echoes to get the sound level up by legitimate means, in which case playoff baseball could be rockin'.  At any rate, Houston is IMO another cautionary tale for a front office that thinks the visibly-blow-it-up route is a good one for a rebuild.

[tobi0040]

I was in Houston in late July and took in a couple of games, and was amazed/disappointed that the city isn't getting behind a team that, while still losing, seemed fun to watch.  Several exciting players, some good starting pitching, already on the major league team.  I am virtually certain that the PA system was piping in cheers at appropriate moments, because it didn't seem possible the noise could have been generated by the number of fans I could see - but the roof was closed and maybe they do get enough echoes to get the sound level up by legitimate means, in which case playoff baseball could be rockin'.  At any rate, Houston is IMO another cautionary tale for a front office that thinks the visibly-blow-it-up route is a good one for a rebuild.

 

I think we are talking about two different things.  First, the Twins benefit from a new-ish stadium.  Minute Maid Park was built 14 years ago. The Twins also roped season ticket holders who signed up for a new stadium into hanging on for an all star game.  So I think the Twins numbers are inflated quite a bit.  We are at 2.2M this year while Houston is at 1.65M.  I would not be shocked if the Twins dip into this range next year, given how many people cancelled.

 

I also think attendace year over year should not validate a strategy.  Houston has players playing and getting better that are part of their future.  We have ran through the exercise already, but the Twins have wasted too many innings and at bats on guys that were never going to be part of the 2015 or 2016 team.  Not to mention playing guys out of position.  Not to mention we finished with the same record, so for my money I would rather win games and invest in the future versus 70 and invest in guys that will be retired or playing in Japan next year.  So if the goal is to win, both now and in the future, I have a tough time seeing how their approach is not superior.

Edited September 30, 2014 by tobi0040

[DJL44]

Left out in the analysis is the two years of Shields were pretty expensive. They could have extended Ervin Santana or spent that money elsewhere. It isn't a strict talent-for-talent trade.

[tobi0040]

Left out in the analysis is the two years of Shields were pretty expensive. They could have extended Ervin Santana or spent that money elsewhere. It isn't a strict talent-for-talent trade.

 

Good call.  Always look at the alternative.

[Nick Nelson]

After the success of 2010, I doubt there was anybody in the media, in baseball, or in fandom that didn't feel the Twins would rebound in 2011 for a winning season, probably playoffs.

Ahem... http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/blogs/118893459.html

 

The points about my characterization of 2011 as a rebuilding year are well taken though. That was the collapse that precipitated the necessity of a rebuild.

[kab21]

Myers is simultaneously underrated and overrated by the opposing sides.  He had a rough season but he should still be a good player.  The one thing about this trade is that there were warning signs that Myers was more of a Cuddyer level MLB'er than an elite one.  It's not impossible to find a good (but not great) bat to play corner OF.

 

Regardless if Shields leaves they got exactly what they needed to return to relevancy and contrary to the popular opinion they didn't mortgage their future. 

[Dantes929]

Wil Myers had an OPS of .614 this year and a fWAR of -.1.  Even if you only count the pre-injury numbers and assume his wrist injury and layoff caused an end of year slump he had an OPS of .666.  The fact is that prospect often don't work out and that hoarding them isn't always the right tactic.

At least that is actually a fact. Its also a fact that he is only 23 years old and had an OPS of .831 at age 22. Way too early to judge that trade.

[markos]

I also think attendace year over year should not validate a strategy.  Houston has players playing and getting better that are part of their future.  We have ran through the exercise already, but the Twins have wasted too many innings and at bats on guys that were never going to be part of the 2015 or 2016 team.  Not to mention playing guys out of position.  Not to mention we finished with the same record, so for my money I would rather win games and invest in the future versus 70 and invest in guys that will be retired or playing in Japan next year.  So if the goal is to win, both now and in the future, I have a tough time seeing how their approach is not superior.

 

I definitely agree that attendance should not validate a baseball strategy. However, I was referring more to the business side, and how that interacts with the baseball side. In order to execute a full teardown like the Astros, there has to be buy in from ownership. Four years of intentional losing have hurt attendance and revenues from TV and sponsorship deals, though this has been offset in part by lower payrolls. If Houston returns to winning but ownership is unable to monetize those wins because fan interest fails to bounce back, then it seems unlikely that other owners will support this strategy. 

 

Anyway, I understand this is totally off topic, but to me this is one of the most interesting questions about the Astros strategy. 

[Monkeypaws]

The Twins should emulate the Wild, not the Royals - TR needs to sell Jon Lester on the future of the team by pimping the prospects and the future, much as Chuck Fletcher did when he lured Parise and Suter to the Wild.

 

Imagine a rotation going forward with the phantom twins, the rumored linchpins of the Santana trades that didn't happen, Lester and Hughes.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Monkeypaws

[Hugh Morris]

It's an interesting thought exercise, trying to physically attach dollar revenue to improved play.

 

I've got a friend who had a teacher assign him a book for one of his college courses and finally broke down and read it myself after listening to him for a couple of years. A Former VP at Pepsi went through and determined that the marginal value of each additional win varies from team-to-team (and from win-to-win). He put up a few segments at Hardball Times- http://www.hardballtimes.com/measuring-the-dollar-value-of-a-player-part-2/ and I think it's something to factor in to your thought exercise. Obviously the specific weights he gives each factor no longer apply, but it gives a more holistic view than "Attendance Gain + Average Ticket Price"... graduates from Napkin Math to ScratchPaper Math.

 

For the topic as a whole, I do believe that the Twins have greater fiscal resources than the Royals did (do?)-both in the ability to keep homegrown stars long term (Mauer) and to make Free Agent signings that go beyond the 1 year deals(Hughes, Nolasco). For that reason, I don't think that the Royals serve as a good team to emulate. With their budget constraints and Dayton Moore's increasingly tenuous Job Security, making a splashy-or even midsized- FA move wasn't a possibility for them.

 

The Twins are nearing a window where they'll be graduating 1 to 2 (or even 3) top 100 prospects every year and have legitimate arguments that they'll continue as a top 10 farm system for the remainder of the decade (Gordon and Thorpe still being in the system in 2019 would put them at 23 and 24 respectively-I certainly hope things don't turn out that way, but it's plausible). It's not a situation where they have to choose between relying on prospects and acquiring proven talent. Like the Red Sox and Rangers, they've got the capacity to do both... just a little more slanted towards "Prospect" and less towards "Payroll". Generally, those are the teams who have consistent success. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by Hugh Morris

[jokin]

I think we need to distinguish between two different things.  When did the rebuild happen and when should the rebuild have happened?  As noted, the Twins had the 4th oldest pitching staff in baseball this year, year four of 90+ losses a year.  Signing guys like Pelfrey and Correia on one and two year deals, Jared Burtons, and taking low ceiling fliers on Bartlett and Kubel and simply not rebuild type moves.

 

Even all the free agents we have let go, none were moved for a meaningful piece.  Or how about playing young players that need work defensively out of position?

 

I think the Twins never fully embraced a rebuild because of the timing with the stadium.  The Houston Astros embraced a rebuild and are in a better place as a result.  The Twins did not want the payroll to go too low and tick people off.  Instead they chose to not be honest to themselves and the fans and acknowledge the reality of the situation.  I think this dip has lasted longer than neccesary as a result.

 

The other harsh reality is, had they acknowledged a rebuild maybe their manager would not have been fired. 

I would counter by saying that the Twins have been in an unspoken, and hence clumsy and dishonest, rebuild since August of 2011.   Regarding the Astros,  add "much-maligned in these parts" to the front of "Houston Astros" and add "Miami Marlins and Chicago Cubs" to to the back, and you now see 3 teams, not just one, that are "in a better place as a result."  

 

And with respect to the new stadium, the Twins could have chosen to stay in "all-in" mode after 2011, the decision to crawl into the fetal position is on ownership.  What they have demonstrably proven in the meantime is that "half-in/half-out" almost never works as a strategy for on-field success.

Edited October 1, 2014 by jokin

[tobi0040]

I would counter by saying that the Twins have been in an unspoken, and hence clumsy and dishonest, rebuild since August of 2011.   Regarding the Astros,  add "much-maligned in these parts" to the front of "Houston Astros" and add "Miami Marlins and Chicago Cubs" to to the back, and you now see 3 teams, not just one, that are "in a better place as a result."  

 

 

I totally agree. 

 

The other thing that has been proven is that you can both play talented young players and field a team that is as good or better than by signing the likes of Pelfrey, Corriea, Kubel, Bartlett, and by playing AAAA types like Parmelee, Colabello, and insert several 28-30 year old pitchers.

 

Twins - 70 wins

Houston - 70 wins

Cubs - 73 wins

Marlins - 77 wins

 

As we approach the winter meetings, free agency, and into the spring when we break camp I hope the Twins have learned this.

Edited October 1, 2014 by tobi0040

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Trading away Myers and Odorizzi to get Shields and Wade Davis was the move of a team desperate to change their fortunes. Are the Twins desperate yet? I don't think they are in that place at the moment.

 

I personally would be o.k. to see the Twins make another bold move in the mold of the Span and Revere trades, but this time doing the opposite - taking a gamble in trading a prospect to get a Starting Pitcher (or 2) or Outfielder (or 2) that is already making an impact in the majors.

 

Buxton, Sano, Vargas, Kohl Stewart, Berrios, etc - there should be a willingness to part with one or more from the long list of prospects (though typing that stings a bit). The proposals for half way guys like Pinto or Arcia (not prospects anymore, not yet stable ML talent) will be light and disappointing. Maybe someone offers a package to the Twins for Arcia that mirrors the return the Rays recieved for Delmon, but I just don't see that happening.  

 

If the Twins are not willing to make a drastic change, they will not see a drastic improvement in the standings for a couple years (at least). Some fans are willing to wait for homegrown talent to arrive, but how long will it be before the Twins get desperate?  

[tobi0040]

Trading away Myers and Odorizzi to get Shields and Wade Davis was the move of a team desperate to change their fortunes. Are the Twins desperate yet? I don't think they are in that place at the moment.

 

I personally would be o.k. to see the Twins make another bold move in the mold of the Span and Revere trades, but this time doing the opposite - taking a gamble in trading a prospect to get a Starting Pitcher (or 2) or Outfielder (or 2) that is already making an impact in the majors.

 

Buxton, Sano, Vargas, Kohl Stewart, Berrios, etc - there should be a willingness to part with one or more from the long list of prospects (though typing that stings a bit). The proposals for half way guys like Pinto or Arcia (not prospects anymore, not yet stable ML talent) will be light and disappointing. Maybe someone offers a package to the Twins for Arcia that mirrors the return the Rays recieved for Delmon, but I just don't see that happening.  

 

If the Twins are not willing to make a drastic change, they will not see a drastic improvement in the standings for a couple years (at least). Some fans are willing to wait for homegrown talent to arrive, but how long will it be before the Twins get desperate?  

 

I would part with Sano on a Shields like deal if we extended the guy a the same time.  Tack on 3/69 to his existing 2-25.  Before we do anything like that, we should explore just signing a guy.  

 

Which would you rather have:

 

Lester and owe him $150M over 6 years and keep Sano

 

Or

 

A pitcher like Shields that is not as good for 5-94 and be out Miguel Sano

 

The reality maybe that the top pitchers arent coming here, or maybe it will cost 7-175 and not 6-150.  But we should make a calculated decision. 

 

I don't think we should part with Buxton or Sano right now on a 1-2 year thing.  One player doesn't turn round a 70 win team.

[Mike Sixel]

If you have "the deepest system in baseball, with numerous guys in the top 100", you have a surplus to deal from.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I would part with Sano on a Shields like deal if we extended the guy a the same time.  Tack on 3/69 to his existing 2-25.  Before we do anything like that, we should explore just signing a guy.  

 

Which would you rather have:

 

Lester and owe him $150M over 6 years and keep Sano

 

Or

 

A pitcher like Shields that is not as good for 5-94 and be out Miguel Sano

 

The reality maybe that the top pitchers arent coming here, or maybe it will cost 7-175 and not 6-150.  But we should make a calculated decision. 

 

I don't think we should part with Buxton or Sano right now on a 1-2 year thing.  One player doesn't turn round a 70 win team.

 

I agree with all of that (I'd rather have Lester and Sano) - I am saying that for the Twins to do it, it would be a desperate move, and that the Royals trading for Shields were more or less backed up against the wall. They had to do something to start winning again after so many years in the basement. The Twins have had 4 awful seasons, the first being a total shock and the last three being a series of attempts to re-start the engine. I don't think the Twins will have the same issues that the Royals had, but the key question is how long are the Twins willing to wait?

[Mike Sixel]

BTW, whoever said they should be like the Wild (sign elite players, make a minor trade or two, and develop players better), I agree 100%. But, I have ZERO expectation they'll sign elite players....ZERO.

 

TR doesn't believe in it, and the Pohlads like their money too much.