BPro: Twins Are Not A "Small Market" Team

[tobi0040]

 

"Hey Jay, do you mind if I call you Jay? Yeah, so this is a little awkward, Mr. Pohlad has a cap on "entertainment/business" dinners at $45 a head, do you mind picking up the rest?"

 

LOL.  This could be really fun.

 

Jay orders a $500 bottle of bubbly and the surf and turf and Terry goes for the water and a cup of soup.  Just grinning about how much the bill is going to be.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Of course this will never be resolved on a board, but I would counter this by saying it wasn't a lack of payroll space that stopped them from signing a reliever, it was a dislike of the contract it would have taken.

 

Isn't that about money though? What else would it be, but money?

[jimmer]

To put it another way, I think the Twins had plans in good faith to maintain a payroll in $120-130 mil range, give or take a couple mil, in the time following the opening of Target Field....

Other than simply wanting to give the team the benefit of the doubt at practically every turn, not sure how one could possibly come to that conclusion/belief.

[drjim]

 

Isn't that about money though? What else would it be, but money?

 

Years. And overpaying for the player. You can have payroll space and not want to overpay on a contract, right?

[drjim]

 

Other than simply wanting to give the team the benefit of the doubt at practically every turn, not sure how one could possibly come to that conclusion/belief.

 

The trend of the franchise until the collapse.

 

I suppose the alternative is what we see here.

[jimmer]

Problem is that perhaps what some consider ' overpaying' is actually going rate.

[jimmer]

The trend of the franchise until the collapse.

 

I suppose the alternative is what we see here.

Smith did some spending. Lost bad one year. Wanted to spend. Got reassigned.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Years. And overpaying for the player. You can have payroll space and not want to overpay on a contract, right?

 

If that is the MARKET price, it isn't overpaying, is it?

 

If you have $20mm in budget space, does it matter if you overpay for 1 guy by $2M or so, if it makes the team better? Maybe, but probably not.

 

Years are about money, right, not wanting to have money spent on a player in 3 years that isn't worth it, even if you have budget room?

 

If there is room in the budget, why not "over spend", other than putting money over winning?

[DaveW]

 

Of course this will never be resolved on a board, but I would counter this by saying it wasn't a lack of payroll space that stopped them from signing a reliever, it was a dislike of the contract it would have taken.

2 years/12 million is NOT a big contract. People act like we would have had to shell out 50 million for a RP which isn't even close to the case.

[DaveW]

 

Years. And overpaying for the player. You can have payroll space and not want to overpay on a contract, right?

And yet they continued to bring back the Mike Pelfrey, Jason Kubel, Tim Stauffer, and Torii Hunters of the world...

[Sam Morley]

 

Here's Colin Cowherd ranting on why the Twins are not a "small-market" team shortly after the 2010 season. One of my favorites and a great listen!

 

5:08- "You gotta take certain things out of it. If you're going to compare all the planets, just take the sun out of it. Okay, the sun is a totally different class of planet, star-planet, whatever they call it."

 

They call it a star.

 

Also funny from this, listening it 2016: "Don't lump the Twins in with Kansas City."

 

Sheesh, where did things go wrong? Maybe the Herd jinxed us.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

But they were competitive last year....one would think now would be a good time to get into that payroll range if they actually were ever serious about it (methinks they were not, and were just lying to the good folks of Minnesota...wouldn't be the first time)

 

I think this is fair if you have a big massive gap where there's no hope for help within the farm.  Problem is that realistically, they aren't going to simply dump someone who hasn't performed (i.e. Nolasco or Mauer of late).  It will happen with Nolasco at least, but they tend to be patient with 4 year guaranteed deals, and like it or not, they should. 

 

The team as it's constructed really doesn't have that big massive hole with no help from the farm.  It's biggest weaknesses currently have are long term contracts that you won't see dumped and a few short term situations that will rectify themselves as guys like Burdi, Berrios, Buxton, Kepler, Chargois, Melotakis, etc. move into the majors. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think this is fair if you have a big massive gap where there's no hope for help within the farm.  Problem is that realistically, they aren't going to simply dump someone who hasn't performed (i.e. Nolasco or Mauer of late).  It will happen with Nolasco at least, but they tend to be patient with 4 year guaranteed deals, and like it or not, they should. 

 

The team as it's constructed really doesn't have that big massive hole with no help from the farm.  It's biggest weaknesses currently have are long term contracts that you won't see dumped and a few short term situations that will rectify themselves as guys like Burdi, Berrios, Buxton, Kepler, Chargois, Melotakis, etc. move into the majors. 

 

Every year there is a reason not to spend money.....every year.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

The team as it's constructed really doesn't have that big massive hole with no help from the farm.

Front line starting pitcher, legit major league catcher, bullpen. Just to name a few....when the Royals were in this scenario they went out and traded for James Shields, then traded for Cueto and Zobrist a year later....the Twins go out and sign some minor leauge free agents!

[Vanimal46]

 

I think this is fair if you have a big massive gap where there's no hope for help within the farm.  Problem is that realistically, they aren't going to simply dump someone who hasn't performed (i.e. Nolasco or Mauer of late).  It will happen with Nolasco at least, but they tend to be patient with 4 year guaranteed deals, and like it or not, they should. 

 

The team as it's constructed really doesn't have that big massive hole with no help from the farm.  It's biggest weaknesses currently have are long term contracts that you won't see dumped and a few short term situations that will rectify themselves as guys like Burdi, Berrios, Buxton, Kepler, Chargois, Melotakis, etc. move into the majors. 

There was a massive gap and no hope for help within the farm last season. It was painfully obvious to nearly everyone that the bullpen was a disaster, and we were shouting from the mountain tops to do ANYTHING to get someone who can help before it was too late. Of course, it was too late with the July 31st acquisition of Jepson, and a mid-August trade for Cotts...

I still think there is a massive hole in the bullpen, but it's clear the Twins are going into this season with 3 proven guys (Perkins, Jepsen, May) and seeing who sticks with the rest of the spots. I guess we'll see how it plays out.  

[tobi0040]

 

Every year there is a reason not to spend money.....every year.

 

Not to mention there are no long term contracts in the pen.  The one guy under contract for 2017 is the best reliever we have. 

[drjim]

If that is the MARKET price, it isn't overpaying, is it?

 

If you have $20mm in budget space, does it matter if you overpay for 1 guy by $2M or so, if it makes the team better? Maybe, but probably not.

 

Years are about money, right, not wanting to have money spent on a player in 3 years that isn't worth it, even if you have budget room?

 

If there is room in the budget, why not "over spend", other than putting money over winning?

To me, years are about committing roster spots and blocking younger guys. Different circumstances have different calculations.

[Mike Sixel]

If money doesn't matter, and you are under budget, you just cut a guy that is blocking a player. Then call up a guy making less than $500K a year. Heck, I'd think you could fit that into any MLB budget....

 

I do get your point about not blocking players. I just don't agree that if it is about staying under a budget (not about spending the "right" way), that you can't just cut Nolasco (if he's bad) after a month. 

 

Which RP was blocked last year, that they just didn't have room to add one at the beginning of the year?

[drjim]

And yet they continued to bring back the Mike Pelfrey, Jason Kubel, Tim Stauffer, and Torii Hunters of the world...

I would have aimed a little higher and been more strategic on targeting guys to flip, but they are one year deals, pretty much exactly what rebuilding teams with emerging farm systems should focus on.

[Vanimal46]

 

To me, years are about committing roster spots and blocking younger guys. Different circumstances have different calculations.

If we're still talking about the bullpen, I can't think of another team with a more fluid situation than the Twins, as they have only Perkins signed for any significant money past this season. A FA signing for 2+ years this off-season wasn't going to block any one at any time in a 7-8 man bullpen.  

[drjim]

If money doesn't matter, and you are under budget, you just cut a guy that is blocking a player. Then call up a guy making less than $500K a year. Heck, I'd think you could fit that into any MLB budget....

 

I do get your point about not blocking players. I just don't agree that if it is about staying under a budget (not about spending the "right" way), that you can't just cut Nolasco (if he's bad) after a month.

 

Which RP was blocked last year, that they just didn't have room to add one at the beginning of the year?

I think they would happily add a guy on a one year deal right now.

 

And I don't think any mlb team is as flippant about potentially cutting guys as it seems you are.

[drjim]

If we're still talking about the bullpen, I can't think of another team with a more fluid situation than the Twins, as they have only Perkins signed for any significant money past this season. A FA signing for 2+ years this off-season wasn't going to block any one at any time in a 7-8 man bullpen.

While true, I don't think that means you should hand out 3 year deals to non elite guys.

 

I really, actually believe this myself. This strikes me as good, smart roster management in mlb. I'm happy that the Twins agree.

[tobi0040]

 

While true, I don't think that means you should hand out 3 year deals to non elite guys.

I really, actually believe this myself. This strikes me as good, smart roster management in mlb. I'm happy that the Twins agree.

 

I think the opposite is true, it is poor roster management to sign lesser players because they are on one year deals.  The Twins continually give one year deals to less talented players because they like the flexibility. 

 

Last year we paid $5M to Duensing and Stauffer.  For that $5M we had 63 IP at a 4.80 ERA.

 

Wouldn't it have made more sense to pay one good reliever $5M dollars?  I am guessing we would have likely been able to secure a pitcher with a lower ERA and you can typically find RP of better quality than Duensing and Stauffer without going three years

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think they would happily add a guy on a one year deal right now.

And I don't think any mlb team is as flippant about potentially cutting guys as it seems you are.

 

I agree, it is easy for me to say this, sitting here.

 

That said, maybe they should be. The player still gets paid, it's not like when normal people get fired and held accountable and replaced by a better employee......Most businesses really struggle with firing people. I was just having this discussion with a VP this am, actually.....

[dxpavelka]

The most under appreciated factor in market size in today's game has nothing to do with traditional market demographics.  The big (or small) dog in the fight these days is local television revenue.  And in this the Twins ARE a small market team.  Even teams like the Astros enjoy 2 to 3 times such revenue as the Twins.  This is not likely to change any time soon either.  Get used to the status quo.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The most under appreciated factor in market size in today's game has nothing to do with traditional market demographics.  The big (or small) dog in the fight these days is local television revenue.  And in this the Twins ARE a small market team.  Even teams like the Astros enjoy 2 to 3 times such revenue as the Twins.  This is not likely to change any time soon either.  Get used to the status quo.

 

And yet, their revenues would support another 10-30MM in payroll, and still keep profits high, assuming they can make money at 50% spent on payroll......

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Of course this will never be resolved on a board, but I would counter this by saying it wasn't a lack of payroll space that stopped them from signing a reliever, it was a dislike of the contract it would have taken.

Which is another data point suggesting the Pohlads have never really had to show special "loyalty" to their baseball ops decision makers.  They're perfectly fine working within the parameters set by the Pohlads long ago.

 

What would take special loyalty would be authorizing spending beyond those parameters, or sticking with baseball ops through an aggressive series of moves, etc.  Not clear the Pohlads have ever really done that, or even been asked (there is always speculation that Smith asked for more spending shortly before being removed from the GM position, although I doubt it was that simple).

[Vanimal46]

 

The most under appreciated factor in market size in today's game has nothing to do with traditional market demographics.  The big (or small) dog in the fight these days is local television revenue.  And in this the Twins ARE a small market team.  Even teams like the Astros enjoy 2 to 3 times such revenue as the Twins.  This is not likely to change any time soon either.  Get used to the status quo.

Even teams like the Astros? I would hope they would, they're one of the biggest markets in the U.S. with a new TV deal to boot. 

I've been trying to research but haven't found out what the St. Louis Cardinals' TV deal looks like. They're the most similar to Minneapolis as far as market size is concerned, but have the highest TV ratings, and the most profitable team in the MLB. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Coming back on topic...

 

They're definitely a mid-market team but probably on the small side of mid-market. The Twins population coverage is pretty good but IIRC, its population skews on the low side of cable subscribers relative to its population (a flaw in the first half of this article, as it only mentions "television homes", not "cable subscriber homes"). The second half of the article is spot-on, though.

Given how much money comes from television contracts, that's a significant thing to note*.

*in no way is this a defense of the Twins' current payroll

The Twins Cities metro area skews on the low side of cable/satellite subscribers, true, but how many households is that?  And how many do they gain in rural Minnesota, the Dakotas, etc. where antenna TV is largely dead?  Not that we should be able to equal the very top media markets, but there's no reason we probably shouldn't be able to hold our own, or let FSN steamroll us in negotiations.

 

I know we had some TV deal questions submitted for a Dave St. Peter interview this winter -- did I miss it, or has it not happened yet?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I've been trying to research but haven't found out what the St. Louis Cardinals' TV deal looks like. They're the most similar to Minneapolis as far as market size is concerned, but have the highest TV ratings, and the most profitable team in the MLB. 

The Cardinals TV deal was similar in annual rights fees to the Twins current deal, until last summer:

 

"Cardinals Agree To $1 Billion Television Contract"

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/cardinals-tv-contract-billion.html