BPro: Twins Are Not A "Small Market" Team

[Mike Sixel]

I have clearly admitted my stance is based on fanaticism 

 

edited to remove something....

[DaveW]

Can we please not derail this thread which actually has a lot of good discussion going on in it?

Nobody cares, nor needs to care about posters specific financial background/educational background etc This is a TWINS message board, there are plenty of other forums to discuss financial topics.

 

Nobody has suggested that the Pohlad's shouldn't make money, nor has anyone suggested the Twins need to spend an absurd amount of money on payroll. I haven't seen one person throw out a number larger than 130 million.

 

Most are suggesting the Twins spend a bit more (10-15% more) on payroll (or spend the payroll differently) people can disagree, which is 100% fine, but let's stop the "I am going to say I am smarter than you/everyone, so therefore your arguments and stances are invalid" nonsense.

 

 

[Squirrel]

 

Can we please not derail this thread which actually has a lot of good discussion going on in it?

Nobody cares, nor needs to care about posters specific financial background/educational background etc This is a TWINS message board, there are plenty of other forums to discuss financial topics.

 

Nobody has suggested that the Pohlad's shouldn't make money, nor has anyone suggested the Twins need to spend an absurd amount of money on payroll. I haven't seen one person throw out a number larger than 130 million.

 

Most are suggesting the Twins spend a bit more (10-15% more) on payroll (or spend the payroll differently) people can disagree, which is 100% fine, but let's stop the "I am going to say I am smarter than you/everyone, so therefore your arguments and stances are invalid" nonsense.

Moderator note: This.

 

And the assumptions that you know everything while other posters know nothing is disrespectful. No one here knows what anyone else's credentials are ... unless you supply them. And, frankly, I'm not interested and neither is anyone else, unless you actually work for the FO, then reveal yourself. Further, if you want to lecture people about what they don't know, it would be more effective if proper spelling and grammar were used. (Did I use effective correctly? Affective/effective always confuse me. Further/farther, too, but I'm pretty sure I used further correctly.)

 

And stick to the topic, please.

 

Sorry for the interruption ... go back to what you were doing as long as it's civil.

[tobi0040]

 

Can we please not derail this thread which actually has a lot of good discussion going on in it?

Nobody cares, nor needs to care about posters specific financial background/educational background etc This is a TWINS message board, there are plenty of other forums to discuss financial topics.

 

Nobody has suggested that the Pohlad's shouldn't make money, nor has anyone suggested the Twins need to spend an absurd amount of money on payroll. I haven't seen one person throw out a number larger than 130 million.

 

Most are suggesting the Twins spend a bit more (10-15% more) on payroll (or spend the payroll differently) people can disagree, which is 100% fine, but let's stop the "I am going to say I am smarter than you/everyone, so therefore your arguments and stances are invalid" nonsense.

 

I think most are simply articulating for one relief pitcher in the 3-4M range per season. 

[DaveW]

 

. And, frankly, I'm not interested and neither is anyone else, unless you actually work for the FO, then reveal yourself.

Ok, Ok I will finally come clean, even though I am not in the Twins FO I have been in baseball operations for other clubs and am now a TV personality on MLB Network.

 

 

 

That's right, I am Mark DeRosa.

[DaveW]

 

 

I think most are simply articulating for one relief pitcher in the 3-4M range per season. 

True.

 

[Vanimal46]

 

That's right, I am Mark DeRosa.

I'm glad there are former MLBer's on here. And if you didn't know, I am Vance Worley. I know what you're thinking, I pitch for Baltimore now. The fact is, I'm pretty self conscious about my glasses, and thought the fans would still be making fun of me and my self given nickname... 

[bird]

 

Out of curiosity, what's the definition of 'small market?' Isn't anyplace large enough to support professional sports franchises kind of not a small market?

Cedar Rapids is a small market.

 

 

Actually, Cedar Rapids is a mid market. Des Moines is a large market. Shenandoah is a small market.

[Mike Sixel]

Shenandoah? My Aunt and uncle live there, that is not a city you see referenced often. 

[DaveW]

What is Okoboji then?

[drjim]

 

I think most are simply articulating for one relief pitcher in the 3-4M range per season. 

 

Neal Cotts?

[drjim]

 

I have clearly admitted my stance is based on fanaticism 

 

edited to remove something....

 

This certainly helps explain how discussions on payroll have a much lower standard for facts and accuracy relative to any other topic.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Good point, I'm also curious on just how much suite revenue really is at the end of the day.

I seem to recall back in 2009, Dave St Peter was on record predicting an extra ~$25 mil from Target Field suite revenue alone in 2010.  

 

Can't find a link for that now (I feel like it was discussed at ballparkmagic.com), but it seems about right, given that Target Field in total gave them an estimated $50-70 mil extra revenue that year (which would probably include general ticket sales, merchandise, concessions, sponsorships, etc.):

 

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/10/08/twins-ballpark-finance

[RichardMcBeef]

 

I'm glad there are former MLBer's on here. And if you didn't know, I am Vance Worley. I know what you're thinking, I pitch for Baltimore now. The fact is, I'm pretty self conscious about my glasses, and thought the fans would still be making fun of me and my self given nickname... 

I am RichardMcBeef

[tobi0040]

 

I seem to recall back in 2009, Dave St Peter was on record predicting an extra ~$25 mil from Target Field suite revenue alone in 2010.  

 

Can't find a link for that now (I feel like it was discussed at ballparkmagic.com), but it seems about right, given that Target Field in total gave them an estimated $50-70 mil extra revenue that year (which would probably include general ticket sales, merchandise, concessions, sponsorships, etc.):

 

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/10/08/twins-ballpark-finance

 

I looked this morning. 

 

Prices per game range 3-5k.  Average 4,000 x 54 suits x 81 games = $17.5M. 

 

That is before you cater chicken wings and beer and factor in things like concerts.  So $25M seems about right

 

 

[drjim]

For those interested, the Touch Em All Podcast covered this very topic for this week:

 

http://www.1500espn.com/touch-em-all/2016/01/ep-44-payroll-arguments-and-do-the-twins-innovate/

[USAFChief]

 

Can we please not derail this thread which actually has a lot of good discussion going on in it?

Nobody cares, nor needs to care about posters specific financial background/educational background etc This is a TWINS message board, there are plenty of other forums to discuss financial topics.

 

Nobody has suggested that the Pohlad's shouldn't make money, nor has anyone suggested the Twins need to spend an absurd amount of money on payroll. I haven't seen one person throw out a number larger than 130 million.

 

Most are suggesting the Twins spend a bit more (10-15% more) on payroll (or spend the payroll differently) people can disagree, which is 100% fine, but let's stop the "I am going to say I am smarter than you/everyone, so therefore your arguments and stances are invalid" nonsense.

I will.  I've thown out $150M in payroll before, and I'll throw out $150M now.

 

I still want to know why $60-70M over and above MLB payroll was fine in the dome, but the team needs $110M+ now.

[tobi0040]

 

Neal Cotts?

 

He was making $3M and we traded for him at the end of August, so we probably paid him about 700k.  So not a free agent signing or $3M.

 

We also traded for him when he had an FIP of 4.80.  So not exactly the type of guy I would like to target.

 

[DaveW]

 

I will.  I've thown out $150M in payroll before, and I'll throw out $150M now.

 

I still want to know why $60-70M over and above MLB payroll was fine in the dome, but the team needs $110M+ now.

Good point, I would love $150M as well, but have resigned myself to the fact the Pohlads won't let that happen anytime soon. I would like to see it at $125-$130 (which seems more than reasonable and allows the Pohlads plenty of money)

[DaveW]

 

 

We also traded for him when he had an FIP of 4.80.  So not exactly the type of guy I would like to target.

This sounds awfully familiar to a recent LHP we just signed...

 

Sigh

[Major League Ready]

 

Can we please not derail this thread which actually has a lot of good discussion going on in it?

Nobody cares, nor needs to care about posters specific financial background/educational background etc This is a TWINS message board, there are plenty of other forums to discuss financial topics.

 

Nobody has suggested that the Pohlad's shouldn't make money, nor has anyone suggested the Twins need to spend an absurd amount of money on payroll. I haven't seen one person throw out a number larger than 130 million.

 

Most are suggesting the Twins spend a bit more (10-15% more) on payroll (or spend the payroll differently) people can disagree, which is 100% fine, but let's stop the "I am going to say I am smarter than you/everyone, so therefore your arguments and stances are invalid" nonsense.

For starters, the most credible information I have been able to find (Forbes) reported a net income of just under 10% the last two years.  Therefore, you are suggesting a break-even or loss.

 

Two, In the last 24 hours someone suggested a $240M payroll and another poster suggested they are making in excess of 100M net profit.

 

Three, turnabout is fair play.  The norm here is to absolutely rail on the front office.  There is no decorum at all where this is concerned.  Would anyone here suggest the context of discussion here on a regular basis is not that the FO is both ignorant and incompetent.  Heaven forbid someone suggest the real problem is what the posters don't understand.  

[drjim]

 

He was making $3M and we traded for him at the end of August, so we probably paid him about 700k.  So not a free agent signing or $3M.

 

We also traded for him when he had an FIP of 4.80.  So not exactly the type of guy I would like to target.

 

It was kind of a joke. You threw out that all people basically want is a $3-4 mil a year reliever.  Cotts or Thorton is what you are going to get for that.

 

I'm pretty sure there are reasons beyond payroll that the signing hasn't happened yet.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yeah, it was the $11-12 mil over two years kind of reliever that was the big issue with me, earlier in the offseason.

[tobi0040]

 

It was kind of a joke. You threw out that all people basically want is a $3-4 mil a year reliever.  Cotts or Thorton is what you are going to get for that.

 

I'm pretty sure there are reasons beyond payroll that the signing hasn't happened yet.

 

This is not a one off-season thing.

 

I don't think Terry has ever signed a single free agent reliever for over 3M, or handed out a FA deal longer than one year to a reliever.  It seems pretty odd to me that he has not found a single player that could help us during his tenure.

 

Every year it is cheap stop-gaps, hope for young guys, then throw up the white flag and trade for a guy.  This is a strategy to me that is entirely based on economics.

 

 

 

 

[drjim]

 

I will.  I've thown out $150M in payroll before, and I'll throw out $150M now.

 

I still want to know why $60-70M over and above MLB payroll was fine in the dome, but the team needs $110M+ now.

 

Why stop at $150mil? Let's do $180 or $200 or $250.

 

Though, to be fair, according to Forbes a $150 mil payroll would have been about a $25mil loss for the year. Not sure there is a team, no matter how much the owner prioritized wins, that would be willing to do that.

 

You can keep asking the expense question, keep getting answers, keep choosing to ignore the answers, and keep asking the same questions. Admittedly no one can lock it down perfectly, but directionally seems pretty close.

[Don Walcott]

The Twins have more money to spend than we see on the Forbes breakdown of revenues.  First, they have MLBAM, which makes them and every other team owner a ton of money.  Second, the league TV deals are getting better, which give all teams more money. 

 

Third, and most importantly, on the heels of an exciting season of being relevant, the Twins can and should expect more revenue in 2016.  In fact, if we just go back a few years to when the Twins were good, we were among the top drawing teams in the league, with 3 million fans coming to games, instead of 2 million (which appears to be our baseline attendance when we're terrible for several years in a row).  So if we're good, we'll make more money.  And if the owners would invest in this team now, it's the perfect time with all of the cheap young talent we have.  This isn't my own theory, it's from Vince Gennaro, and his book Diamond Dollars.

[drjim]

 

The Twins have more money to spend than we see on the Forbes breakdown of revenues.  First, they have MLBAM, which makes them and every other team owner a ton of money.  Second, the league TV deals are getting better, which give all teams more money. 

 

Third, and most importantly, on the heels of an exciting season of being relevant, the Twins can and should expect more revenue in 2016.  In fact, if we just go back a few years to when the Twins were good, we were among the top drawing teams in the league, with 3 million fans coming to games, instead of 2 million (which appears to be our baseline attendance when we're terrible for several years in a row).  So if we're good, we'll make more money.  And if the owners would invest in this team now, it's the perfect time with all of the cheap young talent we have.  This isn't my own theory, it's from Vince Gennaro, and his book Diamond Dollars.

 

You don't think Forbes factors in Advanced Media and TV revenue in this calculation?

 

I generally agree with your second point, but I think part of the payroll calculation is based on renewal rates, both with season tickets and corporate sponsorships.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

.......This $240M is a very good indicator of how little objectivity is demonstrated on this site on an every day basis.............you are suggesting that the team should lose $120M...........

 

By your numbers, if the value of the franchise does not increase, and if the team would lose $120 million on a player payroll of $240 million, and payroll this year is roughly $105 million plus $13 million negotiating fee for Park, then they are already at the break even point this year, correct?

 

BTW, I picked 240 as a ballpark number, not as a suggestion. Surely you didn't read that I suggested the Twins should be rolling with a $240 payroll. Also for the record, I am a Ryan fan though not a Pohlad fan.

[DaveW]

 

Why stop at $150mil? Let's do $180 or $200 or $250.

 

Though, to be fair, according to Forbes a $150 mil payroll would have been about a $25mil loss for the year. Not sure there is a team, no matter how much the owner prioritized wins, that would be willing to do that.

 

You can keep asking the expense question, keep getting answers, keep choosing to ignore the answers, and keep asking the same questions. Admittedly no one can lock it down perfectly, but directionally seems pretty close.

Forbes isn't the end all be all in terms of what the Twins (Pohlads) are making. Also people are ignoring the fact that the value of the team is going up tens of millions every year as well... (700 million in the last 15 years actually)

[tobi0040]

 

Forbes isn't the end all be all in terms of what the Twins (Pohlads) are making.

 

I am not aware of another public source.  I believe it is either the Forbes data, or the Twins comments denying the Forbes data.