Thank You Nick Nelson

[Mike Sixel]

Is baseball the only bastion of forever-increasing spending? If the next 20 years were like the last 20 with he mean salary increase we will surely see players signing qualifying offers for 150 million dollars. I think this is a sort of confusing time for baseball executives. They are starting to ask WHY spend 200 million on ANY player? I think that is a good conversation to have.

Only if owners drop ticket and other prices, otherwise all the decrease is just going to them, and not the players. Does anyone think they are going to lower prices? How is spending less good for anyone other than owners? All thirty of them, as opposed to hundreds of players, and millions of fans?

[mlhouse]

Sorry, but it is idiotic to spend money on a mediocre team.  I get that people think that there is a chance a Manny Machado is going to come here if we offer him enough money, but then if you think that you are totally unrealistic.  

 

JUst look at last offseason.  I know everyone here thinks that the Twins were in the Yu Darvish sweepstakes, and maybe they were on the surface.  But, Darvish represents exactly why the Twins should not be.  Darvish signed a 6 year, $126 million contract that will pay him $81 million AFTER he turns 33 years of age.  Add in the over payment factors that would be necessary for the Twins to sign him, it was never going to happen.

 

And, given what happened in 2018 with Darvish only starting 8 games and pitching those games with a 4.95 ERA, the Twins are probably fortunate not to have signed a player entering in the stage of their careers with significant injury potential.  His contract has the potential to be an albatross that would have crippled the Twins payroll for a long time.  

 

Instead, the Twins are better off conserving their resources.  Push the new prospects quickly to Minnesota to get that core group to a competitive level, and then use our financial flexibility to extend all of that group and add the fill in players at positions we cannot develop and as depth.

 

I get that some want to argue that spending Pohlad's money now is unimportant, but you are totally off base.  Financial flexibility cannot be gained by adding long term contracts, and money "saved" now increases the possibility of spending money later.  In other words, if the Twins lose $20 million a season over hte next several years they will surely be less likely to invest in payroll later on than if they break even or even turn profits over that time. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I agree, except about that the rebuild should be coming to fruition. I think we have to consider the initial rebuild an utter disaster which is why the guy overseeing it was fired in the first place. The new guys weren't going to want to build a house from the debris left behind by their predecessors, they were going to want most of their own material using only the useful pieces still available. I think we didn't know it at the time, but we started a new rebuild two years ago and it only started in earnest at last July's trade deadline.

I really have to quibble with your big picture view that Ryan left behind a mess. Falvey and Levine inherited a post-season-caliber team. The Twins only won 85 games in 2017, but it was enough to make the Wild Card game. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

I get that some want to argue that spending Pohlad's money now is unimportant, but you are totally off base.  Financial flexibility cannot be gained by adding long term contracts, and money "saved" now increases the possibility of spending money later.  In other words, if the Twins lose $20 million a season over hte next several years they will surely be less likely to invest in payroll later on than if they break even or even turn profits over that time. 

 

The Twins have told us this isn't true.  So...it isn't true.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I can't imagine the Twins are any different than any company on Wall Street. If you make a billion and 1 dollar in 2017 but only a billion dollars in 2018, it's a loss. Whatever the team is currently netting, I can't imagine they're satisfied if it's the same amount every year, they'll want that number to continually increase. If revenues aren't increasing at the same rate as expenses, typically expenses start getting shedded, and players equal expenses. 

 

Nope. Making slightly less profit than the year before is called . . . a profit. A loss is when expenses exceed revenue, which is something the Twins certainly don't have to worry about, thanks to taxpayer subsidies.

 

If the Twins paid for their new stadium, I'd be much more understanding of their payroll history since moving into the new ballpark. Instead, they perpetrated a fraud on the taxpayers of Minnesota, claiming that the subsidies would be leveraged to support a competitive baseball team. This is clearly not happening and the ownership never had any intention of following through.

[mlhouse]

 

The Twins have told us this isn't true.  So...it isn't true.

 It is always true.  

[Champuckett]

Good job to Nick and to anyone else that has noted and spoken up about this as a problem.  There are those of us who noticed this more than a decade ago and tried to warn others about it, but were largely ignored.  Now that it has continued to grow, and is now all but impossible to ignore and should rightfully be debated and talked about in the public square.

 

I hope to see further discussions regarding this topic here at the Twins Daily and other Twins related social sites.

[scottz]

 

I think the issue ties to a larger discussion that's causing a lot of frustration for people who care about the game of baseball. Revenues are skyrocketing for MLB clubs but payrolls and salaries aren't growing in tandem. In fact, in many cases it's been the opposite effect.

 

The Twins are receiving these league-wide revenue infusions, and playing in a tax-funded stadium, at a time where their long-developing rebuild should be coming to fruition. Yet their relative payroll expenses have gone right back to Metrodome levels after a brief initial two-year spike. When you throw in the lack of forthright transparency about team revenues it all just doesn't sit right. 

 

Yeah, I get that. My contention is that the frustration people feel doesn't matter to how the owners are going to run their business until and unless the frustration turns into the actions that change their revenue streams. People not going to games, not watching games, not buying jerseys, cities not supplying tax-funded stadiums. If there is no demand for the product, the business will change. The problem there, of course, is that one of the ways the business (of MLB) could change is to reduce the supply (i.e., cut teams/move teams), which would also frustrate people. Another way is to reduce expenditures in order to still make profits they desire off lesser revenues, which would also frustrate people.

 

In any case, the business won't suddenly change in order to assuage the outrage felt by fans. That's all I'm saying. It's fruitless, regardless of how much we care about the game of baseball. Because while some owners probably also care about the game of baseball, they are participating in the business of baseball.

 

One other thing that could change the business: an agreement with labor that specifies salary caps or salary floors or other percentage of revenue standards. Maybe that will happen. Maybe in that same agreement with labor they will increase wages for minor leaguers who are grinding for years at low incomes. And to get to those agreements that give more money to players, maybe the next labor agreement will be a bloodbath that results in a strike that lasts for a year or more. And something like that would drive some fans away. And that would frustrate people.

 

But after that, once the games start again? The owners are going to figure out a way to make money. Because when you own a business, you either make money, or you quit owning the business.

[scottz]

 

That is what it means to be a fan.  But if you boil down to "what do fans accomplish by complaining" - you could basically say this about everything involved with team operations.  So then why do we talk about anything involving our sports team?

 

I think the answer is rather simple - we're passionate, so we're passionate about all aspects of our teams.  We talk here because we find it easier to vent this way than to speak with our pocket books or our attention.

 

The danger to any team, however, is when fans stop being passionate.  If the Twins keep beating us over the head with hiked ticket prices and small payrolls, eventually it will take its toll.  People like Mackey and LENIII criticize fans for their passion and forget that very passion is what makes their jobs possible.  

I agree that we're passionate, and I agree the danger to teams (sports business in general) is if fans stop being passionate (in large enough numbers). And ticket prices, on field results, social value of the team in one's life, etc., these are all things that play into when an individual may become less passionate.

 

I just don't think that payroll is what people are actually passionate about. They don't cheer for payroll, you know?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree that we're passionate, and I agree the danger to teams (sports business in general) is if fans stop being passionate (in large enough numbers). And ticket prices, on field results, social value of the team in one's life, etc., these are all things that play into when an individual may become less passionate.

 

I just don't think that payroll is what people are actually passionate about. They don't cheer for payroll, you know?

 

No, but payroll does have a direct impact on the product they view.  It's also, albeit indirectly, an indication of the commitment of the ownership towards that product.  

 

The Twins are playing with our money to build a product for our enjoyment....why wouldn't we be passionate about how they're using that money?

[scottz]

 

No, but payroll does have a direct impact on the product they view.  It's also, albeit indirectly, an indication of the commitment of the ownership towards that product.  

 

The Twins are playing with our money to build a product for our enjoyment....why wouldn't we be passionate about how they're using that money?

Because they don't care about what you think they should do with the money after you've given it to them?

 

I know that's cynical.

 

Here's a terrible analogy. First, because I'm going to compare the owners to an artist. Let's say there is an artist who has painted all sorts of things in a town. To a point that when everyone thinks of the artist, they think of the town. And people that grew up in that town are so connected to the art, they think of it as part of themselves. So they buy paint and give it to the artist.

 

But the artist paints what he wants to paint. He doesn't care if you actually like the art. Or if you like the way he used to paint, but don't like the way he's painting now. Of course, he wants you to like it. But as long as you keep giving him paint, it doesn't matter if you want to see stuff that looks more like the Sistine Chapel if he thinks it's better for him to paint Dogs Playing Poker. Even if you're passionate about it.

[howieramone2]

 

I agree, except about that the rebuild should be coming to fruition. I think we have to consider the initial rebuild an utter disaster which is why the guy overseeing it was fired in the first place. The new guys weren't going to want to build a house from the debris left behind by their predecessors, they were going to want most of their own material using only the useful pieces still available. I think we didn't know it at the time, but we started a new rebuild two years ago and it only started in earnest at last July's trade deadline.

I first came to the board in May of 2013, to follow the 2013 Draft. The Twins had been rebuilding for a year and a half and only a few on the board had any clue. The rebuild ended in 2017, when we became the first team in the history of baseball to make the play-offs after a 100 loss season. But if you want to pretend we started a new rebuild , that's cool. A lot of confused folk on this board, as per usual. 

 

Also, the new regime, never considered Sano, Buxton, Polanco, Rosario, Berrios, and Kepler debris. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Because they don't care about what you think they should do with the money after you've given it to them?

 

I know that's cynical.

 

Here's a terrible analogy. First, because I'm going to compare the owners to an artist. Let's say there is an artist who has painted all sorts of things in a town. To a point that when everyone thinks of the artist, they think of the town. And people that grew up in that town are so connected to the art, they think of it as part of themselves. So they buy paint and give it to the artist.

 

But the artist paints what he wants to paint. He doesn't care if you actually like the art. Or if you like the way he used to paint, but don't like the way he's painting now. Of course, he wants you to like it. But as long as you keep giving him paint, it doesn't matter if you want to see stuff that looks more like the Sistine Chapel if he thinks it's better for him to paint Dogs Playing Poker. Even if you're passionate about it.

 

Comparing the Pohlads to artists is where your analogy falls apart, among several other places.

[Rigby]

 

Because they don't care about what you think they should do with the money after you've given it to them?

 

I know that's cynical.

 

Here's a terrible analogy. First, because I'm going to compare the owners to an artist. Let's say there is an artist who has painted all sorts of things in a town. To a point that when everyone thinks of the artist, they think of the town. And people that grew up in that town are so connected to the art, they think of it as part of themselves. So they buy paint and give it to the artist.

 

But the artist paints what he wants to paint. He doesn't care if you actually like the art. Or if you like the way he used to paint, but don't like the way he's painting now. Of course, he wants you to like it. But as long as you keep giving him paint, it doesn't matter if you want to see stuff that looks more like the Sistine Chapel if he thinks it's better for him to paint Dogs Playing Poker. Even if you're passionate about it.

So, you're saying Pohlad is missing an ear?

[scottz]

 

Comparing the Pohlads to artists is where your analogy falls apart, among several other places.

As noted, it's a terrible analogy. But it's on the internet now, so it must be true. Pohlads = artists, money = paint, good baseball = Sistine Chapel, bad baseball = Dogs Playing Poker. Surely my internet words have convinced you of something.

[scottz]

 

So, you're saying Pohlad is missing an ear?

Clearly, I'm saying the Pohlads should add large cans of Campbell's soup to the concession stands.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Only if owners drop ticket and other prices, otherwise all the decrease is just going to them, and not the players. Does anyone think they are going to lower prices? How is spending less good for anyone other than owners? All thirty of them, as opposed to hundreds of players, and millions of fans?

 

With attendance dropping, they will probably have to drop prices at some point. Bottom line is that a ball game is in decline.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Clearly, I'm saying the Pohlads should add large cans of Campbell's soup to the concession stands.

 

You're getting a lot of good run out of that analogy,

[yarnivek1972]

With attendance dropping, they will probably have to drop prices at some point. Bottom line is that a ball game is in decline.

Aren’t some ticket prices dropping by nearly 20% in 2019?

[Vanimal46]

It is always true.

If it's true, they have $87 million in left over money to spend this year!

 

https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/1087369382286614528?s=19

[mlhouse]

 

If it's true, they have $87 million in left over money to spend this year!

https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/1087369382286614528?s=19

 

 

They ain't going to spend on a losing.  

[scottz]

 

You're getting a lot of good run out of that analogy,

Above all else, Twins Daily readers are known for their interest in the arts.

[Rigby]

 

Above all else, Twins Daily readers are known for their interest in the arts.

 

Carney was always one of my faves........

[TheLeviathan]

 

They ain't going to spend on a losing.  

 

When it comes to this argument, there are always excuses.  That's why you'll find so little tolerance for any viewpoint other than "spend what you should be spending".

 

We've heard them all "it's not the right time", "save it for next year", "the free agents aren't good enough", "attendance was down", and blah blah blah.  Target Field was billed as a solution to that, it hasn't been.  It's justified to hold this team to its own promises.

 

Personally, the Twins will not get another dollar from me until their behavior as an organization changes on a number of fronts.

[Mr. Brooks]

They ain't going to spend on a losing.

They didn't spend it after 2017 either.

They did increase spending, but only right up to the 50% benchmark, they didn't spend any of the previous seasons' savings.

[scottz]

 

Carney was always one of my faves........

I didn't know Carney Lansford painted.

[Vanimal46]

They ain't going to spend on a losing.

I didn't know that was a parameter to spend the savings each year. How are they going to know they're spending money on a winning team in the winter? The previous year team could have been a fluke like 2015 and 2017.

 

Are there other parameters I'm not privy to in order to spend the savings each year?

 

Most of all, I'm super excited to one day have a payroll as large as the Yankees from saving year over year!

[mlhouse]

 

They didn't spend it after 2017 either.
They did increase spending, but only right up to the 50% benchmark, they didn't spend any of the previous seasons' savings.

 

That is because they have a rebuilding team.  Regardless, the fact still remains.  The more financial flexibility, which includes not wasting money and not investing in long term contracts, they retain the more probable they will spend money in the future when the opportunity arises.   

 

I know the Pohlads are cheap, and the Twins organization's cheapness is legendary.  But economics is economics.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

That is because they have a rebuilding team.  Regardless, the fact still remains.  The more financial flexibility, which includes not wasting money and not investing in long term contracts, they retain the more probable they will spend money in the future when the opportunity arises.   

 

I know the Pohlads are cheap, and the Twins organization's cheapness is legendary.  But economics is economics.  

 

Nothing you are stating is economics.  I'm not sure how you think that's the case.

 

What we're discussing is how the organization operates and that is at their discretion.  And, I know  you haven't accepted this, but they've also made their methods clear publicly on this issue.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Clearly, I'm saying the Pohlads should add large cans of Campbell's soup to the concession stands.

And they should give every fan 15 minutes of fame.

 

Circle me, Bert!