Who wants to be the Rays?

[wabene]

12 minutes ago, ashbury said:

The Rays are one of the most unsuccessful franchises in MLB history. 

Where it counts, baseball is not simply a zero-sum game, where every winner means there is a loser.  Ballparks full of happy fans is success.  Tampa had exactly one season where they drew 2M - their first.

Tampa and its ilk drag down the sport.  Teams should emulate St Louis.

A bit dramatic don't you think? Sure their crappy, empty stadium and owner with bulging pockets casts a pall somewhat, but their acumen and unique success balances it out for me.

[Nine of twelve]

I know this is redundant and obvious, but scouting and player development are the keys to success in MLB. For every team. I think the primary thrust of this thread is the hypothesis that TB has had higher success in this than the rest of the league.

I would be curious to see (and am far too lazy to do) a quantitative analysis of each team's draft choices and other first signings. If there is a way to quantify player development and trades that would be of interest as well.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, wabene said:

A bit dramatic don't you think? Sure their crappy, empty stadium and owner with bulging pockets casts a pall somewhat, but their acumen and unique success balances it out for me.

If you're satisfied with the situation in Tampa I just don't know what to say.  Parsimony may be necessary or even inevitable when you've run a franchise into the ground, and sharp tactics may stave off the final stages.  But cause and effect of "low revenue" are not nearly as neatly delineated, or permanent, as some here would say.

[Brock Beauchamp]

6 minutes ago, ashbury said:

If you're satisfied with the situation in Tampa I just don't know what to say.  Parsimony may be necessary or even inevitable when you've run a franchise into the ground, and sharp tactics may stave off the final stages.  But cause and effect of "low revenue" are not nearly as neatly delineated, or permanent, as some here would say.

For example, using *only* the BAMTech money each team received in 2018 would have put the Rays about 8-10% toward the funding of a new stadium.

But no, it was easier and more profitable to start threatening quasi-relocation to Montreal and continue to claim poverty instead of being proactive and making the necessary changes the franchise claims to need to remain competitive.

[ashbury]

4 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

For example, using *only* the BAMTech money each team received in 2018 would have put the Rays about 8-10% toward the funding of a new stadium.

But no, it was easier and more profitable to start threatening quasi-relocation to Montreal and continue to claim poverty instead of being proactive and making the necessary changes the franchise claims to need to remain competitive.

Ding ding ding.  The situation in Tampa did not occur through a single year of neglect. 

 

[Major League Ready]

17 hours ago, ashbury said:

The Rays are one of the most unsuccessful franchises in MLB history. 

Where it counts, baseball is not simply a zero-sum game, where every winner means there is a loser.  Ballparks full of happy fans is success.  Tampa had exactly one season where they drew 2M - their first.

Tampa and its ilk drag down the sport.  Teams should emulate St Louis.

By that logic, if the Dodgers kept doing exactly what they are doing but the fans quit coming out, they would be unsuccessful.  If Twins fans came out no matter what and had a good time last year would have been a success.  From a pure business point of view, I would have to agree but we can't have it both ways.  Is winning the measure of success or attendance or Profitability or is this going to be another way we spending as the ultimate goal of a team?

[Major League Ready]

20 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

I know this is redundant and obvious, but scouting and player development are the keys to success in MLB. For every team. I think the primary thrust of this thread is the hypothesis that TB has had higher success in this than the rest of the league.

I would be curious to see (and am far too lazy to do) a quantitative analysis of each team's draft choices and other first signings. If there is a way to quantify player development and trades that would be of interest as well.

That would be very interesting in isolating drafting and development in terms of impact of acquisition methods.  However, isn't the real question the role the various acquisition methods play in the building of successful teams.  I would take it one step further and measure acquisition methods among the bottom 1/3, middle 1/3 and top 1/3 in terms of revenue.  Isn't that the core of the debate that goes on here?  Wouldn't that be the most telling in terms of the relative importance of the various methods of acquisition.

I have done this for playoff teams and posted it here in the past.  What you will find in Tampa Bays case is a highest percentage of their product players being acquired in trade as prospects or before they became established producers at the ML level.  If you do this for all of the successful teams with below average revenue you will find it very telling.  A lot of people prefer to ignore how successful teams or similar revenue have been formed because it most definitely does not support a quick fix through trade or free agency.

[Riverbrian]

In my opinion... there is way too much focus on the money in this discussion. 

Placing the Rays in a subset with the A's, Pirates, Orioles, Royals, Marlins and Guardians because of payroll is a mistake because what they are doing will slide right past you while you watch the dollars.  

 

The Rays belong in a very shallow subset of teams in terms of how they manage their 26 and 40 man rosters that includes the Dodgers, and now clearly the Giants. I also believe the Red Sox have joined this group, and the Brewers show flashes of it. Nobody else at this moment but I have a feeling that the Twins are trying to get there. The Dodgers are the same as the Rays with the addition of a ton of money in the equation. 

 

Nobody should want the Twins to be the Rays from a revenue standpoint. We should all want the Twins to be the Rays from a talent identification, talent utilization, talent development, and talent acquisition standpoint. 

Who wants to be the Rays? I raise my hand.  

 

[Nine of twelve]

5 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

We should all want the Twins to be the Rays from a talent identification, talent utilization, talent development, and talent acquisition standpoint. 

 

Yes. In chronological order: talent identification, talent acquisition, talent development, and talent utilization.

[Twodogs]

The Tampa Bay Rays averaged 9500 fans per game last year.  I wouldn't want to be anything like them.  Maybe it's because the fan base has no one to cheer for or get attached to??  I mean Oakland has a similar situation, they are pretty darn good year in and year out but no one comes to the games.  I mean the Twins set attendance records in the Metrodome in 91, obviously they won, but they won with players that Twins country identified with.  Puckett, Herbek, Gagne, etc....  So I don't think the Twins set that record if they turned their team completely over every year like the Rays are doing.  I mean look at the Cubs, even the Red Sox to an extent.  How many years of struggle did they endure, yet their stadiums were packed, because they kept guys like Ryne Sandberg etc....  So yeah the A's and the Rays can teach front offices a thing or two about development probably, but I don't think I'd want the team that I cheer for to turn over their complete roster so often.  Don't get me wrong, the Twins arent far behind, over the years I have felt like I was cheering for a minor league squad for the Yankees and the Dodgers.  But the Twins have done just enough, keeping Puckett etc....  Keeping a few of those familiar faces to cheer for.  I mean why is there more people in Tampa cheering for the Yankees than the Rays?  It might be because a lot of people in Tampa Bay were originally from New York.  Or it might also have to do with they know most of the players on New Yorks team???  Whereas year in and year out they have no idea who is playing for the Rays.  So I feel that they don't even care about the Rays and then when they do good, it's kind of like a surprise about 2 thirds of the way through the season.  Oh wow, our little minor league team over there is kinda doing good?  Let's watch a few games on TV.

[Major League Ready]

It’s interesting to test these assertions / opinions regarding attendance against other successful small market teams.  This is a link to Cleveland’s attendance history which includes win record and payroll.  Cleveland Attendance / Payroll / Win Record

In their run at Jacobs Field from 95-2001 their average attendance/game was 41,569 with an average payroll of $64,115,294.  It started at $38M and ended at $93M.   During their 5 year run at Progressive Field from 2016-2020, they averaged 22,547/game in attendance adjusted for Covid in 2020 by removing that year.  Their average payroll was $121,112,584.  These facts don't exactly validate some of the assertions here.

During their run in the late 90s they let Albert Belle (7 WAR) go in free agency after the 96 season.  Attendance actually went up slightly the next year.  They traded Brian Giles after the 98 season.  He was a 4 WAR player.  The attendance per game changed by 14 people per game in 99.  Giles produced 13 WAR the next two years.  Attendance remained the same in 2000 even though they did not make the playoffs and it went down to slightly to 39,600 in 2001 which was the last year of their run.  These fact don't support assertions made here either.

IMO, the Rays attendance is bad because they completely ignored that the location they picked is absolutely horrible to get to that time of the day.  It's not retail but location is still very important.
 

[Squirrel]

22 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

Yes. In chronological order: talent identification, talent acquisition, talent development, and talent utilization.

And talent retention, once they’ve developed that talent. But retention is not a Rays’ characteristic but how I want us to be different. I want to root for the team I know not one with a revolving door where our best talent exits just when it’s flourishing

[Riverbrian]

It's incredibly hard to have it both ways... if not impossible. 

If you get good at talent identification and talent development, the sheer numbers of capable talent produced are going to challenge any notion of retention with the limitations of the 26 and 40 man roster. 

Not retaining players is a natural by-product of producing too many players. They control the considerable spillage of their system very very well.  

[Squirrel]

22 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

It's incredibly hard to have it both ways... if not impossible. 

If you get good at talent identification and talent development, the sheer numbers of capable talent produced are going to challenge any notion of retention with the limitations of the 26 and 40 man roster. 

Not retaining players is a natural by-product of producing too many players. They control the considerable spillage of their system very very well.  

I’m not suggesting retaining all but  you need to keep a core. And having good, developed players will serve to trade for the pieces you need to make the final push. Fans do want to know some names to cheer for and a revolving door hurts that

[Twodogs]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

It’s interesting to test these assertions / opinions regarding attendance against other successful small market teams.  This is a link to Cleveland’s attendance history which includes win record and payroll.  Cleveland Attendance / Payroll / Win Record

In their run at Jacobs Field from 95-2001 their average attendance/game was 41,569 with an average payroll of $64,115,294.  It started at $38M and ended at $93M.   During their 5 year run at Progressive Field from 2016-2020, they averaged 22,547/game in attendance adjusted for Covid in 2020 by removing that year.  Their average payroll was $121,112,584.  These facts don't exactly validate some of the assertions here.

During their run in the late 90s they let Albert Belle (7 WAR) go in free agency after the 96 season.  Attendance actually went up slightly the next year.  They traded Brian Giles after the 98 season.  He was a 4 WAR player.  The attendance per game changed by 14 people per game in 99.  Giles produced 13 WAR the next two years.  Attendance remained the same in 2000 even though they did not make the playoffs and it went down to slightly to 39,600 in 2001 which was the last year of their run.  These fact don't support assertions made here either.

IMO, the Rays attendance is bad because they completely ignored that the location they picked is absolutely horrible to get to that time of the day.  It's not retail but location is still very important.
 

I just pulled up one year and in 1999 Cleveland had a 73 million payroll which ranked 4th in all of baseball at the time.  The Yankees were 1st at 88 million so the dollars were a lot different back then.  I just went to baseball reference and pulled up the 1996 indians stats and from there I paged back 2 - 3 year and I paged forward 2 - 3 years and the roster was amazingly similar from one year to the next with a changer or two every year.  But not whole sale selldowns and such.  Yeah Albert Belle left via free agency but his existence in Cleveland was somewhat contentious.  He did not always get along with management etc....  Nonetheless as I paged through I saw names like Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Sandy Alomar, Omar Vusquel, Eddie Murray, Kenny Lofton who all were part of the organization for many years and yes some of them left via free agency, but not like what goes on with the Rays.  Not to mention they definitely did not skimp on pitching.  They had guys in there like Hershiser, McDowell, Nagy, Martinez.  I mean these were some great pitchers of the day and most of them were free agents that they brought in!  I mean Hershiser and McDowell were not brought up through the organization, exploited and then traded when they became expensive.  They were already expensive when they were brought in?  So I think you make a great point that yes guys get traded and let go at times.  But not almost full roster flips like the Rays seem to do year in and year out.  So there were a lot of players that the fans were able to get attached to.  But occasionally you'll still need to make some moves.  But I think your point misses its mark when you try to compare payrolls and attendance, because yes 60 - 90 million per year is nothing in today's game, but back then they were a top 5 or close to it in MLB in total payroll.

 

https://www.fueledbysports.com/mlb-payroll-1984-1999/

[ashbury]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

By that logic, if the Dodgers kept doing exactly what they are doing but the fans quit coming out, they would be unsuccessful. 

Yes.  Sure.  Of course.  Was that meant as a trick question? 

What - would you call it "success"? 

"The operation was successful but the patient died."

But the Dodgers treat their fans very well, so your counterfactual is unlikely to ever occur in the first place - except if MLB as a whole manages to salt their own earth in this current labor dispute.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Twodogs said:

The Tampa Bay Rays averaged 9500 fans per game last year.  I wouldn't want to be anything like them.  Maybe it's because the fan base has no one to cheer for or get attached to??  I mean Oakland has a similar situation, they are pretty darn good year in and year out but no one comes to the games.  I mean the Twins set attendance records in the Metrodome in 91, obviously they won, but they won with players that Twins country identified with.  Puckett, Herbek, Gagne, etc....  So I don't think the Twins set that record if they turned their team completely over every year like the Rays are doing.  I mean look at the Cubs, even the Red Sox to an extent.  How many years of struggle did they endure, yet their stadiums were packed, because they kept guys like Ryne Sandberg etc....  So yeah the A's and the Rays can teach front offices a thing or two about development probably, but I don't think I'd want the team that I cheer for to turn over their complete roster so often.  Don't get me wrong, the Twins arent far behind, over the years I have felt like I was cheering for a minor league squad for the Yankees and the Dodgers.  But the Twins have done just enough, keeping Puckett etc....  Keeping a few of those familiar faces to cheer for.  I mean why is there more people in Tampa cheering for the Yankees than the Rays?  It might be because a lot of people in Tampa Bay were originally from New York.  Or it might also have to do with they know most of the players on New Yorks team???  Whereas year in and year out they have no idea who is playing for the Rays.  So I feel that they don't even care about the Rays and then when they do good, it's kind of like a surprise about 2 thirds of the way through the season.  Oh wow, our little minor league team over there is kinda doing good?  Let's watch a few games on TV.

There's a lot more marketing savvy in this post than in the torrent of posts that ultimately are about bean-counting.

[Riverbrian]

31 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I’m not suggesting retaining all but  you need to keep a core. And having good, developed players will serve to trade for the pieces you need to make the final push. Fans do want to know some names to cheer for and a revolving door hurts that

Feathers were certainly ruffled after Blake Snell was traded. How that manifest's itself in the long run? Who knows because there is a lot of nuance to add to those feathers.  

Stripping away the nuance and going to straight to the nuts and bolts. My opinion...  I feel if a fan base can't support a consistent winning team because (insert recognizable name/names here) isn't part of that winning? Pack it up, leave Tampa and see if Shreveport, Louisiana isn't so... um... particular about the methods used to provide the blanket of a consistent winning team.  

Jack and Jill from Tarpon Springs can't show up and enjoy Arozarena, Brandon Lowe, Glasnow, and a 100 mph bullpen from front to back because it isn't Arozarena, Brandon Lowe, Glasnow and a 100 mph bullpen plus Blake Snell to pitch every fifth game? 

Goodbye to Jack and Jill because those two were never going to carry the water back down the hill to support this franchise to the level of their competitors... due a debilitating form of fickleness. ?

 

 

[Squirrel]

36 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Feathers were certainly ruffled after Blake Snell was traded. How that manifest's itself in the long run? Who knows because there is a lot of nuance to add to those feathers.  

Stripping away the nuance and going to straight to the nuts and bolts. My opinion...  I feel if a fan base can't support a consistent winning team because (insert recognizable name/names here) isn't part of that winning? Pack it up, leave Tampa and see if Shreveport, Louisiana isn't so... um... particular about the methods used to provide the blanket of a consistent winning team.  

Jack and Jill from Tarpon Springs can't show up and enjoy Arozarena, Brandon Lowe, Glasnow, and a 100 mph bullpen from front to back because it isn't Arozarena, Brandon Lowe, Glasnow and a 100 mph bullpen plus Blake Snell to pitch every fifth game? 

Goodbye to Jack and Jill because those two were never going to carry the water back down the hill to support this franchise to the level of their competitors... due a debilitating form of fickleness. ?

 

 

Again, I didn’t say retain everyone, so I think you are creating an exaggeration of what I said, and exaggerating your point a bit to try and make a point. I get it. We all get it. But fans do love to know their teams. Fans also love winning teams. Certainly there is a balance in this somewhere, just as it isn’t all about money, it’s not all about development and nothing else, either. When did the Rays last win the WS? Yes, the ultimate win does matter once in a while. And, personally, I am truly less inclined to take the time, effort, and money to go see a team play if I don’t know anyone on the team. Im also not inclined if they are losing. I am more so if one or the other, but really inclined if it’s both. Part of the fun, for me, isn’t just the winning, but a reason for it, the players themselves, and a connection to them from having followed them through the system and cheering them on when they make the big team. It’s why I hate to say good bye to players I love that have had the largest impact on the team, even though I understand why. I hated losing Berrios, but agree with why. Now, if Buxton had also gone? Hmmm … of course, the Twins aren’t winning, either. Both matters. The Rays do very well at one and not the other. The balance is off, imo.

[Nine of twelve]

Talent retention might also be called talent maintenance. It does not necessarily mean retaining specific players. It means maintaining the amount of talent in the organization. And it's intertwined with the other four things RivBri listed. A well-run organization with money has the advantage in that money to retain a specific player is available if a satisfactory trade can't be made.

[Squirrel]

31 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

Talent retention might also be called talent maintenance. It does not necessarily mean retaining specific players. It means maintaining the amount of talent in the organization. And it's intertwined with the other four things RivBri listed. A well-run organization with money has the advantage in that money to retain a specific player is available if a satisfactory trade can't be made.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the Rays aren’t as constrained monetarily as we were meant to believe. They could afford some retention but choose not. This is the part of their organization I do not want to emulate. Player development, absolutely. But there has to be a balance in there, and I think it’s an important balance for the game.

[Major League Ready]

22 hours ago, Twodogs said:

I just pulled up one year and in 1999 Cleveland had a 73 million payroll which ranked 4th in all of baseball at the time.  The Yankees were 1st at 88 million so the dollars were a lot different back then.  I just went to baseball reference and pulled up the 1996 indians stats and from there I paged back 2 - 3 year and I paged forward 2 - 3 years and the roster was amazingly similar from one year to the next with a changer or two every year.  But not whole sale selldowns and such.  Yeah Albert Belle left via free agency but his existence in Cleveland was somewhat contentious.  He did not always get along with management etc....  Nonetheless as I paged through I saw names like Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Sandy Alomar, Omar Vusquel, Eddie Murray, Kenny Lofton who all were part of the organization for many years and yes some of them left via free agency, but not like what goes on with the Rays.  Not to mention they definitely did not skimp on pitching.  They had guys in there like Hershiser, McDowell, Nagy, Martinez.  I mean these were some great pitchers of the day and most of them were free agents that they brought in!  I mean Hershiser and McDowell were not brought up through the organization, exploited and then traded when they became expensive.  They were already expensive when they were brought in?  So I think you make a great point that yes guys get traded and let go at times.  But not almost full roster flips like the Rays seem to do year in and year out.  So there were a lot of players that the fans were able to get attached to.  But occasionally you'll still need to make some moves.  But I think your point misses its mark when you try to compare payrolls and attendance, because yes 60 - 90 million per year is nothing in today's game, but back then they were a top 5 or close to it in MLB in total payroll.

 

https://www.fueledbysports.com/mlb-payroll-1984-1999/

I agree with much of what you say but you only make note of their high salary year and fail to mention that their payroll was half of that when this run started.  That's a bit biased but more importantly none of this answers the questions we have been debating here.  How were these teams constructed.  In other words, what role to free agency play.  Were trades for established players as important as trades for prospects in building the team.  How many of the core players were drafted.  Of course, the other question is why didn't the fans support the more recent successful team.  Did they have constant churn of their key players.

Here is a summary of key players, how they were acquired and how long they stayed.  What this summary shows, just like the Rays, trads for prospects is far and away more responsible for their success than trading for established players.  Of these 19 players, 9 were drafted, 8, were acquired as prospects or ML players that were yet to produce 1 WAR.  1 player (Andrew Miller) was acquired as an established player.  In other words, the entire team was built on prospects or players acquired as prospects and then one piece was acquired in trade.  

I was somewhat surprised that as many key players were retained as long as they were.   So, why did this team have 1/2 the attendance of the late 90s team.  It surely was not because they didn't keep key players.

Player
Franciso Lindor		Drafted - Kept until they fell off and traded in the last year of control
Jose Ramerez		International draftee - Long-term Extension
Jason Kipmis		Drafted - 9 seasons
Carlos Santana		Acquired as a prospect - 10 Seasons
Michael Brantley		Traded for as a prospect - Parts of 10 seasons
Yan Gomes		Acquired after 1st season with negative WAR - 6 Seasons
Roberto Perez		Drafted - 8 seasons
L. Chisenhaul		Drafted - Played his entire career with Gaurdians
Corey Kluber		Acquired as a prospect - 8 seasons through age 34
Carlos Carrasco		Traded Cliff Lee for him when he was a prospect - 11 seasons
Trevor Bauer		Acquired as a MLB player with negative WAR - 6 1/2 seasons
Mike Clevinger		Acquired as a prospect - 4 1/2 seasons with Indians
Danny Salazar		International free agent - 6 seasons
Andrew Miller		Acquired via trade - 3 seasons
Shane Bieber		Drafted - still with team Idians
Cody Allen		Drafted - 7 seasons
Bryan Shaw		Acquired in trade after 2 seasons with a total of .2 WAR - 5 seasons
Josh Tomlin		Drafted - 9 seasons with Gaurdains
	9	-Drafted
	8	-Acquired as prospects or not yet established ML players
	1-	Established ML player acquired in trade

[Twodogs]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I agree with much of what you say but you only make note of their high salary year and fail to mention that their payroll was half of that when this run started.  That's a bit biased but more importantly none of this answers the questions we have been debating here.  How were these teams constructed.  In other words, what role to free agency play.  Were trades for established players as important as trades for prospects in building the team.  How many of the core players were drafted.  Of course, the other question is why didn't the fans support the more recent successful team.  Did they have constant churn of their key players.

Here is a summary of key players, how they were acquired and how long they stayed.  What this summary shows, just like the Rays, trads for prospects is far and away more responsible for their success than trading for established players.  Of these 19 players, 9 were drafted, 8, were acquired as prospects or ML players that were yet to produce 1 WAR.  1 player (Andrew Miller) was acquired as an established player.  In other words, the entire team was built on prospects or players acquired as prospects and then one piece was acquired in trade.  

I was somewhat surprised that as many key players were retained as long as they were.   So, why did this team have 1/2 the attendance of the late 90s team.  It surely was not because they didn't keep key players.

Player
Franciso Lindor		Drafted - Kept until they fell off and traded in the last year of control
Jose Ramerez		International draftee - Long-term Extension
Jason Kipmis		Drafted - 9 seasons
Carlos Santana		Acquired as a prospect - 10 Seasons
Michael Brantley		Traded for as a prospect - Parts of 10 seasons
Yan Gomes		Acquired after 1st season with negative WAR - 6 Seasons
Roberto Perez		Drafted - 8 seasons
L. Chisenhaul		Drafted - Played his entire career with Gaurdians
Corey Kluber		Acquired as a prospect - 8 seasons through age 34
Carlos Carrasco		Traded Cliff Lee for him when he was a prospect - 11 seasons
Trevor Bauer		Acquired as a MLB player with negative WAR - 6 1/2 seasons
Mike Clevinger		Acquired as a prospect - 4 1/2 seasons with Indians
Danny Salazar		International free agent - 6 seasons
Andrew Miller		Acquired via trade - 3 seasons
Shane Bieber		Drafted - still with team Idians
Cody Allen		Drafted - 7 seasons
Bryan Shaw		Acquired in trade after 2 seasons with a total of .2 WAR - 5 seasons
Josh Tomlin		Drafted - 9 seasons with Gaurdains
	9	-Drafted
	8	-Acquired as prospects or not yet established ML players
	1-	Established ML player acquired in trade

Well they hovered around the top 5 in salary for quite awhile. 

1994 16th where you pointed out that they started their run.

1995 7th

1996 4th

1997 3rd

1998 6th

1999 4th. The year I pointed out, but the link shows them all.

2000 8th

2001 5th

2002 9th

They were in the top 10 in every year of that run except that first year, and top 5 in MLB salaries in 4 of those seasons.  Interestingly they went out and aquired expensive/aging starting pitching for some of that run?  Hershiser, McDowell, Martinez and those guys did good, not great, not as good as they were when they were younger, but they won a lot of games between them.  

But yeah Cleveland is weird that they had good support for those 90's teams and not a lot of support for the more recent run? (I don't remember the attendance figures you put but I remember reading them),  They had a lot of home grown ballplayers et.al. Lindor and such.  Maybe there is some residual anger still in Cleveland from some fans due to the climate of their professional teams.  The Browns, the Indians now Guardians, the Cavaliers.  Like LeBron left them maybe the whole professional culture of the whole city has left the fans skeptical??  Maybe they have a hard time buying in with the way they've been treated in the past, I mean even the Browns left town once?  These are just a hypothesis as to why Cleveland has less support of a winning baseball team, (which appears to have been kinda done the right way with a lot of internal development and such), recently as opposed to their winning baseball team from the late 90's?  

Don't get me wrong, my original post was I just wouldn't want to be Tampa Bay, not because of their development of players and such.  They obviously have proven that they do a good job of that.  I just don't want to be them because they hardly ever keep any of their star players.  I know you can't keep them all, but like you pointed out in Cleveland they did a pretty good job of keeping many of them for quite awhile.  Obviously not all but some, and some of them for 8 - 9 years.  Are they going to keep Lowe for 8 - 9 years?  Who knows, maybe??  They just signed their stud rookie to a long term deal; so maybe Tampa is starting to change a little, obviously not with their development, but maybe they are going to try and keep a handful of these studs for the near future so fans can get attached to them?  I hope not? because I kind of like the fact that they feed the rest of MLB with great young players, but if they do I personally think it will be a step in the right direction for them as a franchise.  

I mean another thing that I think is sometimes overlooked, is team valuation.  So in the years before free agency MLB teams weren't even worth 10 million dollars.  Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for 8.7 mill in 1973.  Now if you wanted to buy the Yankees you'd need closer to 10 billion.  Obviously there are many many reasons for teams values to go up.  But I think that player free agency, (player salaries), was a catalyst for driving up team values.  Let me explain.  You buy a house for 100,000 dollars.  It has old crappy shag carpeting, Formica countertops, a dilapidated roof, a paint job that is peeling, etc.... You go in there and put in nice hardwood flooring, granite countertops, put a new roof and a fresh coat of new paint and what happens to the value of the house?? It goes up, right.  So in my thought process you have player commodities on your MLB franchise, if all of them are rookies and they all make league min or close to it.  And then you add a Mike Trout, and a Gerritt Cole, wouldn't the value of your MLB franchise increase also??  Do the owners really make that much money off of tickets and hotdogs?  Or do they make more money on the value of the team itself?  Just a thought to ponder as we wait for this lockout to end.  

 

 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Twodogs said:

I mean another thing that I think is sometimes overlooked, is team valuation.  So in the years before free agency MLB teams weren't even worth 10 million dollars.  Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for 8.7 mill in 1973.  Now if you wanted to buy the Yankees you'd need closer to 10 billion.  Obviously there are many many reasons for teams values to go up.  But I think that player free agency, (player salaries), was a catalyst for driving up team values.  Let me explain.  You buy a house for 100,000 dollars.  It has old crappy shag carpeting, Formica countertops, a dilapidated roof, a paint job that is peeling, etc.... You go in there and put in nice hardwood flooring, granite countertops, put a new roof and a fresh coat of new paint and what happens to the value of the house?? It goes up, right.  So in my thought process you have player commodities on your MLB franchise, if all of them are rookies and they all make league min or close to it.  And then you add a Mike Trout, and a Gerritt Cole, wouldn't the value of your MLB franchise increase also??  Do the owners really make that much money off of tickets and hotdogs?  Or do they make more money on the value of the team itself?  Just a thought to ponder as we wait for this lockout to end.  

Players getting paid more has absolutely zero positive influence on valuations.  The factors that drive valuation are all attributed to profit, expected growth rate, risk, and sustainability.   If you had a patented method for identifying and developing players that would influence future profits and increase valuation.  Of course, it does not work that way.  Many other teams are copying some of the Rays practices.  Other teams have also hired their leadership. 

Teams with far superior revenue or revenue potential have an advantage that is likely to always exist.  That revenue advantage provides a competitive advantage which makes it far easier to maintain the popularity of the brand.  The valuation for teams with built in advantages associates with better markets, better revenue and a competitive advantage will be a higher multiple or earnings because of the capacity to increase earnings and lower risk.

[Riverbrian]

On 1/1/2022 at 1:38 PM, Squirrel said:

Again, I didn’t say retain everyone, so I think you are creating an exaggeration of what I said, and exaggerating your point a bit to try and make a point. I get it. We all get it. But fans do love to know their teams. Fans also love winning teams. Certainly there is a balance in this somewhere, just as it isn’t all about money, it’s not all about development and nothing else, either. When did the Rays last win the WS? Yes, the ultimate win does matter once in a while. And, personally, I am truly less inclined to take the time, effort, and money to go see a team play if I don’t know anyone on the team. Im also not inclined if they are losing. I am more so if one or the other, but really inclined if it’s both. Part of the fun, for me, isn’t just the winning, but a reason for it, the players themselves, and a connection to them from having followed them through the system and cheering them on when they make the big team. It’s why I hate to say good bye to players I love that have had the largest impact on the team, even though I understand why. I hated losing Berrios, but agree with why. Now, if Buxton had also gone? Hmmm … of course, the Twins aren’t winning, either. Both matters. The Rays do very well at one and not the other. The balance is off, imo.

I read this post yesterday. I was thinking that I should take the high road and quietly go back to where I was before. Thinking about it today. I’ve decided to respond.

I’m not a problem poster. Or at least if I am… I can say that it isn’t my intention to be. I haven’t posted in a year and a half, so I know I haven’t been a problem lately. When I took a rather extended break from Twinsdaily, I felt that I was becoming disruptive and being disruptive is the last thing that I intend to be so I got out of the way, this was coupled with a personal serious concern over the conditions that exist in social media so, I decided to avoid all of it.  

Here’s the deal… I recently lost my father, recently enough that we still haven’t had the funeral yet due in part to the difficulty of trying to gather everyone together over holiday schedules. Anytime you lose someone, it leads you into a period of self-reflection. Self-reflection typically doesn’t last because you eventually go back to being who you are while you do what you’ve always done, however, you do have that period where you ponder the shortness of life, have you accomplished what you want to accomplish, are you the person you want to be, I’d like to simply be a nice person BTW, and am I doing the things that I’d like to do before it’s too late? I assume we all have these types of thoughts in similar circumstances.

After the obvious hopes of the health and happiness of my loved ones, Baseball and specifically the Twins are my primary interests. This community is the only place that can keep up with me and in this period of reflection, Baseball was something that I thought about, I want to see every stadium and I thought about TD. Soon after I got an email from John Bonnes out of the blue and I thought some more about TD. Yesterday was January 1^st and thinking about new beginnings, everything, I thought I’d jump back in. Perhaps, it was all too soon because nothing changes on New Year’s Day, it seems.

I would have never assumed that you meant “Retain Everyone” and if you read my posts, you will see there is no time that I mentioned “Retain Everyone”. I don’t understand your need to not only repeat but also lead your post with the declarative “Again, I didn’t say retain everyone”. Where is that coming from? You and I should both be miles past the rather elementary understanding that it is impossible for any baseball team to “Retain Everyone”.

Now I do believe that the discussion had turned to retention. I didn’t introduce retention to the discussion, you did. Fair enough, you feel that retention is important, so I followed down your path because retention is indeed a hard consideration for all 30 teams.

I mentioned Blake Snell specifically to try find common ground because even as an ardent believer in the Tampa methods of roster management, even I was shocked by that trade.

You say that I created an exaggeration of what you said? I do tend you use exaggerated allegories, parables, metaphors when making my points because I think they are fun but I am not the only practitioner. Is your “revolving door” metaphor an exaggeration? Or how about when Twodogs says “full roster flips like the Rays seem to do year in and year out”. I get it. We all get it.

We should probably all take a look at that turnover. Are Charlie Morton and Tommy Pham types really a revolving door? Or is it normal turnover that all 30 teams experience, possibly escalated as a by-product of the Rays success?  The limitations of the 26- and 40-man rosters will cause difficult decisions and there will be more of those decisions to make if you are good at identifying talent, acquiring talent and developing that talent because the system will overflow. Kevin Keirmeier and his price point for example just might not be that necessary anymore with 21 rule 5 eligible and 9 players out of options to consider for next year’s roster. I would love for the Twins to have those problems because the Rays are not spending zoom time discussing Jake Cave type roster decisions at the moment.

I’m under the impression that you have stated that simply winning isn’t enough, that you also need balance and that fans like to have players that they have become accustomed to. I believe that winning is hard enough by itself and additional conditions beyond the existing rules that govern the sport is an unnecessary addendum that will only lead to a never ceasing frustration because of its pure difficulty. If all fans demanded winning plus superfluous specific subjective methods used to achieve it, baseball won’t be around long with a win and win my way obstacle course.   

BTW… the “When did the Rays last win the WS” card was played. What time frame are you going to apply to this criticism? The Braves won last year after a 26 year drought. The Dodgers ended a 32 year drought by beating the Rays the year before that. The Nationals/Expos ended a 50 year drought before that. In 2017 the Astros snapped a 55 year drought, in 2016, the Cubs dry spell lasted 108 years, the Royals spaced 30 years in between titles in 2015. It’s been a decade of drought ending for teams that are all trying to win the thing and starting with a blank slate every opening day. The Rays have been in existence for 23 years total.

[wabene]

On 12/31/2021 at 3:57 PM, ashbury said:

If you're satisfied with the situation in Tampa I just don't know what to say.  Parsimony may be necessary or even inevitable when you've run a franchise into the ground, and sharp tactics may stave off the final stages.  But cause and effect of "low revenue" are not nearly as neatly delineated, or permanent, as some here would say.

Satisfied with the situation in Tampa? I don't really care about the situation in Tampa. I have looked into it a little and there appears to be an impasse on getting a new stadium done with some convoluted agreement with St Petersburg holding them hostage, so the owner tried some ill-advised dual city agreement which ended in an unfortunate manner. Whatever. If they did build a new stadium that was more appealing and in a better location they might improve attendance. They have some factors working against them. Florida is populated by transplants with different team affiliations. Florida is a state where the population huddles inside in air-conditioning in the summer eliminating a major appeal of baseball. In any case they could resolve this situation and become a model franchise with a beautiful, full, new ballpark to go along with everything else they do well. Whatever happens will not be the linchpin in the future of MLB.

I did edit linchpin for Brock

[Squirrel]

14 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I read this post yesterday. I was thinking that I should take the high road and quietly go back to where I was before. Thinking about it today. I’ve decided to respond.

I’m not a problem poster. Or at least if I am… I can say that it isn’t my intention to be. I haven’t posted in a year and a half, so I know I haven’t been a problem lately. When I took a rather extended break from Twinsdaily, I felt that I was becoming disruptive and being disruptive is the last thing that I intend to be so I got out of the way, this was coupled with a personal serious concern over the conditions that exist in social media so, I decided to avoid all of it.  

Here’s the deal… I recently lost my father, recently enough that we still haven’t had the funeral yet due in part to the difficulty of trying to gather everyone together over holiday schedules. Anytime you lose someone, it leads you into a period of self-reflection. Self-reflection typically doesn’t last because you eventually go back to being who you are while you do what you’ve always done, however, you do have that period where you ponder the shortness of life, have you accomplished what you want to accomplish, are you the person you want to be, I’d like to simply be a nice person BTW, and am I doing the things that I’d like to do before it’s too late? I assume we all have these types of thoughts in similar circumstances.

After the obvious hopes of the health and happiness of my loved ones, Baseball and specifically the Twins are my primary interests. This community is the only place that can keep up with me and in this period of reflection, Baseball was something that I thought about, I want to see every stadium and I thought about TD. Soon after I got an email from John Bonnes out of the blue and I thought some more about TD. Yesterday was January 1^st and thinking about new beginnings, everything, I thought I’d jump back in. Perhaps, it was all too soon because nothing changes on New Year’s Day, it seems.

I would have never assumed that you meant “Retain Everyone” and if you read my posts, you will see there is no time that I mentioned “Retain Everyone”. I don’t understand your need to not only repeat but also lead your post with the declarative “Again, I didn’t say retain everyone”. Where is that coming from? You and I should both be miles past the rather elementary understanding that it is impossible for any baseball team to “Retain Everyone”.

Now I do believe that the discussion had turned to retention. I didn’t introduce retention to the discussion, you did. Fair enough, you feel that retention is important, so I followed down your path because retention is indeed a hard consideration for all 30 teams.

I mentioned Blake Snell specifically to try find common ground because even as an ardent believer in the Tampa methods of roster management, even I was shocked by that trade.

You say that I created an exaggeration of what you said? I do tend you use exaggerated allegories, parables, metaphors when making my points because I think they are fun but I am not the only practitioner. Is your “revolving door” metaphor an exaggeration? Or how about when Twodogs says “full roster flips like the Rays seem to do year in and year out”. I get it. We all get it.

We should probably all take a look at that turnover. Are Charlie Morton and Tommy Pham types really a revolving door? Or is it normal turnover that all 30 teams experience, possibly escalated as a by-product of the Rays success?  The limitations of the 26- and 40-man rosters will cause difficult decisions and there will be more of those decisions to make if you are good at identifying talent, acquiring talent and developing that talent because the system will overflow. Kevin Keirmeier and his price point for example just might not be that necessary anymore with 21 rule 5 eligible and 9 players out of options to consider for next year’s roster. I would love for the Twins to have those problems because the Rays are not spending zoom time discussing Jake Cave type roster decisions at the moment.

I’m under the impression that you have stated that simply winning isn’t enough, that you also need balance and that fans like to have players that they have become accustomed to. I believe that winning is hard enough by itself and additional conditions beyond the existing rules that govern the sport is an unnecessary addendum that will only lead to a never ceasing frustration because of its pure difficulty. If all fans demanded winning plus superfluous specific subjective methods used to achieve it, baseball won’t be around long with a win and win my way obstacle course.   

BTW… the “When did the Rays last win the WS” card was played. What time frame are you going to apply to this criticism? The Braves won last year after a 26 year drought. The Dodgers ended a 32 year drought by beating the Rays the year before that. The Nationals/Expos ended a 50 year drought before that. In 2017 the Astros snapped a 55 year drought, in 2016, the Cubs dry spell lasted 108 years, the Royals spaced 30 years in between titles in 2015. It’s been a decade of drought ending for teams that are all trying to win the thing and starting with a blank slate every opening day. The Rays have been in existence for 23 years total.

First off, I’m sorry to hear about your Dad. I lost mine just before Thanksgiving 3 yrs ago, so I understand. 
 

I don’t think there are high or low roads here. Disagreement drives the site. No one is right or wrong in sharing their opinions, as long as those opinions remain respectful and don’t go down the path of name calling or condescension, but that certainly is not you. But, sometimes I think our different communication styles sometimes cause confusion in understanding the points we are making.
 

Ultimately, I don’t think the Rays’ organization is something to emulate in all things. Yes, player development, yes. But they lack a balance I’d like to see. That’s as succinct as I can say it. 

[Major League Ready]

On 1/1/2022 at 9:25 AM, Riverbrian said:

In my opinion... there is way too much focus on the money in this discussion. 

Placing the Rays in a subset with the A's, Pirates, Orioles, Royals, Marlins and Guardians because of payroll is a mistake because what they are doing will slide right past you while you watch the dollars.  

 

The Rays belong in a very shallow subset of teams in terms of how they manage their 26 and 40 man rosters that includes the Dodgers, and now clearly the Giants. I also believe the Red Sox have joined this group, and the Brewers show flashes of it. Nobody else at this moment but I have a feeling that the Twins are trying to get there. The Dodgers are the same as the Rays with the addition of a ton of money in the equation. 

 

Nobody should want the Twins to be the Rays from a revenue standpoint. We should all want the Twins to be the Rays from a talent identification, talent utilization, talent development, and talent acquisition standpoint. 

Who wants to be the Rays? I raise my hand.  

 

I agree completely that what they are doing can be overlooked because of the focus on payroll.  However, in the context of successful team building practices, we have to compare teams of similar revenue when debating the best practices for building a winning team.  The top teams can sign 5 Chris Taylors and 5 Justin Verlanders and still the Ray's budget left over.  The revenue disadvantage creates an absolutely INEVITABLE NEED to produce far more win per dollar spent.  Yet, that premise is literally ridiculed here.  It is often stated outright here that people don't care about wins per dollar spent which is mind boggling because it is prerequisite of success for teams at the bottom of the revenue spectrum.  

We just can't demonstrate the necessity of these practices without the premise of wins per dollar spent.  We also have many years of history we can look back on the establish the relative success of the various acquisition methods but it does not make sense to compare acquisition practices of teams with twice the financial resource.  This is perhaps a moot point because this history is absolutely ignored because it very clearly does not support trading for short-term assets and major free agent signings are virtually non-existent among successful teams in this revenue group.

[KirbyDome89]

On 1/3/2022 at 6:58 AM, Major League Ready said:

I agree completely that what they are doing can be overlooked because of the focus on payroll.  However, in the context of successful team building practices, we have to compare teams of similar revenue when debating the best practices for building a winning team.  The top teams can sign 5 Chris Taylors and 5 Justin Verlanders and still the Ray's budget left over.  The revenue disadvantage creates an absolutely INEVITABLE NEED to produce far more win per dollar spent.  Yet, that premise is literally ridiculed here.  It is often stated outright here that people don't care about wins per dollar spent which is mind boggling because it is prerequisite of success for teams at the bottom of the revenue spectrum.  

We just can't demonstrate the necessity of these practices without the premise of wins per dollar spent.  We also have many years of history we can look back on the establish the relative success of the various acquisition methods but it does not make sense to compare acquisition practices of teams with twice the financial resource.  This is perhaps a moot point because this history is absolutely ignored because it very clearly does not support trading for short-term assets and major free agent signings are virtually non-existent among successful teams in this revenue group.

You're being ridiculed for protecting the pockets of billionaires who are grabbing an even more disproportionate amount of the pie, at the expense of their own fanbase and the long term health of the game. The varying financial realities across the league are widely understood. 

[glunn]

Moderator note -- please stop the sarcasm and personal attacks in this thread.