58 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Someone that has far more time than I will have to figure that one out.  I'm going to guess that it's a short list and none of them with payrolls near Tampa's will be on it.  But that's certainly not a fluke.  They've earned that success.

I put this together a couple years ago and updated it recently.  These are below average revenue teams win percentage and number of 90 win seasons for the last 20 years.

Oakland        .535          10

Indians         .516            9

Rays             .507            9

Twins           .502             6

Mariners       .480             4

Dbacks         .490             4

Brewers        .488             4

Reds            .481              3

Orioles         .459              2

Pirates          .452             2

Marlins         .480              1

Padres          .476              1

Rockies         .489              1

Royals          .442              1

Interesting topic and discussion.  One factor that wasn’t discussed is just how bad the stadium is.  I have never been there, but have been led to believe it has terrible access in addition to being a dump.

But what I am curious about is why so many of you crucify them for not spending more on player payroll.  Isn’t their objective to win?  They are doing that, better than most and arguably in baseball’s toughest division.  How much they spend shouldn’t be a factor if they win more than most, should it?

As someone who spent my life watching pennies in my businesses, I admire them.

If you want to, or need to for economical reasons, run a MLB franchise on the cheap, they are a model, no question. I find Brock's information to be disheartening in regard to TB's shoestring approach. I don't think it's good for the sport, much less trying to build a loyal fan base. And I wonder about sustainability. If they suddenly guess wrong a couple times, they're in the proverbial toilet quickly.

But where I think we have to give them credit is their ability to find and develop young talent, via the draft and from other teams in trades. 

I have to say...and I'm NOT trying to open a can of worms for debate concerning Berrios or this current offseason....I think the Twins ARE following the Rays way of doing things in many ways, but actually spending available funds. They have completely revamped their entire system from the old regime in regard to player development. They've drafted pretty darn well and brought in additional talent via trade to augment the system. And it appears, despite some setbacks recently, we could see a large group of talented young players and pitchers arriving very soon to add to what is already on hand. (And no, I don't like EVERYTHING the FO has done or not done, just to be clear).

Just a couple quick additional thoughts:

1] I don't think Buxton was extended due to fan pressure. I think he was extended because he's pretty good at baseball and they recognize that. While not knowing all the details, and never will, not so sure they wouldn't have kept Berrios if it was a 4 or 5 year deal vs 7. Right or wrong, they have an aversion to a pitcher signed for that long. 

2] I also want to say that, IMO, there is a bit of a fallacy regarding the Twins drafting a glut of bat first, limited corner players. First off, you do need those corner players with big bats. Everyone does and everyone drafts them. But when I look at the drafts of the current FO, I see Sabato as the only high selection who is restricted defensively. While Rooker hasn't turned out to this point, he's a pretty decent athlete that could play 3 spots. The fact he hasn't improved defensively is a concern, but I don't think he was drafted to just be a DH. Larnach and wallner can both play a decent corner OF spot with good arms as well as being potential power plants. Again, you need those guys/bats.

But they have also drafted Lewis, Cavaco and Miller very high as middle infielders. They've also drafted Steer and Julian who have excellent early returns and there is hope for Howard, despite a mediocre 1st season. And while not actual draft choices, the Twins have signed a number of international toolsy OF and infielders from Latin countries. So I think we need to re-examine the idea of a glut of bat first corner types.

Yeah, I think the Twins would benefit to be more like the Rays in player evaluation and development--and better!--since they also could occasionally spend big money for a star player or two for post season pushes.  Alas… the Twins as we know them now rarely do either.

Looking just at recent results, the Rays are hard to match. Not much to disagree with in their development, trades, drafts, and results. Looking over 20 years, the difference is not so important.

The Trop is better than the Metrodome ever was but a poor stadium in an out of the way location. On the waterfront in St. Petersburg or in Tampa would be better. Their style does not present much continuity of players for fans. I don't know how important that is economically. The Lightning play in Tampa and are a hot ticket. Tampa Bay is the same or slightly larger than the Twin Cities I believe and there is a ton more people within an hour or two of Tampa. Perhaps the location of the stadium is the main issue in attendance but it seems wrong that they take in so much money in revenue sharing instead of taking care of their situation. MLB is partly to blame for both Oakland and the Rays. All in all, let's not be the Rays. I think a little commitment is possible to put the Twins in a good place. 

The Twins have enough incremental revenue in comparison to the Rays that they can keep a couple of top players.  The cant keep them all like the Dodgers but we can keep the most critical players.  The Dodgers went from focusing on established talent (trades for established players & free agents) to a Rays type model and they have sustained excellence.  Of course, the difference is they can pretty much keep all of their top players.  They have built a powerhouse by keeping their best prospects.  They have been very careful with long-term free agent acquisitions.  It's the Rays model for a team with over double the revenue.

We don't have to churn players the way the Rays do.  What we need to do is exercise patients like the Rays.  That means not trading good prospects for 1-2 year assets.  It means not signing free agent SPs when you have several pitching prospects ready for their shot.   For the Rays, it means never signing free agent pitchers to 5+ year deals because the rate of failure is simply to high.  Our incremental revenue makes it more viable to sign a front of the rotation guy to a long-term contract if they build the rest of the staff from within.  

10 hours ago, DocBauer said:

Just a couple quick additional thoughts:

1] I don't think Buxton was extended due to fan pressure. I think he was extended because he's pretty good at baseball and they recognize that. While not knowing all the details, and never will, not so sure they wouldn't have kept Berrios if it was a 4 or 5 year deal vs 7. Right or wrong, they have an aversion to a pitcher signed for that long. 

 

I agreed with you entire post Doc but wanted to highlight this portion.  I don't believe for a second they changed their mind because of public pressure.  They are not out polling the public.  They understood a long time ago the fans loved Buxton and just like many of us here, Buxton was a priority for them.  However, this was a unique situation with his injury history which made it difficult to come to an agreement both sides could live with.  There was no need to rush the deal and in the end they got it done.

16 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

There’s a reason why the Rays and A’s are consistently in the bottom 5 of attendance each year. And it’s not all directly related to their stadiums being a dump or bad locations. Why be a fan of teams that trade star players as soon as they become expensive? Sports is about entertainment, and attaching your fandom/excitement to players on your team.

The Rays in their existence have only had Evan Longoria to attach their fandom to for a long period of time. Now they have Wander Franco, but I wouldn’t rule out them trading him too before his contract is up. Who was the last Oakland A’s player who wore their uniform more than 5-6 years? 

Would I love the Twins to replicate the Rays’ player development model? Absolutely. There are 29 other teams trying to replicate what they’re doing and only they have the voodoo magic to pull it off. 

 

My comment is a bit off track, but the A's had this problem when they weren't trading off stars, too. I lived in the Bay Area for most of the 80s, when they were a team of stars, and traded for/signed very good players. No one went to the games then, either. I went to Opening Day in 1988- they had a great team with huge hype. Walked up, bought tickets sat in the bleachers that were one-third full. There were always good tickets available for A's games. It wasn't a terrible stadium, either, though of course my baseline was the Metrodome.

 

6 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I agreed with you entire post Doc but wanted to highlight this portion.  I don't believe for a second they changed their mind because of public pressure.  They are not out polling the public.  They understood a long time ago the fans loved Buxton and just like many of us here, Buxton was a priority for them.  However, this was a unique situation with his injury history which made it difficult to come to an agreement both sides could live with.  There was no need to rush the deal and in the end they got it done.

Gleeman is pretty well connected and he's reported multiple times that the Twins were entirely set to trade Buxton to the Phillies at the deadline if the Phillies had a premium prospect they could've added. He's also reported they were entirely set on trading him during the offseason, but Buxton came to them to get the deal done. I think it's more than believable that they had no plans to extend Buxton after talks broke down at the deadline. As long as he was still on their roster they had the chance to extend him, but I don't think they had any plans to until he pushed the issue. Then Levine got creative and they figured things out.

Of course they aren't out there polling fans on street corners, but you think they don't have a finger on the pulse of the fanbase? You don't think the Pohlads saw the number of season ticket holders dropping, and the constant complaints from the fan base about trading both Berrios and Buxton in the span of 1 season? It's pretty widely accepted the Pohlads forced the Mauer deal since they didn't think the PR hit would be worth the saved money. The voice (well pocket books really) of the fans absolutely plays a role in FO decisions. They have interns who check out message boards, twitter, etc.. Their season ticket reps email and call ticket holders all the time to see what they're feeling. They host season ticket holder Q & As with the FO so fans can give feedback. It's a business and they're not in the business of alienating their customers.

So maybe it was just that Buxton came to them, or maybe it was the fan pressure, but every report I've seen is that the Twins were entirely set on moving on from Buxton and done with the extension talks. More than possible that those reports are wrong, or I missed other reports. But I think it's more than reasonable to think they had moved on from extension talks just like they said they had at the deadline.

7 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I agreed with you entire post Doc but wanted to highlight this portion.  I don't believe for a second they changed their mind because of public pressure.  They are not out polling the public.  They understood a long time ago the fans loved Buxton and just like many of us here, Buxton was a priority for them.  However, this was a unique situation with his injury history which made it difficult to come to an agreement both sides could live with.  There was no need to rush the deal and in the end they got it done.

Count me in as well. I never agreed with comments suggesting they caved to fan pressure if they even paid attention. And good thing. This was a very difficult contract to hash out, so it took time. The number one factor in why the Twins were able to sign Buxton, and really the only reason, is that he sincerely wanted to be here so was ready to meet in the middle.

Edit: Now after reading chpettit's comment I want to clarify. I agree that the Twins pay attention to the fanbase's mood and desires. When it comes to big decisions and strategy, however, I don't see them reacting to fan pressure. To be in their position you must have a strong and well thought out plan. You can't then waver all the time. I'll bet they were surprised when Buxton revealed how important it was to stay. He didn't do that right away as a basic negotiating tactic. Then Buxton showed he was willing to accept an offer the front office could stomach. Falvey and Levine probably had a reaction of surprise and relief as did many of us.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Gleeman is pretty well connected and he's reported multiple times that the Twins were entirely set to trade Buxton to the Phillies at the deadline if the Phillies had a premium prospect they could've added. He's also reported they were entirely set on trading him during the offseason, but Buxton came to them to get the deal done. I think it's more than believable that they had no plans to extend Buxton after talks broke down at the deadline. As long as he was still on their roster they had the chance to extend him, but I don't think they had any plans to until he pushed the issue. Then Levine got creative and they figured things out.

Of course they aren't out there polling fans on street corners, but you think they don't have a finger on the pulse of the fanbase? You don't think the Pohlads saw the number of season ticket holders dropping, and the constant complaints from the fan base about trading both Berrios and Buxton in the span of 1 season? It's pretty widely accepted the Pohlads forced the Mauer deal since they didn't think the PR hit would be worth the saved money. The voice (well pocket books really) of the fans absolutely plays a role in FO decisions. They have interns who check out message boards, twitter, etc.. Their season ticket reps email and call ticket holders all the time to see what they're feeling. They host season ticket holder Q & As with the FO so fans can give feedback. It's a business and they're not in the business of alienating their customers.

So maybe it was just that Buxton came to them, or maybe it was the fan pressure, but every report I've seen is that the Twins were entirely set on moving on from Buxton and done with the extension talks. More than possible that those reports are wrong, or I missed other reports. But I think it's more than reasonable to think they had moved on from extension talks just like they said they had at the deadline.

I did corporate reorgs for 15 years.  "Reports" and what people think are rarely all that accurate.  That said, they may very well have been willing to trade him.  I just don't believe they changed their mind because of fan pressure or public opinion.  I think as time went on Buxton moved some and they moved some and they found a deal that both sides could live with.  Fans often want something that is a very bad plan.  People in that sort of leadership position don't last long bending to popular opinion.

 

Of course, there is always an element of truth in these stories.  I would hope they were talking to other clubs given they didn't know if they could get him signed.  I would hope they asked for Bryson Stott and I am sure there was a possibility they would have traded Buxton if the return made sense.  The fact that they ended up signing him does not mean they changed their mind.  They got a deal done they could live with.  That's more likely the influence as opposed to fan pressure.   

Of course the Twins pay some attention to their season ticket holders. 

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Gleeman is pretty well connected and he's reported multiple times that the Twins were entirely set to trade Buxton to the Phillies at the deadline if the Phillies had a premium prospect they could've added. He's also reported they were entirely set on trading him during the offseason, but Buxton came to them to get the deal done. I think it's more than believable that they had no plans to extend Buxton after talks broke down at the deadline. As long as he was still on their roster they had the chance to extend him, but I don't think they had any plans to until he pushed the issue. Then Levine got creative and they figured things out.

Of course they aren't out there polling fans on street corners, but you think they don't have a finger on the pulse of the fanbase? You don't think the Pohlads saw the number of season ticket holders dropping, and the constant complaints from the fan base about trading both Berrios and Buxton in the span of 1 season? It's pretty widely accepted the Pohlads forced the Mauer deal since they didn't think the PR hit would be worth the saved money. The voice (well pocket books really) of the fans absolutely plays a role in FO decisions. They have interns who check out message boards, twitter, etc.. Their season ticket reps email and call ticket holders all the time to see what they're feeling. They host season ticket holder Q & As with the FO so fans can give feedback. It's a business and they're not in the business of alienating their customers.

So maybe it was just that Buxton came to them, or maybe it was the fan pressure, but every report I've seen is that the Twins were entirely set on moving on from Buxton and done with the extension talks. More than possible that those reports are wrong, or I missed other reports. But I think it's more than reasonable to think they had moved on from extension talks just like they said they had at the deadline.

Do you have links to these specific trade scenarios for Buxton? Gleeman links?

 

Because I don't remember any specific trade reports. Generic "Twins may trade Buxton" speculation, sure. But nothing concrete. 

 

On 12/29/2021 at 12:17 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

What's truly extraordinary is how the Rays have convinced the general public they don't have a lot more money to spend.

I did the math awhile back and the Rays receive roughly their payroll in money directly from MLB (national TV rights, MLB.tv digital split, etc) BEFORE they receive any "competitive balance" money.

Guess whose local TV broadcast contract is significantly more lucrative than the Twins? I'll give you one hint: their team name rhymes with DAYS.

The Tampa Bay Rays are bad for baseball and are a scam. I began actively cheering against them once I did some basic math on their payroll expenditures versus their revenue. Fans need to realize this and stop tolerating their bull****, to be frank about it. What they do with their revolving door of laundry makes for a bad fan experience and no fanbase should tolerate it.

Yes their fans should stop tolerating their post season success...

How dare the Rays make the post season and win games. 

5 minutes ago, Hunter48 said:

Yes their fans should stop tolerating their post season success...

How dare the Rays make the post season and win games. 

Maybe they’d actually have a trophy if fans didn’t allow them to cry poor all day long and forced them to actually field a competitive payroll. 

38 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Maybe they’d actually have a trophy if fans didn’t allow them to cry poor all day long and forced them to actually field a competitive payroll. 

Just imagine what the Rays could do with even a mid-level payroll…

1 hour ago, cHawk said:

Just imagine what the Rays could do with even a mid-level payroll…

Exactly. The Brewers had a payroll $30m higher than the Rays. The Reds had a whopping $55m higher payroll.

21 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Exactly. The Brewers had a payroll $30m higher than the Rays. The Reds had a whopping $55m higher payroll.

In the last two full seasons (2018 & 2019) the Brewers had $60M and $30M more in revenue.  I would expect their payroll to be higher.  The Reds got nothing done and are dismantling now but we should hold them in higher regard because they spent more?  The Rays are one of the very lowest teams in all of baseball yet they are fielding a contender.  They have 9 ninety win seasons in the past 20 years while the Padres and Rockies who have close to average revenue have 1 each.    They have absolutely proven their practices put a superior product on the field.  Are we measuring success by payroll or wins on the field? 

45 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

In the last two full seasons (2018 & 2019) the Brewers had $60M and $30M more in revenue.  I would expect their payroll to be higher.  The Reds got nothing done and are dismantling now but we should hold them in higher regard because they spent more?  The Rays are one of the very lowest teams in all of baseball yet they are fielding a contender.  They have 9 ninety win seasons in the past 20 years while the Padres and Rockies who have close to average revenue have 1 each.    They have absolutely proven their practices put a superior product on the field.  Are we measuring success by payroll or wins on the field? 

I’m sure it’s impossible for the Rays to be even better if they spent a reasonable amount of money on players. Sure, they’d lose their prestigious annual LAOMSPW* trophy - which we all know is the thing real fans care about -  but they might actually win more games and maybe even that silly trophy full of flags if they tried it even once.

*Least Amount Of Money Spent Per Win

If Twins played in the East and had the success the Rays have had , none of us would be complaining at payroll. My experience of fandom is more impacted by enjoying a competitive team than attending to payroll differentials across MLB. While it would be interesting to know operating gains and margins for MLB franchises, but that would require the Russians to hack and dump. You'd think they have better things to than stealing nuclear secrets and harrassing coroporate America. Seeing financial reports for all MlB and NFL franchises would be a wonderful public service. Hell, I'd even send Putin a thank you card. 

12 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I’m sure it’s impossible for the Rays to be even better if they spent a reasonable amount of money on players. Sure, they’d lose their prestigious annual LAOMSPW* trophy - which we all know is the thing real fans care about -  but they might actually win more games and maybe even that silly trophy full of flags if they tried it even once.

*Least Amount Of Money Spent Per Win

It’s pretty simple math.  A team at or near the bottom in terms of revenue that produces a number of win at or near the top of the league is going to “win the Least Amount Of Money Spent Per Win”.  In order to win the most games (or close) with the least revenue (payroll) you have to produce the most wins per dollar spent. It’s an absolute requirement.   Given this obstacle, they have developed practices that have enabled to achieve great success in spite of a huge revenue disadvantage.  Criticizing them for developing these practices and getting the entire organization including the players to execute them is misguided at best.  The Ray’s are an exceptionally run organization.

The develop well and they often trade players with 1-2 years for prospects or players that have trade just broken into the league but not established themselves.  They understand asset management and that there is a market deficiency.  Teams will trade assets with more long-term value for immediate results.  Look at their playoff rosters over the years and you will see these acquisitions have played a significant role in building their rosters.  The A’s understand this as well which is why some of their short-term assets are being offered in trade.

The most core principal of success for any below average revenue team is production per dollar dollar spent.  It's really not debatable that a team with half the revenue (payroll) of another team has to produce twice as many wins per dollar spent.  That inevitable fact or lack of understanding that fact is why many fans are at odds with how front offices for below ave Revenue teams manage assets.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

It’s pretty simple math.  A team at or near the bottom in terms of revenue that produces a number of win at or near the top of the league is going to “win the Least Amount Of Money Spent Per Win”.  In order to win the most games (or close) with the least revenue (payroll) you have to produce the most wins per dollar spent. It’s an absolute requirement.   Given this obstacle, they have developed practices that have enabled to achieve great success in spite of a huge revenue disadvantage.  Criticizing them for developing these practices and getting the entire organization including the players to execute them is misguided at best.  The Ray’s are an exceptionally run organization.

The develop well and they often trade players with 1-2 years for prospects or players that have trade just broken into the league but not established themselves.  They understand asset management and that there is a market deficiency.  Teams will trade assets with more long-term value for immediate results.  Look at their playoff rosters over the years and you will see these acquisitions have played a significant role in building their rosters.  The A’s understand this as well which is why some of their short-term assets are being offered in trade.

The most core principal of success for any below average revenue team is production per dollar dollar spent.  It's really not debatable that a team with half the revenue (payroll) of another team has to produce twice as many wins per dollar spent.  That inevitable fact or lack of understanding that fact is why many fans are at odds with how front offices for below ave Revenue teams manage assets.

Thanks for using a mere 279 words to condescendingly "explain" how having more money allows one to buy more things. Not the point I've been making here but hey, you got to use a bunch of words so good for you.

32 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Thanks for using a mere 279 words to condescendingly "explain" how having more money allows one to buy more things. Not the point I've been making here but hey, you got to use a bunch of words so good for you.

You wouldn't think I would have needed to make the point at all.  However, you (and others) have openly stated on more than one occasion that you don't care about wins per dollar spent.  It's often even mocked here.  I share your surprise that anyone needs to point out the inevitable need for teams with less revenue to be more productive per dollar spent but here we are. 

I am not missing your point.  Your bias is preventing you from seeing anything but the simplistic notion they could spend more.  They are so effective they always have a better solution than spending on a free agent is the point.  To criticize them for being this effective is mind boggling.  BTW ... their practices have allowed them to sign a superstar this year to a very long-term deal in a market where retaining top players is extremely difficult.

11 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You wouldn't think I would have needed to make the point at all.  However, you (and others) have openly stated on more than one occasion that you don't care about wins per dollar spent.  It's often even mocked here.  I share your surprise that anyone needs to point out the inevitable need for teams with less revenue to be more productive per dollar spent but here we are. 

They are so effective they always have a better solution than spending on a free agent.  You are so blindly focused on spending the only thing you see is that they don't spend not that they have a better solution.  BTW ... their practices have allowed them to sign a superstar very long-term in a market where retaining top players is extremely difficult.

I care about wins per dollar the same way I care about Apple's logistics chain on the laptop I'm using and their profit margin on said device. In other words, I don't care. At all.

What's weird is that a person without a vested interest in the financials of a company does care about unless it's in a professional capacity for analysis and reproduction.

Where your stance falters is your assumption that the Rays have a better solution than free agency and spending more money -  money they have, as I pointed out earlier - instead of realizing that trades, development, and free agency are complementary tools of every MLB organization. Removing any one of those tools results in a team self-restricting their talent ceiling and the Rays are doing exactly that so their owners can profit. Why on earth would I support that as a fan of the sport?

You think you're proving us all wrong by repeating points we already know and understand without somehow realizing we're making a completely different point. Literally my first comment in this thread was

Quote

What's truly extraordinary is how the Rays have convinced the general public they don't have a lot more money to spend.

That doesn't mean they have as much money as the Yankees, it doesn't mean their development strategy isn't top-notch, it doesn't mean they don't do a lot right, and if you'd stop looking down your nose at every other poster on this forum for even a moment and address our actual statements, you'd realize that.

22 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

 

I am not missing your point.  

It appears to my Friday morning brain that you most certainly are.  The claim is that the Rays can spend significantly more money than they do now.  20, 30, 40M....whatever it might be.  That's several impact players as your DocBauer-like essay explained.  (You know...."Money can buy stuff: The War and Peace explanation)

They need not abandon everything else they do.  They can still kick ass at churning rosters and developing pitchers, but they could also add a couple pieces here and there that could help them.  Instead they cry out about a level of poverty they aren't actually in to pocket that money for their ownership.  Are they at a disadvantage relative to the Yanks and Red Sox?  Hell yeah.  Baseball needs to fix that.  Are they as impoverished as they let people believe?  Absolutely not.  That's the point.  Kudos to them for their development and trading.  Shame on them for their duplicitous "woe is us" garbage.

18 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Maybe they’d actually have a trophy if fans didn’t allow them to cry poor all day long and forced them to actually field a competitive payroll. 

It's hilarious to see a Twins fan whining about another team's success.

5 minutes ago, Hunter48 said:

It's hilarious to see a Twins fan whining about another team's success.

I’m not whining about anything. If you don’t have anything productive to contribute to the topic at hand, feel free to close the tab. 

33 minutes ago, Hunter48 said:

It's hilarious to see a Twins fan whining about another team's success.

How come?

I don't see how the Ray's are hurting baseball. Since they don't have any fans who can they hurt, lol. Brock's point that if they did spend they could do even better and maybe win it all is true. Oh well, what they do do is provide a blueprint of success for the rest of the league. 

Speaking of do do, I'm just trying to drag this thread out of it!

2 hours ago, wabene said:

I don't see how the Ray's are hurting baseball.

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.