Change Starts at the Top

[Trov]

15 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

San Diego is less than two hours from LA where there are Angels, Dodgers, Kings, Ducks, Clippers, Lakers, Chargers, Rams and LAFC. In San Diego? No…. But 9 other pro sports franchises are close enough to pull San Diegan’s dollars away.

I do not buy the “only game in town” bit in the least.

Okay, you want to expand the area, from just the city that poster was showing.  MN has a total population of 5.3 million, about.  LA area alone has population of over 13 million.  Over Twice the population of the whole state of MN.  If you want to say LA is drawing from San Diego, you also have to then add in the population of LA to San Diego, which San Diego has 1.4 million.  

The post was comparing San Diego to Twin Cities because of similarities, I was pointing out the issues with that, but you change the area, but still trying to say San Diego is similar to Twin cities,  Is it true that some fans from San Diego will go to LA for football, like their team did, or basketball or hockey, sure they may, just like fans in MN will go to other non Twin Cities games. Maybe many of the LA residents will go to support Padres if they are closer to them, or other reasons.  

[Riverbrian]

18 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

San Diego is less than two hours from LA where there are Angels, Dodgers, Kings, Ducks, Clippers, Lakers, Chargers, Rams and LAFC. In San Diego? No…. But 9 other pro sports franchises are close enough to pull San Diegan’s dollars away.

I do not buy the “only game in town” bit in the least.

The only game in town will be a factor because the entertainment dollar only goes so far. Sometimes people will choose between a Wild, Timberwolves, Vikings or Twins jersey. How much does it matter? That's hard to quantify but it will be a factor. 

I spent decades in the media industry so I'm pretty confident letting everyone know that using DMA for this type of discussion is usually a mistake yet I see the rankings used for argument purposes all the time. Unless you have vast differences like New York compared to markets the size of San Diego or Minneapolis you are not moving the needle much.   

DMA stands for Designated Market Area. It is the area that is designated by Neilsen to determine where they measure. They can't place meters in Las Vegas to measure San Diego so they create arbitrary boundaries and place meters inside those boundaries. The geographical boundaries of real life is going to be larger or even smaller. The geographical boundries of sports teams is going to FAR exceed what Neilsen has defined for their operational purposes.  

Yes it is true that DMA is used as a guideline in how much you TRY to charge for media advertising and therefore revenue for the media outlet. However... it doesn't automatically mean that Minneapolis is going to be more expensive than San Diego when it comes to the advertising dollar. Even, if Minneapolis charges a higher rate than San Diego, it still doesn't mean that the media rights deal will be more... and in this comparison San Diego has a better media deal but I'd say it isn't enough make much of a payroll difference.  

I think the article that was created for this discussion has many valid points. All streams of revenue should determine how much you can sensibly spend, DMA does not define that.

We really don't know what teams are bringing in when it comes to revenue, They keep that close to the vest. I'd guess that Padres bring in more than the Twins do but I'd also guess that it's not enough to explain the payroll disparity.

Neither team should be able to spend at Yankees or Dodgers level but the Padres have chosen to.   

It just drives me crazy when people say Minneapolis is ranked #15 and San Diego is ranked #29 and then bang the gavel.   

 

 

[Blyleven2011]

2 hours ago, Original_JB said:

I remember an interview with Carl Pohlad and his sons 

how the team would one day be the sons' to own/run. The looks of disdain and disinterest on Jim and Bill's faces as he said that told me all I needed to know.  They aren't baseball fans....at all.  

 I guess what I want is an owner who WANTS to own a baseball team.

And bring a world series championship  to the state ...

In other words  , win baby win ...

[Game7-91]

13 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I think the article that was created for this discussion has many valid points. All streams of revenue should determine how much you can sensibly spend, DMA does not define that.

We really don't know what teams are bringing in when it comes to revenue, They keep that close to the vest. I'd guess that Padres bring in more than the Twins do but I'd also guess that it's not enough to explain the payroll disparity.

Neither team should be able to spend at Yankees or Dodgers level but the Padres have chosen to.   

It just drives me crazy when people say Minneapolis is ranked #15 and San Diego is ranked #29 and then bang the gavel.   

Excellent clarifications Riverbrain, your points help hone arguments more to the point. The market size issue is not dispositive as they would say in debate society, it's a guide, an imperfect one at that. My point was that it is one piece of a the puzzle, most of which we do not get to see, in trying to understand the opaqueness of MLB economics. I am pretty certain that there are other "mid-market" franchises asking the same questions being asked here. 

Revenue streams are expanding, so it will be really interesting to see what effect the new advertising policies will have, and especially the move into the sports betting markets. Will local TV deals become secondary sources to the potential revenue in these areas: as Buck is rounding the bases, we could hear: "Today's Buxton home-run trot is brought to you by Wheaties, the breakfast of people who can hit baseballs 400 feet. Touch 'em all Buck.!"...Uni's adorned with promotional decals? betting lines posted during TV broadcasts? Whatever happens, it will hit bottom lines in a positive way, but will that translate into more aggressive funding for acquisition and development of players at all levels of the org? There is no reason why it could not both expand owners margins, and improve the org's ability to develop and retain MiLB talent, and commit to high level FA talent. My fear is that the Twins will continue to settle for middling, half-way solutions.....and then blame the fans for not supporting the cause better. Surreal. Just surreal.

[Riverbrian]

20 minutes ago, Game7-91 said:

Excellent clarifications Riverbrain, your points help hone arguments more to the point. The market size issue is not dispositive as they would say in debate society, it's a guide, an imperfect one at that. My point was that it is one piece of a the puzzle, most of which we do not get to see, in trying to understand the opaqueness of MLB economics. I am pretty certain that there are other "mid-market" franchises asking the same questions being asked here. 

Revenue streams are expanding, so it will be really interesting to see what effect the new advertising policies will have, and especially the move into the sports betting markets. Will local TV deals become secondary sources to the potential revenue in these areas: as Buck is rounding the bases, we could hear: "Today's Buxton home-run trot is brought to you by Wheaties, the breakfast of people who can hit baseballs 400 feet. Touch 'em all Buck.!"...Uni's adorned with promotional decals? betting lines posted during TV broadcasts? Whatever happens, it will hit bottom lines in a positive way, but will that translate into more aggressive funding for acquisition and development of players at all levels of the org? There is no reason why it could not both expand owners margins, and improve the org's ability to develop and retain MiLB talent, and commit to high level FA talent. My fear is that the Twins will continue to settle for middling, half-way solutions.....and then blame the fans for not supporting the cause better. Surreal. Just surreal.

I never really look at more spending as the answer to competitiveness and find myself not caring that much about payroll as much as others do. I still say that development is by far the most important factor in any successful franchise.

However, there is no question that the ability to outspend your mistakes is a huge advantage that the Dodgers and Yankees hold over the rest of the middle class and where you get to in life often depends on where you start.  

Ultimately baseball needs to remove those financial advantages for the betterment of the game. I get that New York is an important market based on the size of it but if you add the markets of the have nots together, they will add up to more than the New York market so increased interest in every market across the board will produce a healthier sport. I use the phrase "Hope in Pittsburgh". Baseball needs "Hope in Pittsburgh". Pirate fans need to know they have a sustained chance, if they have hope, in theory, interest increases in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Give Cincinnati hope and in theory you will have increased interest in Southern Ohio and Kentucky and if you keep dishing out hope, baseball interest increases from sea to shining sea and you have a healthier sport. Fox may love New York and Los Angeles for obvious reasons but Fox will ultimately love more people interested in baseball across the board more. 

I can't explain why San Diego spends more but they clearly do. There is hope in San Diego and it shows.     

[Game7-91]

21 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I never really look at more spending as the answer to competitiveness and find myself not caring that much about payroll as much as others do. I still say that development is by far the most important factor in any successful franchise.

However, there is no question that the ability to outspend your mistakes is a huge advantage that the Dodgers and Yankees hold over the rest of the middle class and where you get to in life often depends on where you start.  

Ultimately baseball needs to remove those financial advantages for the betterment of the game. I get that New York is an important market based on the size of it but if you add the markets of the have nots together, they will add up to more than the New York market so increased interest in every market across the board will produce a healthier sport. I use the phrase "Hope in Pittsburgh". Baseball needs "Hope in Pittsburgh". Pirate fans need to know they have a sustained chance, if they have hope, in theory, interest increases in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Give Cincinnati hope and in theory you will have increased interest in Southern Ohio and Kentucky and if you keep dishing out hope, baseball interest increases from sea to shining sea and you have a healthier sport. Fox may love New York and Los Angeles for obvious reasons but Fox will ultimately love more people interested in baseball across the board more. 

I can't explain why San Diego spends more but they clearly do. There is hope in San Diego and it shows.     

I frame the issue from the perspective of investment, rather than spending. It may sound semantic, but for a business like MLB, it seems to me the perspective Seidler speaks from when he says cost is 10% of what he is thinking about. It's the venture capitalist vs. the banker, as Wabene's earlier post pointed out regarding Seidler's approach.

SD, designated as a "small market" for the entirety of its existence, has reformulated its entire culture because of a shift in vision. It had to come from somewhere, and Seidler seems to be the driver. I would like to see what is produced on the field by the Twins management treated similarly, investing, not expensing. That's it really.

Throwing money at the biggest names is of course not going to solve their issues. It's creating a culture that does not de facto exclude spending at high levels, but seeks to direct spending as an investing principal directed to produce a quality, competitive team, all the time....that is what I ask. Analyze, plan, budget, all of that is great, but do not allow externals to define and limit the approach to building a roster, and accept the risk that comes with making judgment calls on future performance of the players. Win some, lose some, but give it a go at least.

I think that would give people hope that something is different, and ownership/management is authentically and fully committed to producing quality. If not for the love of the game, which I think Seidler has in spades, at least out of recognition that MLB is not a business like the others in the asset portfolio.

I dont begrudge the Pohlad's their desire and need to turn a profit. I also dont think Seidler is just accepting operating losses annually in SD just for shits and giggles either. He still runs a profitable business, without a doubt. I cannot find any quotes where he plays the victim card of his market size, or looks for systematic change in MLB macro economics.  He just has a very different conception of how to define and achieve profit. Profit includes a legitimately competitive team, a forward looking organization, and a fan base that can buy into the direction and effort of the franchise. 30 years of futility, a record 0-18 run that should be the shame of all at One Twins Way and call to arms for the whole  organization, continued floundering around the margins of respectability....man, if ownership cant see the need for fundamental changes within their models, I cant find any hope in that.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

7 hours ago, Game7-91 said:

I frame the issue from the perspective of investment, rather than spending. It may sound semantic, but for a business like MLB, it seems to me the perspective Seidler speaks from when he says cost as 10% of what he is thinking about. It's the venture capitalist vs. the banker, as Wabene's earlier post pointed out regarding Seidler's approach.

SD, designated as a "small market" for the entirety of its existence, has reformulated its entire culture because of a shift in vision. It had to come from somewhere, and Seidler seems to be the driver. I would like to see what is produced on the field by the Twins management treated similarly, investing, not expensing. That's it really.

Throwing money at the biggest names is of course not going to solve their issues. It's creating a culture that does not de facto exclude spending at high levels, but seeks to direct spending as an investing principal directed to produce a quality, competitive team, all the time....that is what I ask. Analyze, plan, budget, all of that is great, but do not allow externals to define and limit the approach to building a roster, and accept the risk that comes with making judgment calls on future performance of the players. Win some, lose some, but give it a go at least.

I think that would give people hope that something is different, and ownership/management is authentically and fully committed to producing quality. If not for the love of the game, which I think Seidler has in spades, at least out of recognition that MLB is not a business like the others in the asset portfolio.

I dont begrudge the Pohlad's their desire and need to turn a profit. I also dont think Seidler is just accepting operating losses annually in SD just for shits and giggles either. He still runs a profitable business, without a doubt. I cannot find any quotes where he plays the victim card of his market size, or looks for systematic change in MLB macro economics.  He just has a very different conception of how to define and achieve profit. Profit includes a legitimately competitive team, a forward looking organization, and a fan base that can buy into the direction and effort of the franchise. 30 years of futility, a record 0-18 run that should be the shame of all at One Twins Way and call to arms for the whole  organization, continued floundering around the margins of respectability....man, if ownership cant see the need for fundamental changes within their models, I cant find any hope in that.

Their product is the players on the field, their capital expenditure is their portion of the facilities. The literal investment is in the scoreboards and renovations. their figurative investment is more along the lines of the 6 Sigma quality initiative in the auto industry 60s and 70s.

the Padres are like Toyota, churning out the 6 sigma learnings from Motorola and enhancing it, making the highest quality cars in the world on intiquated old factories compared to Chevy at the time (The Twins) who look at quality as “meh, good enough, we have a great investment in the brand and world class facilities”. Until the 90s and early aughts when their quality didn’t meet consumers’ expectations anymore and Chevy paid Toyota for consulting and still almost closed their doors in ‘08, well after they improved their quality, in part because they couldn’t shake the reputation.

Twins sign Correa, and have the highest payroll ever, and we still don’t believe the quality has improved. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. I’ll buy it, when I see it.

15 years later, I’m kinda thinking about buying a Chevy, still not sure, that ‘88 Oldsmobile lemon is still etched upon my memory. It burns….

will the Twins share the same fate?

[Ryan_K]

I agree it starts with the top, but I don't think it is payroll related. It starts with accountability. 2021 was there year of the injury, at least that was the excuse. Yes coming from 60 games to a full season is a challenge, but one that all teams faced and the twins did poorly. Now let's look at 2022, again injuries are blamed, did they get rid of their trainer, yes, but at the end of the season. The lack of urgency compared to other clubs is staggering (Jay's, Angels, Phillies) are made managerial changes in season, and many more did coaching changes. The twins did not act and only replaced the head trainer, if they deduced he was the issue why was he not replaced earlier.

 

How about Wes leaving, dude was great. seemed everyone was surprised. It doesn't matter how good the LSU opportunity was. At the leadership level, they should be proactive about their employees experience and being surprised shows clear lack of effort.

 

The post season is fun with high quality plays, the twins season even when in first place was not. Baseball is not about optimizing runs, it is an entertainment option that if you put a good team together then you get a extra month of performances. The twins don't get this, neither do a lot of teams but they are least make adjustments and have accountability. 

[Riverbrian]

11 hours ago, Game7-91 said:

I frame the issue from the perspective of investment, rather than spending. It may sound semantic, but for a business like MLB, it seems to me the perspective Seidler speaks from when he says cost is 10% of what he is thinking about. It's the venture capitalist vs. the banker, as Wabene's earlier post pointed out regarding Seidler's approach.

SD, designated as a "small market" for the entirety of its existence, has reformulated its entire culture because of a shift in vision. It had to come from somewhere, and Seidler seems to be the driver. I would like to see what is produced on the field by the Twins management treated similarly, investing, not expensing. That's it really.

Throwing money at the biggest names is of course not going to solve their issues. It's creating a culture that does not de facto exclude spending at high levels, but seeks to direct spending as an investing principal directed to produce a quality, competitive team, all the time....that is what I ask. Analyze, plan, budget, all of that is great, but do not allow externals to define and limit the approach to building a roster, and accept the risk that comes with making judgment calls on future performance of the players. Win some, lose some, but give it a go at least.

I think that would give people hope that something is different, and ownership/management is authentically and fully committed to producing quality. If not for the love of the game, which I think Seidler has in spades, at least out of recognition that MLB is not a business like the others in the asset portfolio.

I dont begrudge the Pohlad's their desire and need to turn a profit. I also dont think Seidler is just accepting operating losses annually in SD just for shits and giggles either. He still runs a profitable business, without a doubt. I cannot find any quotes where he plays the victim card of his market size, or looks for systematic change in MLB macro economics.  He just has a very different conception of how to define and achieve profit. Profit includes a legitimately competitive team, a forward looking organization, and a fan base that can buy into the direction and effort of the franchise. 30 years of futility, a record 0-18 run that should be the shame of all at One Twins Way and call to arms for the whole  organization, continued floundering around the margins of respectability....man, if ownership cant see the need for fundamental changes within their models, I cant find any hope in that.

I really appreciate what you are saying here. In my mind, this discussion is what I personally need Twinsdaily to be and I thank you for it. 

Too many viewpoints on this website are Why aren't the Twins perfect? comments that lack the needed perspective of sensible comparison against their peers or assessment of the context surrounding them. Basically... I appreciate your effort to take another organization and bring them to light to constructively criticize our efforts and that is 1,000 times better than the "Baldelli is an Idiot" comments that echo around these walls.

Discussion like this is what I am always hoping for when I check out this website. This is like that occasional 300 yard drive straight down the fairway that I used to pull off every 18 holes that kept me coming back to the golf course despite all the time I spent losing balls in the woods, raking sand traps, chipping over the green and 4 putting my way to a 98. 

With the compliments out of the way. ? Please allow me to add some wrinkles.  

1. This isn't an overnight success story. This story is 10 years in the making. It was 2012 when Seidler and Fowler purchased the Padres. With A.J. Preller as GM, this story is 8 years in the making. During that time the Padres have only had a winning record twice. In 2020 and this year in 2022. 

2. One thing that I always say about spending and I will say it again here. The one thing about money is that it gives you the opportunity to pave over your mistakes and the Padres have made quite a few mistakes over these 8 Preller years. Don't get me wrong... all teams make mistakes so I'm not attaching blame for what hasn't worked and perhaps stalled them along the way. I'm just pointing out that a big payroll gives you the chance to try again. The Hosmer signing may have energized the fans but his production was nowhere near the money spent. Hosmer was a mistake that needed to be paved over with more money spent. Myers was signed to big contract, his acquisition cost them Trae Turner and his production was nowhere near the dollars so he was a mistake that needed to be paved over with more money.  

3. In the Padres case... mistakes are certainly going to happen when you have perhaps the most aggressive GM is the history of the game. Preller is fearlessly aggressive like we have never seen before. He absolutely doesn't stand still. He was/is full steam ahead aggressive in all phases of acquisition from the International Market to Free Agency to the billions of trades he made that basically replaced everybody on the roster with someone else. I remember back in the early days that I couldn't tell if he was coming or going as he played both sides of the aisle but while he was picking up Kemp and Upton, he was also building the strongest minor league system in baseball, which he has traded off to the bone culminating with the Hader and Soto/Bell deals. 

4. The farm is now empty. This puts them at severe risk of a rebuild in the near future. Not saying they will have to rebuild but the odds have certainly increased because they have nothing coming up to fill holes and nothing of value to trade to acquire players to fill those holes, it leaves you one avenue to fill the holes and that is too spend even more money. They are clearly spending now, but will they sail past the luxury tax threshold to avoid the rebuild. I doubt it because I'm not sure the current spending is sustainable but I don't have access to the books so who knows... again I doubt it... but we will see. Regardless... there is always a bill due later. 

5. They have traded a lot of talent. It could be argued... I'm not making this argument... but it could be argued that: The Padres may have been in this same playoff position if they hung on to what they traded away. Take a look around the league at the rostered players sent packing by Preller. Trae Turner, Grandal, Fried, Mallex Smith, Jace Peterson, Ty France, Torrens, Brash, Quantrill, Naylor, Hedges, Patino, Mejia, Margot, Lauer, Urias, Renfroe, Xavier Edwards and everything they gave up to the Brewers and Nationals at the recent deadline. I'm sure I am missing a few but there is a pretty good roster of players that Preller sent away. 

Back to your point. I agree with you. I was at Petco in August for a game against the Giants... That fan base is energized so the investment comparison is apt... but in the end... our front office has reached the playoffs 3 times since 2017 compared to the Padres 2 times since 2014. It just wasn't this year. 

[terrydactyls]

The bottom line in my opinion (pun intended) is that the yearly profits and the overall value of the Twins would increase if competitive teams were put on the field.  The Twin Cities population has absolutely no obligation to support a crappy team.  Just ask Norm Green.  He belittled hockey fans in Minnesota because they refused to support the inferior product he put on the ice.  So he snuck out of town and took the team to Dallas.  Now the Wild are here and working hard to put a quality team on the ice.  Attendance doesn't appear to be a problem for them.

[RpR]

5 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

  He belittled hockey fans in Minnesota because they refused to support the inferior product he put on the ice.  So he snuck out of town and took the team to Dallas. 

Do not know what world your history is from but the North Stars were in the Stanley cup  in 1981 and 1991 and left in 1993.

[Game7-91]

10 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I really appreciate what you are saying here. In my mind, this discussion is what I personally need Twinsdaily to be and I thank you for it. 

Too many viewpoints on this website are Why aren't the Twins perfect? comments that lack the needed perspective of sensible comparison against their peers or assessment of the context surrounding them. Basically... I appreciate your effort to take another organization and bring them to light to constructively criticize our efforts and that is 1,000 times better than the "Baldelli is an Idiot" comments that echo around these walls.

Discussion like this is what I am always hoping for when I check out this website. This is like that occasional 300 yard drive straight down the fairway that I used to pull off every 18 holes that kept me coming back to the golf course despite all the time I spent losing balls in the woods, raking sand traps, chipping over the green and 4 putting my way to a 98. 

With the compliments out of the way. ? Please allow me to add some wrinkles.  

1. This isn't an overnight success story. This story is 10 years in the making. It was 2012 when Seidler and Fowler purchased the Padres. With A.J. Preller as GM, this story is 8 years in the making. During that time the Padres have only had a winning record twice. In 2020 and this year in 2022. 

2. One thing that I always say about spending and I will say it again here. The one thing about money is that it gives you the opportunity to pave over your mistakes and the Padres have made quite a few mistakes over these 8 Preller years. Don't get me wrong... all teams make mistakes so I'm not attaching blame for what hasn't worked and perhaps stalled them along the way. I'm just pointing out that a big payroll gives you the chance to try again. The Hosmer signing may have energized the fans but his production was nowhere near the money spent. Hosmer was a mistake that needed to be paved over with more money spent. Myers was signed to big contract, his acquisition cost them Trae Turner and his production was nowhere near the dollars so he was a mistake that needed to be paved over with more money.  

3. In the Padres case... mistakes are certainly going to happen when you have perhaps the most aggressive GM is the history of the game. Preller is fearlessly aggressive like we have never seen before. He absolutely doesn't stand still. He was/is full steam ahead aggressive in all phases of acquisition from the International Market to Free Agency to the billions of trades he made that basically replaced everybody on the roster with someone else. I remember back in the early days that I couldn't tell if he was coming or going as he played both sides of the aisle but while he was picking up Kemp and Upton, he was also building the strongest minor league system in baseball, which he has traded off to the bone culminating with the Hader and Soto/Bell deals. 

4. The farm is now empty. This puts them at severe risk of a rebuild in the near future. Not saying they will have to rebuild but the odds have certainly increased because they have nothing coming up to fill holes and nothing of value to trade to acquire players to fill those holes, it leaves you one avenue to fill the holes and that is too spend even more money. They are clearly spending now, but will they sail past the luxury tax threshold to avoid the rebuild. I doubt it because I'm not sure the current spending is sustainable but I don't have access to the books so who knows... again I doubt it... but we will see. Regardless... there is always a bill due later. 

5. They have traded a lot of talent. It could be argued... I'm not making this argument... but it could be argued that: The Padres may have been in this same playoff position if they hung on to what they traded away. Take a look around the league at the rostered players sent packing by Preller. Trae Turner, Grandal, Fried, Mallex Smith, Jace Peterson, Ty France, Torrens, Brash, Quantrill, Naylor, Hedges, Patino, Mejia, Margot, Lauer, Urias, Renfroe, Xavier Edwards and everything they gave up to the Brewers and Nationals at the recent deadline. I'm sure I am missing a few but there is a pretty good roster of players that Preller sent away. 

Back to your point. I agree with you. I was at Petco in August for a game against the Giants... That fan base is energized so the investment comparison is apt... but in the end... our front office has reached the playoffs 3 times since 2017 compared to the Padres 2 times since 2014. It just wasn't this year. 

Thanks. I really appreciate the back and forth, it helps me to refine arguments and reconsider my points of view, and like you, I think TD is a great place for the conversation. These guys have put together one of the best sites on the web, and its great fun to be part of it, even when I spend so much time complaining.

I know exactly what you are talking about with that one golf shot that keeps you coming back for more....the sound of that 30 footer hitting bottom for a birdie-assuring another round even though the other 17 were crooked #'s! Then there was the nice straight drive in the middle of the fairway that magically disappeared under piles of fall leaves, probably still hasnt been found to this day.......golf is a funny game. But hard to give it up, like the Twins, even though it drives me crazy most days.  So yeah, thanks for your time in working through this. 

I agree, it took SD years to get things together after the sale of the team. Admittedly, they inherited a middling team...one Jason Bartlett was still taking up roster space at that time. 2012 was the same year the Dodgers sold for 2B. They wasted little time establishing their methods. The NL West is a different beast than AL Central. The greatest difference between SD and Twins is their divisional situation. A fairer comp for Twins with NL West clubs is probably Arizona, where they are stuck in the mud, like us, and will have an even harder time digging out given the competition in their division.

Their farm system churn and long FA contracts may catch up with them eventually. But that is where MLB is at....market rate is not only dollars, but term on the contract. Its the cost to swim in those waters. I hate long term contracts. Hate them. Should be 5 years max. I dont care about capping salaries as much as capping terms, but that aint happening. I think, and I might be wrong, but I think the Twins have been gun shy ever since the Mauer contract. Whatever the reason, they wont pay market rate, so the other option is to try and thread the needle to find the sweet spot of "acceptable risk of dollars and length-as defined and limited by profit protecting budgets" , with equivalent value in the mid to lower levels of performance in the player pool. And then hoping that one of those value contracts performs exponentially above the money you just doled out. The Twins Way. Blow, It. Up.

What does work for me with SD is the vision. A commitment to producing quality, by leveraging the money....as you say, the spending paves over many mistakes. Money creates broader margin for error in building/adapting rosters, and therefore greater flexibility in problem solving particular roster issues. Or, there is the Tampa Bay way.....but no, I dont think that would be a good thing here.

I'm glad to hear you find some satisfaction in the Twins' recent years playoff appearances. Its hard for me to take much satisfaction in this though. I envy those among us who can, I would probably feel more settled about each season if I could. But Oh-and-Eighteen? Really? Statistically, this seems well nigh impossible to pull off...what are the chances? That should light a fire under the butts of every seat in ownership/management. What an embarrassment. I really want something more from them. The AL Central has not offered much excellence since KC won it in 15. Potential, always....fulfillment, pretty much never. Cleveland just went through a season where they shaved 15 percent off their budget and still won it going away, or maybe better said, happened to be the team that didnt lose the most. They werent even trying to win it when the season started, or, at the trade deadline. And still.....the AL Central is just kind of sad right now.  It is not unreasonable to think the Twins would have zero playoff appearances of late if they had lived in the NL West.

And yes, they, SD, have traded a bunch of talent. Swing big, hit some, lose some. Keeping Turner would have saved them a ton, until next year anyhow, and the others you point out are all valid. But what kind of organization develops that volume of a high end talent in that window of time. Nothing like that has happened here in the years I've followed the Twins. So they use their R and D to trade for established players, sign the FA to fortify the roster, and roll the dice in trying to keep pace with the LAD. I like the ballsiness, the vision, and the competence they have demonstrated to pull it off. They could have flopped and looked like total fools. But there is method to the madness it seems, and at least for now, its worked to their advantage.

So here's a question for the Twins brain trust, in case Jim P is following this thread. And Jim, I graciously offer this free of charge: Have you considered putting Bill P in your role? He would bring a totally different approach to things, trust me. He makes movies. He knows vision, and what it takes to bring vision to reality. He understands the calculus of risk-taking with capital. And he has a proven track record of hitting some home runs in the Big Boy world of Hollywood. The bankers have had their chance ever since Carl bought the team. Give the visionary/idealist a shot at running things. Maybe this is how you re-load at the top. You would still be heavily involved. You are not out of the loop at all. But a new set of eyeballs is needed internally folks. Give it a go fellas, what do you have to lose? Your fanbase is willing to roll with lots of mistakes, trial and error, and misfires. But one thing that quenches the passion of fans real quick is the gerbil wheel of taking timid actions every year, which only masks fear and indifference in the face of the long odds our team faces year in and year out. Be bold. Look to beat the odds, not game the system. Try something different. For once.

Thanks for listening everyone. I feel better now.............

[Riverbrian]

On 10/22/2022 at 11:33 PM, Game7-91 said:

The greatest difference between SD and Twins is their divisional situation. A fairer comp for Twins with NL West clubs is probably Arizona, where they are stuck in the mud, like us, and will have an even harder time digging out given the competition in their division.

Is this a conversation for how things stand in October 2022 that strips away all of the surrounding years. 

Right now the Padres are high and the D-Backs are getting great draft position. But, the Preller years in total, The Giants and Rockies have struggled along with the Padres and D-Backs. In fact, the D-Backs have had a better record than the Padres more often. Tomorrow. The D-Backs are setting up for coming out of a rebuild while it's questionable if the Padres can spend even more to avoid the rebuild that the D-Backs have a head start on.  

The Weak AL-Central discussion... with the .400 to .600 margins in place... I will never underestimate the Royals or over estimate the Yankees.  The margins between bad and good are thin. 

 

[rv78]

If any organization would or should know that "you get what you pay for".... it is the Twins. Pretty sure, without looking for it, the Twins drew over 3 million fans with a Kirby Puckett led team that provided a winning, enthusiatic, fun to watch product on the field every game. All St. Peter has to do is look in his rear view mirror and see what it takes to put fans in the stands. He may be disappointed that the fans didn't support this 2022 team better but the differences between the team then and the team now is night and day. I will only give you one example, who would you prefer to go see,? Kirby Puckett playing in CF or Byron Buxton sitting in the dugout recovering from an injury?

[terrydactyls]

On 10/22/2022 at 9:11 PM, RpR said:

Do not know what world your history is from but the North Stars were in the Stanley cup  in 1981 and 1991 and left in 1993.

Trying reading up on the North Stars history after their 1991  appearance before commenting.  Green guttted the team to save money and attendance plummeted.

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

One item I think always gets overlooked when looking at payroll.  The team was purchased for like 30 million and has increased in value to what, 1.5 billion?  I get that the increase in value in some part is due to inflation but that is a large increase nevertheless.  I think owners need to take this into account when they look at payroll and want to make money EVERY year.

I equate it to buying a house at say 100k, then investing 30k in improvements over many years and then selling it for 275k.

[Major League Ready]

I find it very interesting that the vast majority of people here completely accept and support players doing whatever yields them the most dollars.  The majority ask how dare a company want to make a profit.  The greatest ignorance of this whole stance is that if the Twins operated at break-even it would yield about an additional 4 wins/year.  Of course, if they operated at break-even the company would literally have no value if you understand how valuations work.

For any team outside the top 10 or 12 in revenue it's all about drafting and development and trading for prospects.  All the focus on spending in very misguided where winning is concerned.  Want to be mad about something.  Be made they drafted Cavaco instead of Corbin Carroll.  Be mad they spent a bunch of prospect capital this year when they just did not have a contending team.

The biggest fallacy of all is that we (twins fans) would be better off if all the owners spent every available dollar.  That would actually increase the spending gap given the bigger markets recognize more net profit.  Therefore, the spending be advocated here would actually exacerbate the disadvantage.

[Game7-91]

11 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Is this a conversation for how things stand in October 2022 that strips away all of the surrounding years. 

Right now the Padres are high and the D-Backs are getting great draft position. But, the Preller years in total, The Giants and Rockies have struggled along with the Padres and D-Backs. In fact, the D-Backs have had a better record than the Padres more often. Tomorrow. The D-Backs are setting up for coming out of a rebuild while it's questionable if the Padres can spend even more to avoid the rebuild that the D-Backs have a head start on.  

The Weak AL-Central discussion... with the .400 to .600 margins in place... I will never underestimate the Royals or over estimate the Yankees.  The margins between bad and good are thin. 

 

I wonder if the crux of the matter is how one defines “should”…How much should the Twins ownership spend? All I can look at is the evidence that is public. I think they can and should spend more than they do, and spend more creatively than they do. What's happened in the NL West is instructive. Until last season, the AZ and SD payrolls were pretty close. In the last 3 seasons, SD has chosen to make the qualitative leap forward. The W-L records speak loudly. Spending is a part of their solution. AZ is now in the “hope-for-the-future.” Nothing is guaranteed in either model, but I would rather bet on SD for the foreseeable future. I’m not saying the Twins should replicate SD’s model, or their spend levels. But they should take note of what is possible with a more aggressive approach.  

That’s not to say I reject the developmental way. I love the idea of developing talent in the traditional way. Love it. The problem for the Twins is that they do not do this very well. There is nothing happening right now to suggest this is going to dramatically change. And the process of drafting or gaining talent and then developing that talent into productive MLB players is an expense that doesn’t show in the payroll. What is the true cost to scout, evaluate, select, develop, and retain a player into a productive major leaguer? How much money should MLB org’s commit to sustain a developmental process that promises a 90% failure rate? How much is actually needed to build up an elite developmental system? Or for that matter just to develop prospects to the point they are tradeable?

Trading prospects is just another form of spending, along with forfeiting the assets your R and D money has developed to that point. All of which creates the need to re-stock the internal prospect pool. It’s a vicious circle for teams stuck in the middle. The Twins spent a lot of “prospect capital” this season for veteran pitching suspects that are not moving the needle much. Nick Nelson’s article today on the SP options belabors the point. All those prospects for two SP’s, and we are still talking about the need for more? It is one thing to say talent should be developed internally, and yet another to actually produce competitive rosters and tradeable prospects year in and out.

Since moving to TF the Twins have been spending in the mid to lower levels of FA markets to flesh out a “core” that never quite seems able to make the qualitative leap from mediocrity to legitimate contending. It can be argued that the Twins have been “in the playoffs” and so have been successful. To me 0-18 is not a sign of success. I think they can afford to try a more aggressive approach.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Game7-91 said:

I wonder if the crux of the matter is how one defines “should”…How much should the Twins ownership spend? All I can look at is the evidence that is public. I think they can and should spend more than they do, and spend more creatively than they do. What's happened in the NL West is instructive. Until last season, the AZ and SD payrolls were pretty close. In the last 3 seasons, SD has chosen to make the qualitative leap forward. The W-L records speak loudly. Spending is a part of their solution. AZ is now in the “hope-for-the-future.” Nothing is guaranteed in either model, but I would rather bet on SD for the foreseeable future. I’m not saying the Twins should replicate SD’s model, or their spend levels. But they should take note of what is possible with a more aggressive approach.  

That’s not to say I reject the developmental way. I love the idea of developing talent in the traditional way. Love it. The problem for the Twins is that they do not do this very well. There is nothing happening right now to suggest this is going to dramatically change. And the process of drafting or gaining talent and then developing that talent into productive MLB players is an expense that doesn’t show in the payroll. What is the true cost to scout, evaluate, select, develop, and retain a player into a productive major leaguer? How much money should MLB org’s commit to sustain a developmental process that promises a 90% failure rate? How much is actually needed to build up an elite developmental system? Or for that matter just to develop prospects to the point they are tradeable?

Trading prospects is just another form of spending, along with forfeiting the assets your R and D money has developed to that point. All of which creates the need to re-stock the internal prospect pool. It’s a vicious circle for teams stuck in the middle. The Twins spent a lot of “prospect capital” this season for veteran pitching suspects that are not moving the needle much. Nick Nelson’s article today on the SP options belabors the point. All those prospects for two SP’s, and we are still talking about the need for more? It is one thing to say talent should be developed internally, and yet another to actually produce competitive rosters and tradeable prospects year in and out.

Since moving to TF the Twins have been spending in the mid to lower levels of FA markets to flesh out a “core” that never quite seems able to make the qualitative leap from mediocrity to legitimate contending. It can be argued that the Twins have been “in the playoffs” and so have been successful. To me 0-18 is not a sign of success. I think they can afford to try a more aggressive approach.

When I look at a roster and how to improve it, I'm a little different than most folks.

I honestly don't look at the top. I look at the bottom. I don't look at Aaron Judge at the top and dream. I look at the players who are playing badly at the bottom wide awake. 

The "How much should they spend" question isn't really designed for me. The pursuit of the superstar has those limitations that are the crux of this conversation. If the Twins sign Correa to that 10 year 350 Million contract. Wow... That would awesome and very uncharacteristic but the follow up question to that Correa signing is: Now that we just dropped all that money, who CAN'T WE PAY now. Trout, Ohtani and Rendon can't bring the Angels Home... apparently teams need more than 3 players. 

What's that line from the movie "Moneyball". "If we try to play like the Yankees in here, we will lose to them out there". The Twins just can't play in that spending stratosphere. It's a different game for the Twins. The Padres can't play there either. Yes the Padres are nearby now but they can't remain there. 

0-18. It's better than 0-0. 

The streak began in 2004 and nobody on the 2004 roster was on the 2020 roster. The roster was different every single year the Twins went 0 for the playoffs and the roster of the team that took them out was different every single year. It's a small sample size followed by a small sample size followed by a small sample size. Keep getting in the door. They will win a game eventually... Maybe even two. 

The playoffs... who knows. Who had the Phillies coming out of the NL? If anybody raises their hand... just put your hand back down because nobody is going to believe you anyway. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

12 hours ago, Game7-91 said:

That’s not to say I reject the developmental way. I love the idea of developing talent in the traditional way. Love it. The problem for the Twins is that they do not do this very well. There is nothing happening right now to suggest this is going to dramatically change.

8 important players on the roster are Pre-Arb. 

[Major League Ready]

I think people are conveniently forgetting that San Diego was bad for a very long time.  They drafted well.  Some of those players make up their core and then they used an incredibly deep farm system to trade for pieces they need.   They also traded an established player for a prospect that turned out to be a superstar.   They also acquired Grisham with just 182 ml ABs and Cronenworth was still a prospect.  Profar was far from a splashy trade.  He cost them almost nothing.

Their success was far more influenced by drafting than it has been by spending.  Although, part of their success was taking on Darvish's salary which lowered the cost in prospect capital.  They managed to trade for pitching which is not easy.  Let's also keep in mind they have not had a one 90 win season since the turn of the century.  They won exactly 90 in 2010.  They were also on a 90+ win pace during the Covid year.  I think people are crafting a scenario with San Diego by only considering the elements that support their success is driven by spending. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 10/25/2022 at 8:05 AM, Major League Ready said:

I think people are conveniently forgetting that San Diego was bad for a very long time.  They drafted well.  Some of those players make up their core and then they used an incredibly deep farm system to trade for pieces they need.   They also traded an established player for a prospect that turned out to be a superstar.   They also acquired Grisham with just 182 ml ABs and Cronenworth was still a prospect.  Profar was far from a splashy trade.  He cost them almost nothing.

Their success was far more influenced by drafting than it has been by spending.  Although, part of their success was taking on Darvish's salary which lowered the cost in prospect capital.  They managed to trade for pitching which is not easy.  Let's also keep in mind they have not had a one 90 win season since the turn of the century.  They won exactly 90 in 2010.  They were also on a 90+ win pace during the Covid year.  I think people are crafting a scenario with San Diego by only considering the elements that support their success is driven by spending. 

the Twins were very bad for a long time too. Huge swaths of the last 3 decades.
 

yes free agent spending should be a supplement, unfortunately the Twins seem to live off of ramen (or maybe Chef Boyardee, they aren’t the pirates) and never take their vitamins, even when that little extra boost might be enough to win a World Series.

[Shobae]

This was a really good write up and I enjoyed reading a lot of the comments, just wanted to add my own two cents. I think most people agree that there is a positive correlation between spending and winning in MLB. But I don't really want to get into the debate. I agree the Pohlads could spend more and be more aggressive than they are now and see higher revenues most likely. I think part of this is revenue sharing, but also the fact that a lot of revenue comes from smaller and smaller pools. The TV deals now cover lots and then I imagine you have 20/80 ratio with fans spending. Around 20% of fans will spend around 80% of the money. So that leads to them trying to secure those more manageable low risk sources than trying to double their attendance. Unfortunately, that's how the MLB is these days and I think most owners will collude (explicitly or implicitly) to keep it that way.

The second part I wanted to mention that I don't think I saw mentioned here was investing in personnel. It seems like the twins don't spend when it comes to their staff either. The example (though I could be cherry picking) that comes to mind is James Rowson, who to my knowledge was rated highly by players, getting hired away by the MARLINS. That means either the twins didn't think he was any good or they didn't care and let him walk for some minor position in an organization who's spending makes the twins look like the red sox. I can think of other instances, like the catching coach for example, who got hired by the yankees which is more understandable.

I think the thing other than personnel is the organizational philosophy/shared knowledge that the Rays seem to have. No matter how many people get hired out of that franchise they never seem to lose their touch. This season their injuries were not far behind the twins, yet they made the playoffs in baseballs hardest division. That is serious organizational ability, the twins on the other hand... I really have no clue how you build up that kind of ability or how long it takes (the rays to my knowledge have been doing this since the mid 2000s) so we might just have to wait longer for the twins. But I think that their ability to either scout, develop, or rework players is absolutely key to being successful with a league average or below payroll.

Last point I would bring up is the twins could invest more in their minor leaguers. It's no secret that many non top prospects or those players who's families can't support them have sub par (to put it midly) living conditions. If you invested in housing (which I think they're doing), proper food, mental and physical health, subsidizing off season training I think you would get some serious benefits. Not only to the quality of their minor league teams, but also perhaps a guy who couldn't struggle through those conditions can become a solid major leaguer. Which is well worth the investment when you think about how much wins cost. Though given the minor leaguers have elected to form a union I'm really hopeful things will improve for them, that isn't an excuse not to try and build a top farm system that really supports it's players in ways other teams don't.