Are any AL Central fans happy with their team?

[Mike Sixel]

15 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

WS wins have been dominated by large market teams and that disparity is probably going to grow.  Small market teams are at a tremendous disadvantage.  We should be annoyed at fans but we should also recognize the inequity as the problem not an organization that has overcome the disparity.  For myself, I refuse to let my enjoyment of the game be dictated by an outcome that would happen once ever 30 years on average if conditions were equal and we got our share.  

The Cleveland fans that are not paying attention to how they have succeeded think they are trying to cut payroll.   If you look at their history, their success has been a product of getting great returns on players they can't extend.  Their team would not be a contender if not for trading Kluber / Clevinger / Carrasco, and Lindor.  Further illustrating the point, Kluber, Clevinger and Carrasco were acquired by trading established players for prospects.  

The angst those Cleveland fans are feeling is a result of not understanding how their team outperformed teams that can easily spend double their payroll budget.

Ah, gatekeeping fandom. The best. 

[chpettit19]

14 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

By stance you mean reciting the facts instead of ignoring hard data because I don't like what it indicates?  Would it be preferable to have the Royals results?  They won a WS.  They also have the worst win percentage of any team in the league since the turn of the century.  

In the 25 years preceding the Royals brief success in 2013-15, they had 2 seasons where they reached a 500 win record when they won 84 games in 1993 and 83 games in 2012.  They have not been above 500 since.  They won 90 games or more exactly once in the past, the year they won the WS.

How did they assemble that team?  All of the players with a WAR above 1.5 are listed below along with how they were acquired.  This is broke down into Drafted / Trade / Free Agent / International and acquired as prospect (AaP)

It would be accurate to say that after years of futility and high draft picks they assembled an adequate core.  That core got a huge boost when they acquired their best player (Cain) and their SS (Escobar) by trading an established player (Zack Greinke).  The total contribution of free agents was 2.7 WAR from Edinson Volquez who is far from the profile fans clamor for in a free agent.  His contract was 2ys/$17M.  They made two trades, Zobrist at the deadline.  Did he make the difference in their 4-1 series win.  The other was Wade Davis who was very impactful but let’s be honest he was a piece added in a trade for Shields who was gone when they won the WS.   

So, yes, they won the WS and were horrible for most of 3 decades.  When they did win, traded a great player for prospects was far more important than free agents.  They also had no players that they had extended in route to building that winner.  They kept Gordon on the following years and never broke 500.  

Lorenzo Cain	140	6.1	AaP
Mike Moustakas	147	3.8	Drafted
Eric Hosmer	158	3.5	Drafted
Alex Gordon	104	2.7	Drafted
Kendrys Morales	158	2.1	AaP
Alcides Escobar	148	1.5	AaP
Ben Zobrist	59	1.5	Trade
Jarrod Dyson	90	1.4	Drafted
Yordano Ventura	163.1	2.7	Intl
Edinson Volquez	200.1	2.7	FA
Wade Davis	67.1	2	Trade

I don't even know what point you're trying to prove with this Royals example. That building internally through trades of veterans, the draft, and international signing is both good and bad? They won a WS doing it, but were also terrible for decades doing it. What's your point here?

Listen, I understand that building winning teams is done around young, inexpensive players. I'm on this site all the time saying that. The Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, etc. all build their team this way. The difference between them and the Royals, Twins, and Guardians is that they actually keep their stars while continuing to promote young, inexpensive players. It's completely possible for me, and many other fans, to understand that young, cheap talent is a key for the Twins, and every team, and still be upset that these teams trade their stars and cut payroll while also not signing any big time free agents.

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't even know what point you're trying to prove with this Royals example. That building internally through trades of veterans, the draft, and international signing is both good and bad? They won a WS doing it, but were also terrible for decades doing it. What's your point here?

Listen, I understand that building winning teams is done around young, inexpensive players. I'm on this site all the time saying that. The Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, etc. all build their team this way. The difference between them and the Royals, Twins, and Guardians is that they actually keep their stars while continuing to promote young, inexpensive players. It's completely possible for me, and many other fans, to understand that young, cheap talent is a key for the Twins, and every team, and still be upset that these teams trade their stars and cut payroll while also not signing any big time free agents.

Well said! Plenty of people here understand how it works. 

[Major League Ready]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't even know what point you're trying to prove with this Royals example. That building internally through trades of veterans, the draft, and international signing is both good and bad? They won a WS doing it, but were also terrible for decades doing it. What's your point here?

Listen, I understand that building winning teams is done around young, inexpensive players. I'm on this site all the time saying that. The Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, etc. all build their team this way. The difference between them and the Royals, Twins, and Guardians is that they actually keep their stars while continuing to promote young, inexpensive players. It's completely possible for me, and many other fans, to understand that young, cheap talent is a key for the Twins, and every team, and still be upset that these teams trade their stars and cut payroll while also not signing any big time free agents.

We are in partial agreement.  One of the differences between the Dodgers / Yankees and the Royals / Guardians, and Twins is that they keep their stars.  No doubt about it that's a key difference.  The other key difference is the basis for the first difference.  The Dodgers and Yankees have literally double the revenue which enables them to keep anyone they want.  I am quite certain, the Twins / Guardians, and Royals would do the same if they had double the revenue.  I am just dumbfounded that anyone has an expectation that teams in the bottom half of revenue retain free agents getting these enormous contracts.   

There is one absolute certainty to winning for the Twins, Guardians, and Royals.   These teams have to produce twice as much per dollar spent compared to the top teams.  Spending 25% of their payroll capacity (not to be confused with actual payroll) makes it very difficult to produce the necessary WAR per dollar spent.  That's why they are willing to keeping stars when they can extend them early at lower AAV.  The Twins extended Polanco, Kepler, and Sano.  Not exactly starts but productive per dollar spent.   The Rays with Franco and Ramirez with the Guardians.  

I am a big fan of how Houston sustained success, but their success was a product of keeping a couple key players.  (Bregman / Altuve)   They were able to extend them at a substantial but reasonable cost and they did not have to give them contracts long-past the years they will likely be productive.  While they have a substantial revenue advantage over the Twins, Guardians, and Royals, the Astros can't operate like the Yankees / Dodgers either.  They let Springer, Correa, and now Verlander go.  Their continued success was a product of their ability to add inexpensive talent.  Position players Alvarez / Pena and McCormick.  Pitchers Valdez, Javier, Garcia, Neris, and Montero.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

We are in partial agreement.  One of the differences between the Dodgers / Yankees and the Royals / Guardians, and Twins is that they keep their stars.  No doubt about it that's a key difference.  The other key difference is the basis for the first difference.  The Dodgers and Yankees have literally double the revenue which enables them to keep anyone they want.  I am quite certain, the Twins / Guardians, and Royals would do the same if they had double the revenue.  I am just dumbfounded that anyone has an expectation that teams in the bottom half of revenue retain free agents getting these enormous contracts.   

There is one absolute certainty to winning for the Twins, Guardians, and Royals.   These teams have to produce twice as much per dollar spent compared to the top teams.  Spending 25% of their payroll capacity (not to be confused with actual payroll) makes it very difficult to produce the necessary WAR per dollar spent.  That's why they are willing to keeping stars when they can extend them early at lower AAV.  The Twins extended Polanco, Kepler, and Sano.  Not exactly starts but productive per dollar spent.   The Rays with Franco and Ramirez with the Guardians.  

I am a big fan of how Houston sustained success, but their success was a product of keeping a couple key players.  (Bregman / Altuve)   They were able to extend them at a substantial but reasonable cost and they did not have to give them contracts long-past the years they will likely be productive.  While they have a substantial revenue advantage over the Twins, Guardians, and Royals, the Astros can't operate like the Yankees / Dodgers either.  They let Springer, Correa, and now Verlander go.  Their continued success was a product of their ability to add inexpensive talent.  Position players Alvarez / Pena and McCormick.  Pitchers Valdez, Javier, Garcia, Neris, and Montero.

They also have the Atlanta option of locking up should be stars well before they're into arbitration even for significantly reduced costs. They could also "overspend" for a short period of time and actually get fans interested in their product so the stadium is more than 1/3 full and they can actually get a larger TV deal because there's more people watching their games. There's a lot of ways they can improve the product, and be able to spend better/more, without just throwing their hands up and saying "we can't spend like the Yankees and Dodgers so don't be mad with how we run things." 

They extended Polanco, Kepler, and Sano for a year or 2 beyond arbitration. That's not saving any sort of difference making money. Franco and Ramirez were extended for their entire useful years. So was Julio Rodriguez. So was Albies. And Acuna. And Riley. You can be as dumbfounded as you want that fans expect more out of their teams. That's completely fine with me. But there's plenty of us fans who have thought well beyond simply "they should throw hundreds of millions at payroll and ignore any revenue or profit numbers." We're not all just blindly upset they don't spend money. Many of us are plenty smart enough to see more options than simply "there's nothing we can do to keep stars because the Yankees exist."

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

They also have the Atlanta option of locking up should be stars well before they're into arbitration even for significantly reduced costs. They could also "overspend" for a short period of time and actually get fans interested in their product so the stadium is more than 1/3 full and they can actually get a larger TV deal because there's more people watching their games. There's a lot of ways they can improve the product, and be able to spend better/more, without just throwing their hands up and saying "we can't spend like the Yankees and Dodgers so don't be mad with how we run things." 

They extended Polanco, Kepler, and Sano for a year or 2 beyond arbitration. That's not saving any sort of difference making money. Franco and Ramirez were extended for their entire useful years. So was Julio Rodriguez. So was Albies. And Acuna. And Riley. You can be as dumbfounded as you want that fans expect more out of their teams. That's completely fine with me. But there's plenty of us fans who have thought well beyond simply "they should throw hundreds of millions at payroll and ignore any revenue or profit numbers." We're not all just blindly upset they don't spend money. Many of us are plenty smart enough to see more options than simply "there's nothing we can do to keep stars because the Yankees exist."

I highlighted the "Atlanta option" and pointed out that this form of locking up talent is more feasible and that it's being done and why, so we are in complete agreement on that strategy.  Who have the Twins passed on extending?  Rosario - That would have been a horrible decision.  Berrios - Too early to say but as of this moment that decision looks very good.  The chose the other option of trading for prospects.  That strategy has been incredibly important and a common theme among playoff teams constructed by below average revenue teams.  It's unpopular but undeniably effective. 

If "over spending" for a short period was and effective strategy.  In other words, a strategy that would generate interest and therefore revenue to offset that expenditure, teams would be doing it on a regular basis.  You are presuming to have discovered a strategy the front office does not understand.  I seriously doubt that's the case.  It sounds like a justification for something for which you and every other fan including me has a very biased interest.  I would love to see them overspend but at $10M a win I know the odds of that expenditure being recouped is extremely low. 

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I highlighted the "Atlanta option" and pointed out that this form of locking up talent is more feasible and that it's being done and why, so we are in complete agreement on that strategy.  Who have the Twins passed on extending?  Rosario - That would have been a horrible decision.  Berrios - Too early to say but as of this moment that decision looks very good.  The chose the other option of trading for prospects.  That strategy has been incredibly important and a common theme among playoff teams constructed by below average revenue teams.  It's unpopular but undeniably effective. 

If "over spending" for a short period was and effective strategy.  In other words, a strategy that would generate interest and therefore revenue to offset that expenditure, teams would be doing it on a regular basis.  You are presuming to have discovered a strategy the front office does not understand.  I seriously doubt that's the case.  It sounds like a justification for something for which you and every other fan including me has a very biased interest.  I would love to see them overspend but at $10M a win I know the odds of that expenditure being recouped is extremely low. 

I'm not presuming that at all. I can tell you with 100% certainty that members of baseball ops staffs on at least 3 major league teams agree with me on the plausibility of that strategy. The members of the business side won't green light it, though. So what I'm presuming is that the Pohlads, or similar owners (or maybe just the St Peters of the world who like their high paid jobs), have no reason to use that strategy because they're making money now. Why risk getting that extra spending wrong and just losing money when fans don't show up because you signed Josh Hamilton and he turned into a pumpkin immediately? It's a risk they have no incentive to take because they don't need to be successful on the field to make money. And if that's all they care about why would they take the risk when they can sit back, be mediocre to bad, and print money?

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not presuming that at all. I can tell you with 100% certainty that members of baseball ops staffs on at least 3 major league teams agree with me on the plausibility of that strategy. The members of the business side won't green light it, though. So what I'm presuming is that the Pohlads, or similar owners (or maybe just the St Peters of the world who like their high paid jobs), have no reason to use that strategy because they're making money now. Why risk getting that extra spending wrong and just losing money when fans don't show up because you signed Josh Hamilton and he turned into a pumpkin immediately? It's a risk they have no incentive to take because they don't need to be successful on the field to make money. And if that's all they care about why would they take the risk when they can sit back, be mediocre to bad, and print money?

Do you know what the average revenue per fan is for a Twins fan attending a game or do we need to use league average to do the math?

Edit: I just found the information on Statista.  The Twins rank 21st in average expenditure at $170.89 for a  family of 4.  Therefore, if the spend an extra $40M and get the typical 4 wins, they would have to draw an incremental 941,000 fans.  The odds of breaking even are exceptionally low.  

[JD-TWINS]

On 12/19/2022 at 12:17 PM, Vanimal46 said:

I would venture to guess the same conclusion can be made for fans of NL Central teams. The 12 Pirates fans hate their owner, Cincinnati Reds have a mix of overpaid veterans and prospects, Chicago Cubs have an owner that acts like they’re a mid market team, St. Louis tries at least, and the Brewers are on a typical mid market team cycle. 

Live in Cinti & fans here aren’t real happy w/ownership. Only person they pay is Votto so not dragged down by a “mix of overpaid veterans”.

St louis more than tries……they draw around 3,000,000 per year all the time!!! 3B & 1B they are paying for All-Stars and looking for more help. They develop pitching!!

Cubs owners should get them & keep them competitive!

Brewers have few resources and are in the mix quite often - we’ll run!

[August J Gloop]

Let's not forget that gate isn't only what pays player salaries. Player salaries are paid as much by merch and appearances. The Central divisions can't make as much on those either. 

Folks are acting like Steve Cohen is gonna pay all those salaries out of his couch cushions. He's mega rich, so he's not worried if the investment fails or takes a couple years to pay off. But he's already seen the projections, and they have nothing to do with winning. Winning and losing is too fungible for businesses to project. People buying hot merch and wanting to smell like Dior, that's projectable. (Now I think the Mets are wrong and if they don't win it will get really expensive around there). 

Fans take the whole moneyball thing way too literally. It only really applies at the bottom of the scale. You can't buy infinite wins. Some of the Dodgers success last year was still down to luck. (And heck they underperformed their pythag record by like 6 wins)

Most of the central division teams are stuck in a donut hole where they can't afford to buy the fancy wins, but the cheap wins are actually repellant to fans.

Gallo and Bell are great examples of that. They are both players who are definite upgrades over what was there, at "sensible" prices. But because they aren't Arson Judge or Carlos Dior, they're some how trash and the fan base rejects it as penny pinching. 

 

ETA - I don't think billionaires should exist, but it's probably a little silly to ask them to run their MLB business like a non-profit. Which of course would probably create a much different league, if MLB couldn't keep any of their profits. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by August J Gloop
Anti-billionaire comment added.

[chpettit19]

22 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Do you know what the average revenue per fan is for a Twins fan attending a game or do we need to use league average to do the math?

Edit: I just found the information on Statista.  The Twins rank 21st in average expenditure at $170.89 for a  family of 4.  Therefore, if the spend an extra $40M and get the typical 4 wins, they would have to draw an incremental 941,000 fans.  The odds of breaking even are exceptionally low.  

If the Twins can't be significantly better for an extra $40 million (not all spent for top end free agents, but, as discussed, spending in smarter ways to keep $/WIN down) they should just contract the team. Their payroll would be in the 170-180 million range at that point. If they can't compete with a $170 million payroll they should seriously contract the team. That's embarrassing.

Target Field can hold roughly 40,000 fans. Over 81 games that's a total of 3.24 million fans. The Twins drew just over 1.8 million fans last year. Adding less than 1 million more fans still wouldn't even be selling out the stadium. And if they actually make the playoffs, and, crazy to think about, win a freaking playoff game that's even more fans attending games at higher rates. And this is simply fan attendance info, which isn't where they really make money. Imagine what having a must see product would do during their negotiations for a new TV deal next year. Now they're behind the 8 ball a bit there due to lack of competition, but having more eyeballs on their games because they can actually draw casual fans to the TV, instead of just die hards hate watching, would at least increase their contract some.

So 2 years at $170 million payroll will cost the Pohlads some money for those 2 years. No doubt. That was stipulated from the beginning here. But, assuming they aren't completely incompetent, it'd give them a significantly better chance of building a sustained contender, and thus draw more fans to the stadium, and on TV. Not to mention they could then do the typical "raise the prices cuz the team is good" thing and they'd get more money per fan. 

The Cardinals have drawn 3 million fans every year going back to 2004. The Twins drew 3 million+ the first 2 years of Target Field and have since seen attendance drop by over a million a season. You said they needed 941,000 to spend an extra $40 million. Isn't 941,000 less than 1,000,000? Fans are here, and fans will attend. Give them a reason to and quit crying poor. It's not an unreasonable ask.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

If the Twins can't be significantly better for an extra $40 million (not all spent for top end free agents, but, as discussed, spending in smarter ways to keep $/WIN down) they should just contract the team. Their payroll would be in the 170-180 million range at that point. If they can't compete with a $170 million payroll they should seriously contract the team. That's embarrassing.

Target Field can hold roughly 40,000 fans. Over 81 games that's a total of 3.24 million fans. The Twins drew just over 1.8 million fans last year. Adding less than 1 million more fans still wouldn't even be selling out the stadium. And if they actually make the playoffs, and, crazy to think about, win a freaking playoff game that's even more fans attending games at higher rates. And this is simply fan attendance info, which isn't where they really make money. Imagine what having a must see product would do during their negotiations for a new TV deal next year. Now they're behind the 8 ball a bit there due to lack of competition, but having more eyeballs on their games because they can actually draw casual fans to the TV, instead of just die hards hate watching, would at least increase their contract some.

So 2 years at $170 million payroll will cost the Pohlads some money for those 2 years. No doubt. That was stipulated from the beginning here. But, assuming they aren't completely incompetent, it'd give them a significantly better chance of building a sustained contender, and thus draw more fans to the stadium, and on TV. Not to mention they could then do the typical "raise the prices cuz the team is good" thing and they'd get more money per fan. 

The Cardinals have drawn 3 million fans every year going back to 2004. The Twins drew 3 million+ the first 2 years of Target Field and have since seen attendance drop by over a million a season. You said they needed 941,000 to spend an extra $40 million. Isn't 941,000 less than 1,000,000? Fans are here, and fans will attend. Give them a reason to and quit crying poor. It's not an unreasonable ask.

The basis of most of the positions here, perhaps not from you but in general, is that the Twins must sign elite free agents.  We have mountains of data that very clearly illustrate the average production has been 8-10M per war.  That number is not going down based on recent contracts.  Therefore, getting "significantly better" would mean they would have to drastically outproduce the norm for free agents.  So, I am curious to hear why we should expect to drastically outperform the market and it would take a drastic difference in production per dollar to get "significantly better".

If they were to as you say "spend in smarter ways to keep $/WIN down", what would that entail?  The only other way to spend another $40M would be signing team friendly extensions like Ramirez or multiple Polanco type players.  I am all for it but that requires we have someone to extend.

It is possible they could recoup their investment.  The question my firm always assesses is what are the odds.  Extending any number of players would have no impact in the next couple of years.  So, what are the odds spending $40M on free agents would net a million fans and here is the real kicker, I must confess that I missed a step doing the math because the twins only get 48% of that revenue.  They could not recoup that investment if they drew a capacity crowd every game.

[chpettit19]

32 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The basis of most of the positions here, perhaps not from you but in general, is that the Twins must sign elite free agents.  We have mountains of data that very clearly illustrate the average production has been 8-10M per war.  That number is not going down based on recent contracts.  Therefore, getting "significantly better" would mean they would have to drastically outproduce the norm for free agents.  So, I am curious to hear why we should expect to drastically outperform the market and it would take a drastic difference in production per dollar to make a difference.

If they were to as you say "spend in smarter ways to keep $/WIN down", what would that entail?  The only other way to spend another $40M would be signing team friendly extensions like Ramirez or multiple Polanco type players.  I am all for it but that requires we have someone to extend.

It is possible they could recoup their investment.  The question my firm always assesses is what are the odds.  Extending any number of players would have no impact in the next couple of years.  So, what are the odds spending $40M on free agents would net a million fans and here is the real kicker, I must confess that I missed a step doing the math because the twins only get 48% of that revenue.  They could not recoup that investment if they drew a capacity crowd every game.

The comments we each made right before the discussion on "over spending" for a short period of time was that there are realistic ways many other teams are spending money to lower the cost of a win. Why are you now changing the idea to all extra money they spend going to top end free agents? And why are you assuming that "in general" fans complaining about spending are only complaining about not signing high end free agents? I think you're underselling the knowledge of the average baseball/Twins fan. It was awfully close to a 50/50 split on this site on whether or not signing Correa to a huge deal was a smart move. And plenty of the people who didn't want him signed also want the Twins to spend more. It is entirely possible for many of us fans to be ok with them not signing $35 million AAV deals, but also want them to extend their payroll.

Even an extra $20 million a year would be huge for them. A $160 million payroll is more than enough to have a mix of stars that you extend early, and young guys that are up and coming. The Cardinals can afford 2 superstars, and a HOF pitcher, for roughly $160 million payroll. The Twins have their biggest star locked up for $15 million/year. The extensions they're willing to sign guys to could be less "team friendly" if they have an extra $20 million. Was it $5 million a year more than the Twins were offering that Berrios wanted on an extension that he kept turning down? An extra $20 million could've meant you kept him. Not willing to sign expensive relievers cuz they cost $5 million more than you'd like to pay? An extra $20 million could help with that. Some people love(d) Rosario. An extra $20 million could've made that arbitration number less scary. Trevor May? CJ Cron? Schoop? Pressly? Rogers? Escobar? These are just the guys off the top of my head. They let these guys go (and for some it's turned out well) so they could bring in lesser players for a fewer million less per player. Instead of paying Shoemaker and Happ $10 million combined you could've spent $20 million on a significantly better pitcher, and still had $10 million left to waste on dumpster dives. An extra $20 million, spent well, is gigantic.

Honestly, I don't care what your firm assess. I don't mean that in a rude way, but your firm is not assessing professional sports teams. The math is different. The expectations from consumers are different. Thus the point of my original post. Fans get mad, as well they should, when you tell them that they shouldn't expect a team owner to be willing to lose some money on a given season. Unless you're going to turn around and tell the owners they shouldn't be pocketing the extra profit they make above their projections. Cuz when the Twins don't spend to their $140 million budget this season, and the Pohlads make an extra $20 million, they aren't saving that money to spend next year. They're putting it in their bank account and telling Falvey he still only has $140 million to spend next year. Maybe that doesn't upset you, but you're in the very, very, very tiny minority on that.