The Twins could still spend more and fans should demand it

[USAFChief]

15 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

No, it's not unreasonable. I'm only saying that the Pohlads are middle of the pack in this regard. They spend right in line with their market size. Could they do better? Sure! Do I get upset they don't punch above their weight class? Not really.

I think it's fair to say recent Twins spending  has been better, with 2023 completely ok. While acknowledging the Twins rather long history of spending NOT being OK, and in fact a definite factor in their inability to compete at the highest levels. This is a team that ran Jason Tyner out at DH and Randy Dobnak as a starter in a postseason game.

 

I'd be fine with 2023 level relative spending...if it continues.

[dex8425]

Wait, how many world series have the Padres won again? Idk, spending just to spend money with no plan is also not something I can get behind. 

There are only two crazy spending owners imo right now- Cohen and Seidler. The Twins appear to be spending relative to their market size. I can't be upset at that. 

[weitz41]

Great article.

Of course I want to Pohlad's to spend like crazy. BUT I believe there's quit a bit more to it then just spending more.

San Diego just went deep into the playoffs. They're trying  get the last couple wins to get to the series. They've emptied their farm system to get to this point and $ in the only recourse left to get them there. They're in the prime of their win cycle. It's now or possibly never. In five years they may have a title of two. But they may have none and a roster full of Miguel Cabrera's.

The Twins are not in the middle of a win cycle. Maybe one starts this season. If it does great. Then trade for an ACE or a star player. Spend, spend, spend. IMO

 

[Craig Arko]

55 minutes ago, dex8425 said:

Wait, how many world series have the Padres won again? Idk, spending just to spend money with no plan is also not something I can get behind. 

There are only two crazy spending owners imo right now- Cohen and Seidler. The Twins appear to be spending relative to their market size. I can't be upset at that. 

Speaking of spending money with no plan; I give you the Los Angeles Angels.

[Heiny]

When I read the Headline of the article,  yeah, I did the eyeroll.  Nearly skipped the article completely because I liked what the Twins have done this offseason.  Also, I get tired of the doom and gloom pessimistic fans that seem to be very prevalent in my state of sports.  Then thought to myself how deserved this attitude is.  So I read the article and I absulutely loved your take on this.  Always believed that a lack of spending (wisely) makes it difficlult to compete but I didn't know  exactly where we stood comparatively.  I really like your statistical breakdown of where we stand (have stood).  So now my thoughts are:  The Pohlads are billionaires.  What would it do to their family wealth by spending another, oh lets say 50% on payroll?  Probably wouldn't change their lifestyle at all.  What would spending another 50% (wisely) on payroll do for the team w/l record?  Probably a great deal.   I don't pretend to think my opinion matters to anyone, especially the Pohlads, but man, going to the WS would sure be fun and exciting again.  In any case, I can't control what I can't control, so I will continue to be a homer and enjoy the games.  See you at the ballpark.

[JD-TWINS]

15 hours ago, Flyover Steve said:

I see no reason to assume that a market only about 60% the size of Minneapolis as San Diego is has figured out some way to glean TV revenue way beyond what Minnesota’s market is capable of generating. Even if those markets have figured something like that out, that’s almost my point. If a market smaller than Minneapolis can do something to generate that kind of revenue why can’t Minnesota? Why are Twins fans so accepting of this?

There are only 3-4 wreckless spenders in each sport each year. I don’t think the Padres spending could be characterized as anything else. Tatis was a potential disaster last summer after his off-field injuries.

We have just started - signed a guy to one of the Top 10 contracts in the game relative to $/yr in CC. Signed Joey Gallo as a $11 million flier! Kept Max at $9 million after repeated sub-par years. Signed multiple veterans as role players to ensure depth.

We have an opportunity to re-sign or extend members of a solid pitching staff this year based on performance. With the probable loss of one of those guy’s salaries, maybe two (Gray - Mahle - Maeda) we have the $$$ basis for extending López & whichever of those 3 guys we like. Extend Mahle - extend López, take the probable fact that Kepler - Gallo - Polanco’s salaries are removed next year gives us $25-$30 million to spend on an Ace……the disgruntled Brewer Ace maybe.

Ace - Ryan - López - Mahle - Paddack (Paddack doesn’t last - can’t sign Mahle) still have Varland - SWR - 3-4 other Farm guys. Spend $$ on Pen.

Depending upon health and guy’s performance in ‘23, we might go after a big bat for DH?

Appreciate the stats on spending & the analysis.

Don’t see the need to spend above $150 million to be very, very competitive……assuming that would rank us parallel to our market size.

 

[Cris E]

MN is building a team for baseball reasons, and not basing many decisions on cost. They went out and traded for pitching they liked that was still controllable. They picked up a couple free agents that filled their needs and fit their profile. They got some depth to put a floor under the roster to avoid ever having a 2022 season again. They signed a huge ticket free agent to go with Buxton, their other star. More importantly Joe Pohlad came out and separated himself from Jim by making longer term offers, by not flinching at the bigger salaries and by talking about raising the payroll when the time comes.

I agree with whoever it was above who said that this is a fine November piece but feels kind of tone-deaf in the current moment after adding Correa, Lopez, Gallo and not trading away the expensive vets during last year's collapse. This is a good looking club and I'm excited about the winter's work.

Regarding San Diego: They can spend like this for a number of reasons that extend beyond "crazy owner" tropes. The biggest reason is that the Padres are only pro sports team in town. They have colleges and pro volleyball, sure, but for corporate seats and stadium sponsorship they own the market. Further, the cost of living in San Diego is quite a bit higher than in the Twin Cities so people are inured to paying lots for parking, tshirts, etc.  I think I saw a Cost of Attending an MLB Game piece from a couple years ago where San Diego was down near the Twins, but there's little reason for that. Payscale.com estimates SD is 46% more expensive to live in than here.

I think there's very little difference in income for the middle third of teams and it's just owner's choice to pick a payroll size. Does St Louis really make that much more money than MIN or do they just reinvest more of it? The remarks when Jim passed the baton to Joe were telling, inasmuch as the words and deeds both indicated they can do more in this market.  I just wonder how the new broadcasting model that's starting to emerge finally turns out. That's going to be important for everyone over the next 2-20 years.

 

[specialiststeve]

23 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

I would disagree with that. The last couple years have been both disappointing and, worse, boring. This is not a fun team to watch. It has constantly been a bad product - stupid base running mistakes, defensive miscues, lots of pitching changes, etc. 

But the main point is right - spending money doesn't guarantee success but it is so obviously relevant that fans should demand more and Twins fans have been conditioned to worry about costs far more than they should. 

Guess I was thinking "bigger" picture of since the front office came we have been in the hunt for the division title and had a very good farm system. 

I COMPLETELY agree with the assessment of the play but I put that on the coaching staff and lack of detail. I think this should be a make or break year for Baldelli.. he has not coached quality baseball. 

That being said... that has little to do with the Twins being cheap. The FO has put quality players out there for the team. Not the Mets or the Dodgers spending but responsible spending and good "value" moves. My take at least. 

[JD-TWINS]

4 hours ago, Cris E said:

MN is building a team for baseball reasons, and not basing many decisions on cost. They went out and traded for pitching they liked that was still controllable. They picked up a couple free agents that filled their needs and fit their profile. They got some depth to put a floor under the roster to avoid ever having a 2022 season again. They signed a huge ticket free agent to go with Buxton, their other star. More importantly Joe Pohlad came out and separated himself from Jim by making longer term offers, by not flinching at the bigger salaries and by talking about raising the payroll when the time comes.

I agree with whoever it was above who said that this is a fine November piece but feels kind of tone-deaf in the current moment after adding Correa, Lopez, Gallo and not trading away the expensive vets during last year's collapse. This is a good looking club and I'm excited about the winter's work.

Regarding San Diego: They can spend like this for a number of reasons that extend beyond "crazy owner" tropes. The biggest reason is that the Padres are only pro sports team in town. They have colleges and pro volleyball, sure, but for corporate seats and stadium sponsorship they own the market. Further, the cost of living in San Diego is quite a bit higher than in the Twin Cities so people are inured to paying lots for parking, tshirts, etc.  I think I saw a Cost of Attending an MLB Game piece from a couple years ago where San Diego was down near the Twins, but there's little reason for that. Payscale.com estimates SD is 46% more expensive to live in than here.

I think there's very little difference in income for the middle third of teams and it's just owner's choice to pick a payroll size. Does St Louis really make that much more money than MIN or do they just reinvest more of it? The remarks when Jim passed the baton to Joe were telling, inasmuch as the words and deeds both indicated they can do more in this market.  I just wonder how the new broadcasting model that's starting to emerge finally turns out. That's going to be important for everyone over the next 2-20 years.

 

I’m guessing here a bit….my assumption is the TWINS may have an average draw of 1.5 - 1.8 million fans for live games……I worked in St. Louis between 2012-2016……it can be difficult to get a ticket for games there on a Tuesday night. They are always around 3,000,000 fans or more. $1.2 million (minimum) fans difference X $35 per patron, conservatively = $42,000,000 more revenue + an average of 3-4 home play-off games nearly every year….170,000 in attendance X $50 average per patron = $8,500,000……..so just on attendance alone, the Cardinals traditionally have $50,000,000 more revenue to spend in players. This self perpetuates as attendance goes up & stays consistent with winning - winning comes with reasonable spending!!

We have no people in the Dakota’s to draw from - most people in Iowa are Cubs Fans - to our east is Brewer Kingdom. St Louis is an old franchise with a great winning tradition & a big circle of fans surrounding the City…..Big chunk of Missouri - S. Illinois & W. Illinois even western Indiana. Arkansas as well!

It’s not all about TV $ for sure.

The Blues are there but no college football nor pro football anymore to compete with……even college sports that are active there are subdued at St. Louis University & Wash. U.

In-Bev/Busch/Budweiser still dump a bunch of $$ into dominating the ad space as a tribute to the former ownership & traditional connection. It sure appears that way at the Park & the surrounding area.

[Nine of twelve]

1 minute ago, JD-TWINS said:

St Louis is an old franchise with a great winning tradition & a big circle of fans surrounding the City…..Big chunk of Missouri - S. Illinois & W. Illinois even western Indiana. Arkansas as well!

The Cardinals were the once team of pretty much the entire deep south extending all the way into Texas, plus all of Missouri, plus a lot of the area north and west from St. Louis. I believe the radio station in Austin, MN carried Cardinal games through the 1960 season. Then the Athletics came to KC in 1955, the Colt .45's came to Houston in 1962 and the Atlanta franchise moved there in 1966. In spite of their geographic footprint being shrunk there is a baseball tradition in St. Louis and its fans that is as strong as anywhere in the country, even compared to the teams in the Bronx and New England.

[Major League Ready]

I think we all knew that the highest spending teams have higher win percentages.  Now, if you don't know that the amount of dollars taken in determines the amount of dollars that can go out, we could logically expect the twins and every other team to spend the same amount.  To make an argument about how much the twins should spend relative to other teams without including the relative level of revenue makes absolutely zero sense. Should we as individuals all spend the same amount regardless of our income?  

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Should we as individuals all spend the same amount regardless of our income?  

Mrs Ash and I can be as frugal as we please. (And we are.)  But no one is paying to watch us live our lives.  And we haven't entered into some kind of competition with other couples.  Next straw man, please.

[Major League Ready]

5 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Mrs Ash and I can be as frugal as we please. (And we are.)  But no one is paying to watch us live our lives.  And we haven't entered into some kind of competition with other couples.  Next straw man, please.

Ask any kid coming out of college with literally no experience in the real world this question ... How much should we EXPECT a MLB team to determine their payroll.  I would hope 99% of them would say the equation is as follows.

1) Expected Revenue less

2) Draft bonuses (roughly) $15M less

3) Benefits (retire / medical, etc) (roughly $15M)  less 

4) All other operating expenses - The articles I have found on this subject estimate 30-40% of revenue but I have not found an article that provided meaningful detail.

5) less profit

6) The net is what is available for payroll.

No such logic has been applied here.  As a matter of fact relative ability to spend was not even considered.  Even if you expect the owner to make absolutely nothing, the equation starts with expected revenue.  Therefore, to call the premise of revenue dictating what a team can spend a strawman is to put it very kindly a very naive position that defies the most basic principles of finance and business.  How is it a distortion of fact to say that how much a team spends should be compared to the amount it has to spend when concluding their relative willingness to spend?  

 

 

[ashbury]

52 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Ask any kid coming out of college ...

Sure, change the argument when the argument you presented was a bad one.

[cHawk]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Ask any kid coming out of college with literally no experience in the real world this question ... How much should we EXPECT a MLB team to determine their payroll.  I would hope 99% of them would say the equation is as follows.

1) Expected Revenue less

2) Draft bonuses (roughly) $15M less

3) Benefits (retire / medical, etc) (roughly $15M)  less 

4) All other operating expenses - The articles I have found on this subject estimate 30-40% of revenue but I have not found an article that provided meaningful detail.

5) less profit

6) The net is what is available for payroll.

No such logic has been applied here.  As a matter of fact relative ability to spend was not even considered.  Even if you expect the owner to make absolutely nothing, the equation starts with expected revenue.  Therefore, to call the premise of revenue dictating what a team can spend a strawman is to put it very kindly a very naive position that defies the most basic principles of finance and business.  How is it a distortion of fact to say that how much a team spends should be compared to the amount it has to spend when concluding their relative willingness to spend?  

What are you even arguing?

None of the points you are presenting refute the fact that San Diego, a statistically smaller market than Minneapolis-St. Paul, is able to maintain a Top 10 payroll. If a team with fewer dollars inputted into it than the Twins is able to maintain a Top 10 payroll, why can’t the Twins do it too?

[Major League Ready]

14 hours ago, cHawk said:

What are you even arguing?

None of the points you are presenting refute the fact that San Diego, a statistically smaller market than Minneapolis-St. Paul, is able to maintain a Top 10 payroll. If a team with fewer dollars inputted into it than the Twins is able to maintain a Top 10 payroll, why can’t the Twins do it too?

I am arguing people make arguments that do not follow the principles of finance.  Market size does not equal relative revenue.  St, Luis is a good example as is Miami on the other extreme.  San Diego is an extreme anomaly as are the Mets.  Using anomalies to make an argument is very ill-conceived.  I would LOVE for the Pohlads to care so little about money they were willing to lose $100M a year.  I just don't expect it.

[Mike Sixel]

I'd prefer the pohlads donate money to make the world better, but spending more in the team would also be nice. MLR and I have our disagreements, but he's mostly right here, though we can quibble on the margins. 

[Nine of twelve]

18 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I'd prefer the pohlads donate money to make the world better, but spending more in the team would also be nice. 

If the Pohlads donate money to the Twins payroll it would make MY world better. But I guess I really shouldn't be selfish.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I would like to hear you argue, Major League Ready, that with two blue chip shortstop prospects on the Major League doorstep, and with a dire need for pitching every year, that allocating $200 million to Carlos Correa over the next six years was a terrible mistake. There are very few of us on this board willing to take this unpopular position and we could use you here. @Major League Ready

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I would like to hear you argue, Major League Ready, that with two blue chip shortstop prospects on the Major League doorstep, and with a dire need for pitching every year, that allocating $200 million to Carlos Correa over the next six years was a terrible mistake. There are very few of us on this board willing to take this unpopular position and we could use you here. @Major League Ready

I would have argued it was a terrible mistake when the contract was to be 11-12 years / $350Mish for the reasons you stated and because it was likely to be quite detrimental for the last 4 or 5 years.  I would still be against it if the expenditure on Correa would preclude them from landing a top free agent SP.  However, I already have a projection for next year and Correa’s contract is not  problematic if one or more of Varland / SWR / Balazovic / Canterino and Festa can stick by next year.  We have roughly $50M coming off between Mahle / Gray / Maeda / Gallo / Kepler and Pagan, assuming Kepler’s option is not picked-up.  Polanco is also very likely traded by the deadline next year.  We also have Raya and Prelipp who have the potential to be ready by mid 2024.  

My first instinct was the same as your position.  Once I ran the numbers I found they can spend $30M on a free agent SP and still be $10M (estimate) under this year after arbitration increases.   So, the bigger obstacle is convincing one of the top guys to come here.  Philly has plenty of money for Nola and the Yankees can afford to keep Severino.  That rotation would be Free Agent / Lopez / Ryan / Paddack / Ober or one of the prospects I mentioned.  

Where I land on this one is a player like Correa at 6/$200M is hard to pass given two things.  One, we don’t have as much long-term risk associated with this level of free agent.  Two, we are in a rare position with this much young talent.  Correa will not negate their financial ability to add a top free agent SP.   Having said all of this in support of signing Correa, your position still has a great deal of merit because it’s quite possible we could have filled SS and 2B with top prospects and had a boat load of money to sign pitching an extend players.  Bottom line is I don’t think signing Correa to this deal was a terrible mistake but it is all together possible it would have worked out better to wait for Lewis or Lee.
 

[Major League Ready]

22 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I'd prefer the pohlads donate money to make the world better, but spending more in the team would also be nice. MLR and I have our disagreements, but he's mostly right here, though we can quibble on the margins. 

Your point is much more thought-provoking than mine.  My point was simplistic.  Ability to spend is a product of what you bring in and any discussion about spending levels is useless without a comparison to income.  Your point asks a much deeper question.  If the Pohlad's are willing to forgo a normal profit or accept losses, should we prefer they spend $10M for 1 win in free agency or would we prefer the Pohlads donate the money to a shelter for battered women or the homeless, cancer, research, etc.  That choice is real.

 

BTW ... we are in complete agreement far more than we disagree.  

[tony&rodney]

I'm a little surprised that some people are suggesting that the Twins need to spend much more money in 2023. There isn't any benefit in going back but it was in the past years when the Twins could have spent to bolster their roster and chose not to do so.

While I have not been a fan of the lack of fundamentals or station to station baseball, it seems like this offseason was positive in accumulating experienced depth. The younger players will need to force their way into the lineup, like Arraez did.

How the Pohlads spend their money is none of my business. If the Twins are hustling and playing good baseball I support them financially even in losing seasons. If the team is boring I don't spend my money on them, even if they win. However, it is a little strange to suggest that the owners should spend more than their resources support just because they can. Like anyone, it is fine with me if the Twins sign Soto and Nola in the future.

The talent across baseball is strong, but it does appear that some teams do a better job at identifying and developing that talent. This is a place where every team can make strides. Baltimore has some good players that were drafter below Twins guys who are struggling. The Dodgers seem to excel at this angle. Bobby Miller hasn't proven anything yet but he looks to be a better bet than Aaron Sabato. Corbin Carroll looks like he might be better than Keoni Cavaco. The draft is a crap shoot, for sure.

Finally, the Twins will win or lose with how some of their younger players develop and how others are used in trades. Free agency has not been an instant cure for roster success through the years, particularly pitchers. I'm excited to see how this current collection of players in the system function through a full season. I believe $150 million is a very fair roster budget, one I argued for last November. Hopefully 2,5 million people attend games at Target Field this summer.

[Brandon]

On 3/2/2023 at 5:56 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

San Diego isn't doing it with TV revenue. Their TV contract isn't very good.

They're doing it by:

• Siedler is a crazy person in a delightful way
• He bought up a ton of real estate around Petco and then developed the hell out of it

Why do you think San Diego is 60% the size of Minneapolis? The San Diego and Twin Cities markets are damned near identical in population size.

Also The spending went up when the Chargers left town.  The Padres are the only sports in town now.  so where else are you going to spend money?  with the Padres being good now that helps even more.  They are selling lots of tickets.  

Compare to Minnesota with the Wild, Vikings, Timberwolves, U of M, Lynx, and St Paul Saints.  Does Minnesota have a soccer team?  Ski?  Polo? or Cricket?

Back to the article.  I am happy with how this team is constructed.  I would prefer they spent on a reliever but the depth on this team surpasses any team I have ever watched.  

[laloesch]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:09 PM, Mike Sixel said:

I'd prefer the pohlads donate money to make the world better, but spending more in the team would also be nice. MLR and I have our disagreements, but he's mostly right here, though we can quibble on the margins. 

Donate money to what? Charities?  They certainly do a great deal of that already.  They donated 25 million to racial justice in 2022. And routinely donate almost 20 million annually to various foundations granted those are tax deductible, but still.  It's a heck of a lot more than some people who donate absolutely NOTHING but rant and rave how others don't do enough.  Just sayin not splaynin (or is it the other way around? anyhow it doesn't really matter).

[Mike Sixel]

45 minutes ago, laloesch said:

Donate money to what? Charities?  They certainly do a great deal of that already.  They donated 25 million to racial justice in 2022. And routinely donate almost 20 million annually to various foundations granted those are tax deductible, but still.  It's a heck of a lot more than some people who donate absolutely NOTHING but rant and rave how others don't do enough.  Just sayin not splaynin (or is it the other way around? anyhow it doesn't really matter).

The accusation here is pretty far off. Maybe don't attack posters you don't know anything about. This is about the pohlads, not us. 

[Unwinder]

Every time someone brings up the Twins' spending, they act like it's a dirty little secret that fans refuse to talk about because fans are in denial and blinded by loyalty to the owners. I don't talk about it much because there's just not too much to say about it. Would I like for the Pohlads to spend more? Sure. That would be great! How much? As much as possible. Make the number go up! Sure, you can put together a lengthy and detailed case for the Twins to spend more, but it's obvious and self-evident that spending more gives them more options. Sure, there are other ways to win, and spending smarter is often better than spending more, but spending more is still a great option to have. Might as well say that the Twins should score more runs, or ticket prices should be lower, or Rocco should mash the "win" button more frequently.

[Riverbrian]

On 3/4/2023 at 1:01 PM, ashbury said:

Mrs Ash and I can be as frugal as we please. (And we are.)  But no one is paying to watch us live our lives.  And we haven't entered into some kind of competition with other couples.  Next straw man, please.

Back in August when I was at the Atlantis in Reno, I met your neighbors. 

Sat next to them at a slot machine for a while... really nice people. We talked a bit but they were flying all over the casino doing a little of this and a little of that... they were in constant motion. Let me tell you, they were pulling out hundreds and feeding those slot machines like they didn't have a care in the world. 

Like I said... they were good people... The Joneses. They were certainly hard to keep up with. 

[Beast]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:46 PM, specialiststeve said:

The Twins consistently put a good product out on the field and have had a quality minor league system for a long time. That is the standard that you should be looking at not money spent. If we were on the bottom of both and not "trying" I would be yelling but throwing money at things doesn't work.. proven over and over again. 

We all want the same thing and I get frustrated as do many but realistically the team has put a good product out there.. 

“Throwing” money at things (which is how it’s always characterized by “ball guys”) works far more often than being in the bottom half of spenders.  That’s been proven over and over.  Look at the historical list of Division and World Series champions across the MLB.  Where’s this empirical data that proves it doesn’t work that ball guys always refer to?  Tampa Bay and Kansas City combining for 2 championships in the last 100 years?  Why is the repeated failure of 99.9999% of “cheap” teams disregarded as a data point?  It’s turned into this absurd fallacy that you’re actually more likely to be successful by not signing good, proven players to lucrative deals. 

Whether they’re putting out a good product is subjective.   Very subjective in this case.  If you consider not winning a playoff game in two decades, and making the divisional round of the playoffs twice in the last decade, a good product, good for you (and I don’t mean that sarcastically, glad you can enjoy than more than I can).  To me, that looks like a crap product.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Beast said:

“Throwing” money at things (which is how it’s always characterized by “ball guys”) works far more often than being in the bottom half of spenders.  That’s been proven over and over.  Look at the historical list of Division and World Series champions across the MLB.  Where’s this empirical data that proves it doesn’t work that ball guys always refer to?  Tampa Bay and Kansas City combining for 2 championships in the last 100 years?  Why is the repeated failure of 99.9999% of “cheap” teams disregarded as a data point?  It’s turned into this absurd fallacy that you’re actually more likely to be successful by not signing good, proven players to lucrative deals. 

Whether they’re putting out a good product is subjective.   Very subjective in this case.  If you consider not winning a playoff game in two decades, and making the divisional round of the playoffs twice in the last decade, a good product, good for you (and I don’t mean that sarcastically, glad you can enjoy than more than I can).  To me, that looks like a crap product.

I seriously doubt there is anyone here who does not understand that a larger payroll contributes to winning.  Most of us understand that the problem is not spending inequity.  The most basic financial / business principal in existence is that spending not exceed income.  Therefore, the problem is revenue inequity.

[Nine of twelve]

The main issue is not how much of the Twins' money is being thrown. It's deciding which players the money is thrown to and which players decide to catch it. It's certainly better to have more payroll money available than less, but it still comes down to scouting, knowing which players are likely to perform the best.