Sid: Pohlads Ready To Spend

[Oldgoat_MN]

Like others, I would like to see the Twins seriously pursue Tanaka. After that...

 

I think Scott Kazmir is the place to overspend.

He is only 29 years old and had 9.2 SO/9 this year.

He was on a 1 year contract with the Indians. for $1 million.

 

You would have to make a substantial, multi-year offer, but you could get him.

He would be an overpay, but that's how you get the ball rolling.

[Alex]

May's 2013 improvement was adequate. 2014 in AAA will be pretty telling. If he repeats these numbers while advancing, I can see backend upside and that is fine.

 

That's fair, but I guess I was hoping for more than a back of the rotation pitcher, which he could be with more control but time is running out for him to figure it out.

[howieramone1406390264]

Like others, I would like to see the Twins seriously pursue Tanaka. After that...

 

I think Scott Kazmir is the place to overspend.

He is only 29 years old and had 9.2 SO/9 this year.

He was on a 1 year contract with the Indians. for $1 million.

 

You would have to make a substantial, multi-year offer, but you could get him.

He would be an overpay, but that's how you get the ball rolling.

He was the one I was thinking about also. I would like to get a veteran lefty. Let Diamond and Albers fight it out in Rochester.

[drivlikejehu]

I just don't see the chances of us getting a big free agent, even by offering the money. I'm looking at this solely from the player's perspective. Suppose you're Ellsbury. You're in the playoffs right now. You just spent last year in a terrible situation. You were on good teams before that. You are going to get a huge amount of money. Would you be willing to take even more money and risk going back to Boston-under-Valentine losing situation?

 

 

We know the Twins aren't going to sign Cano or Ellsbury, and even if they legitimately planned on a decent budget that would still be true.

 

That's not really the issue at all. The Twins rarely go after second tier free agents either, and in the case of pitchers its more like never. They don't even lowball those guys- they just ignore them completely. And the third tier free agents they sign - Pelfrey types - are typically the low upside variety, rather than guys like Kazmir.

 

It's just a hopeless and indefensible strategy that we see year after year... I just don't know of an explanation that doesn't violate site rules.

[Guest USAFChief]

Like others, I would like to see the Twins seriously pursue Tanaka. After that...

 

I think Scott Kazmir is the place to overspend.

He is only 29 years old and had 9.2 SO/9 this year.

He was on a 1 year contract with the Indians. for $1 million.

 

You would have to make a substantial, multi-year offer, but you could get him.

He would be an overpay, but that's how you get the ball rolling.

I would be totally on board with Kazmir.

 

He's obviously had problems in the last few years, but he's also a guy that was good enough to debut in the big leagues at 20, and was for a couple years one of the most highly thought of youngsters in the game.

 

You might get nothing, but if a guy like that finally puts it together, you'll actually have something. To me that's a much better gamble for a team in the Twins position than signing somebody who has a higher floor, but also a much lower ceiling.

[diehardtwinsfan]

If I'm not mistaken we are down to 1 Cuban defector and of course Tanaka is a crapshoot. If we sign a Hughes type plus one, I believe we can get reasonably close to .500. Last season was open auditions, I'm hoping this season ends as a dress rehearsal. I understand I'm one of the few, but I think the rebuild has made good progress and the 2014 draft will help answer a lot of questions also. I never really appreciated the benefits of drafting high year after year, that is no longer the case.

 

You are mistaken. A pitcher defected last month. Expected to need some minor league time though.

[Spicoli]

We know the Twins aren't going to sign Cano or Ellsbury, and even if they legitimately planned on a decent budget that would still be true.

 

That's not really the issue at all. The Twins rarely go after second tier free agents either, and in the case of pitchers its more like never. They don't even lowball those guys- they just ignore them completely. And the third tier free agents they sign - Pelfrey types - are typically the low upside variety, rather than guys like Kazmir.

 

It's just a hopeless and indefensible strategy that we see year after year... I just don't know of an explanation that doesn't violate site rules.

 

 

I have been on this site for almost a year now(I had other names) and I feel like you are the only other person that truly gets what the Twins are all about. I know a lot of people on here know baseball but I feel like a bunch of them defend the Twins just because they don't know what else to do. They would rather do that than except that we are hopeless. What you just said is exactly what im thinking. And I also feel like I cant give a true explanation because of site rules. I will probably get banned for this comment. Ever since our real owner died the team has gone straight down the hole. Our payroll in 10' was over 110mil, right now its lower than 50mil lol. If we kept our players our lineup could have Cuddyer, Hunter, Hardy, Revere, Gomez and others. Our rotation could have Garza, Liriano, Santana(Who knows what would of happened if he stayed) and others. I mean we would be an annual playoff team like usual.

[Major League Ready]

We know the Twins aren't going to sign Cano or Ellsbury, and even if they legitimately planned on a decent budget that would still be true.

 

That's not really the issue at all. The Twins rarely go after second tier free agents either, and in the case of pitchers its more like never. They don't even lowball those guys- they just ignore them completely. And the third tier free agents they sign - Pelfrey types - are typically the low upside variety, rather than guys like Kazmir.

 

It's just a hopeless and indefensible strategy that we see year after year... I just don't know of an explanation that doesn't violate site rules.

 

The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins. That's about $800M in ANNUAL incremental revenue. They could be a bit more aggressive but they have to produce more per dollar spent. Top free agents simple don't follow that equation. Mid-markjet teams need to get production from risk/reward players (ie. Indians / Pirates) You would have to overlook a great many FA failures to say it is indefensible. There is a long list just from last year.

Pujlos

Hamilton

Bourne

Swisher (was not a failure but not exactly a difference maker either)

Jackson

Dempster

Several other 2^nd tier SPs

 

The failure rate among FAs is very high. You can easily afford that risk/failure when you are one of the teams where an extra $20M is 15-20% of the incremental salary budget you have relative to the Twins.

 

We should also not compare the dome years to the present and we should put the increased revenue in perspective (see above). Until 3 years ago the Twins were at the bottom of the league in revenue. It is not a surprise they did not spend back then. The first year in Target Field they spent $23M on Joe Mauer which they could have never done in the dome. This also put them in a position where they had $47M/yr invested in Mauer/Morneau. Adding a top FA the last couple years would have meant having $65M or more in three players leaving $45M for 37 other roster spots. Morneau and others are off the books now. So, let's see how wisely they can spend the available budget.

 

[drivlikejehu]

The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins. That's about $800M in ANNUAL incremental revenue. They could be a bit more aggressive but they have to produce more per dollar spent. Top free agents simple don't follow that equation. Mid-markjet teams need to get production from risk/reward players (ie. Indians / Pirates) You would have to overlook a great many FA failures to say it is indefensible. There is a long list just from last year.

Pujlos

Hamilton

Bourne

Swisher (was not a failure but not exactly a difference maker either)

Jackson

Dempster

Several other 2^nd tier SPs

Well you need not mention Pujols and Hamilton types because I've said its understandable the Twins wouldn't go after the most costly free agents.

 

What's funny about your list of "failures" is that they all would have been one of the best players on the Twins this year. Swisher & Bourn would each have been 3rd in position player WAR. Dempster would have been one of their best starters, and even Jackson would have been well above the team average in performance.

 

So thank you for making my point so nicely.

 

We should also not compare the dome years to the present and we should put the increased revenue in perspective (see above). Until 3 years ago the Twins were at the bottom of the league in revenue. It is not a surprise they did not spend back then. The first year in Target Field they spent $23M on Joe Mauer which they could have never done in the dome. This also put them in a position where they had $47M/yr invested in Mauer/Morneau. Adding a top FA the last couple years would have meant having $65M or more in three players leaving $45M for 37 other roster spots. Morneau and others are off the books now. So, let's see how wisely they can spend the available budget.

 

 

Note that even high payroll teams are 'top heavy,' in that a handful of players get a huge chunk of the payroll. For instance, the Tigers top 4 salaries constitute around half their total budget.

 

Regardless, the Twins did not spend their "budget" in 2013, nor will they in 2014, nor will they in 2015, nor will they in the forseeable future (adjusted for inflation of course). Eventually they will just say that the reduced payroll is all they can afford and the Twins will be one of the lowest payrolls in MLB on a regular basis.

 

I wonder what the excuse is going to be after several more years of cost cutting.

[Guest USAFChief]

The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins. That's about $800M in ANNUAL incremental revenue. They could be a bit more aggressive but they have to produce more per dollar spent. Top free agents simple don't follow that equation. Mid-markjet teams need to get production from risk/reward players (ie. Indians / Pirates) You would have to overlook a great many FA failures to say it is indefensible. There is a long list just from last year.

Pujlos

Hamilton

Bourne

Swisher (was not a failure but not exactly a difference maker either)

Jackson

Dempster

Several other 2^nd tier SPs

 

The failure rate among FAs is very high. You can easily afford that risk/failure when you are one of the teams where an extra $20M is 15-20% of the incremental salary budget you have relative to the Twins.

 

We should also not compare the dome years to the present and we should put the increased revenue in perspective (see above). Until 3 years ago the Twins were at the bottom of the league in revenue. It is not a surprise they did not spend back then. The first year in Target Field they spent $23M on Joe Mauer which they could have never done in the dome. This also put them in a position where they had $47M/yr invested in Mauer/Morneau. Adding a top FA the last couple years would have meant having $65M or more in three players leaving $45M for 37 other roster spots. Morneau and others are off the books now. So, let's see how wisely they can spend the available budget.

 

Can you provide a link or two showing the top 10 teams average $80m mor per year per team in annual revenue?

 

also, to pick a nit, Mauer/Morneau did not cost the Twins $47m per year. I think you meant $37m.

[nicksaviking]

Can you provide a link or two showing the top 10 teams average $80m mor per year per team in annual revenue?

 

I'm guessing even if he's right it's still misleading. The Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox surely will skew any kind of average. The 6-10 teams or 6-13 (I believe the Twins are 14) likely aren't anywhere near $80 million more than the Twins.

 

Regardless, no one is asking for the elite free agents, it would just be nice to go after 2nd tier guys once in awhile. I think Scott Kazmir was who prompted this portion of the discussion, is he even 2nd tier? Pretty borderline if he is.

[Guest USAFChief]

I'm guessing even if he's right it's still misleading. The Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox surely will skew any kind of average. The 6-10 teams or 6-13 (I believe the Twins are 14) likely aren't anywhere near $80 million more than the Twins.

 

Regardless, no one is asking for the elite free agents, it would just be nice to go after 2nd tier guys once in awhile. I think Scott Kazmir was who prompted this portion of the discussion, is he even 2nd tier? Pretty borderline if he is.

I don't think he's right, but I'm willing to look at his source(s).

 

Actually, I'm in the minority but I do think the Twins can, and sometimes should, pursue elite free agents. I thought they should have pursued Grienke last winter, for example.

[Oxtung]

When you're looking at next season revenue is irrelevant. What matters is how much they have available to spend. Sure there are teams that have more revenue but they also have large commitments already to 2014 for the most part.

 

Look at the Phillies. Their payroll this season was ~$140MM. That is certainly more than the Twins could field indicating they have significantly higher revenue. However, they also have between $130MM and $160MM committed to 2014 already.

 

On the other hand the Twins have ~$60MM committed. They could spend somewhere between $90-$110MM next season, depending on what revenue figures you want to use.

 

So, while the Phillies have a higher revenue, the Twins actually will have more money available to spend this offseason. When it's all said and done the Twins have somewhere between $50MM and $75MM to spend this offseason. How many teams could match that buying power? I don't know but I would guess it's only a handful.

[Rosterman]

54% of gross revenue. Does that mean that the Pohlads will be investing $12.5 million from the recent MLB deal into the front office etc. instead of the full amount into player salaries. Is it absed on this year's revenue or next year's prediction?

 

I still argue that when the Twins had a $125 million organization and spent $60 million on payroll. Now then have $200 million and can spend $100 million, yet what is that additional $40 million spent on that they didn't spend it on before (increased ushers, more groundscrew, more office products, minor league updates.......etc.)

 

I always cringe when I hear that percentage thrown out. That means that if the Twins make $10 million in profit, $5 million goes back into the organization for what and $5 million is available for player upgrades.

 

Someone explain, please. But not Sid!

[LaBombo]

The top 10 teams average roughly 80M more revenue than the Twins.

Other than the Yankees and Red Sox, zero teams earned $80 million more in revenue than the Twins. And only four of them out-earned the Twins by more than $25 million.

 

That means that unless they're investing in the on-field product way out of proportion to the Twins, only a handful of teams can afford to put an extra $12 million per year free agent on the field.

 

It's also worth noting that those are 2012 revenue figures. That's a year when another terrible team drove attendance down about 6,000 per game or so, while league average attendance rose by about 2,000 per game.

 

So it stands to reason that if the Twins bring fans back by putting a competitive team on the field and see an additional $20 million in revenue, they have no excuse to not spend with all but the top five or six biggest of the big boys in MLB.

[Major League Ready]

MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Forbes:

 

This link shows a delta of $682M for the top 10 teams. I had pasted the numbers from another source into a spreadsheet quite awhile ago and I can’t find that link now. That showed the difference was just shy of $800M.

 

I see some of you honed in on an irrelevant portion of the post, that being the average/team. I guess that’s my fault because the average/team really had little to do with the point. The salient point is that those 10 other teams have an aggregate $682M to spend. All teams with revenue in excess of the Twins is $725M. The aggregate difference was meant to be the point here because that’s what the Twins have to battle in free agency and perhaps more importantly they have to overcome that difference in terms of production/dollar of salary.

[Oxtung]

MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Forbes:

 

This link shows a delta of $682M for the top 10 teams. I had pasted the numbers from another source into a spreadsheet quite awhile ago and I can’t find that link now. That showed the difference was just shy of $800M.

 

I see some of you honed in on an irrelevant portion of the post, that being the average/team. I guess that’s my fault because the average/team really had little to do with the point. The salient point is that those 10 other teams have an aggregate $682M to spend. All teams with revenue in excess of the Twins is $725M. The aggregate difference was meant to be the point here because that’s what the Twins have to battle in free agency and perhaps more importantly they have to overcome that difference in terms of production/dollar of salary.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your link shows the Twins had a revenue of $214MM.

 

The Yankees and Red Sox obviously had significantly greater revenue but they also have significantly greater payroll commitments for next season as well. On top of that the Yankees are trying to get under the luxury tax.

 

After that the Phillies, Giants and Cubs had $48MM-$65MM more in revenue than the Twins. Again, both the Giants and Phillies have some significant payroll obligations in 2014. The Cubs do have significant payroll flexibility.

 

Other than those 5 teams everybody else is within a stones throw of the Twins when it comes to revenue.

 

IMO the Twins should be able to spend as much as anyone outside of 2 or 3 teams this off season. The idea that the Twins can't sign good players because we're at some serious $$$ disadvantage is unfounded.

[Major League Ready]

Now you are just purposefully ignoring the point. Does the incremental revenue of the top 10 teams add up to an additional $682M or not? Collectively, these teams have $682M more in revenue than the Twins. So, if the point is ability to afford good but not elite players (ie. E. Jackson) Some of them can afford two more players of that type and some of them can afford several. No matter how you slice it or dice it, these teams generate $682M more than the Twins. That $682M/yr is available to absorb a very limited number of good or elite FAs.

 

Put another way, however many $13M players the Twins can afford to employ, those top 10 teams can employ that many plus 52 more collectively.

[Guest USAFChief]

Now you are just purposefully ignoring the point. Does the incremental revenue of the top 10 teams add up to an additional $682M or not? Collectively, these teams have $682M more in revenue than the Twins. So, if the point is ability to afford good but not elite players (ie. E. Jackson) Some of them can afford two more players of that type and some of them can afford several. No matter how you slice it or dice it, these teams generate $682M more than the Twins. That $682M/yr is available to absorb a very limited number of good or elite FAs.

 

in post #38 you claimed the top 10 teams had $800m more in revenue annually than the Twins.

 

in post 46 you showed the Forbes estimates of team value.

 

Now you're using team values to again make claims about revenue.

 

The terms value and revenue are not interchangeable.

 

And I still don't think your claims about annual revenue deltas are correct.

[Kwak]

"Collectively these teams have...". The teams are sharing revenue--Team "A" doesn't get to use team "F" 's revenue. "Collectively"--if five teams account for $600MM (hypothetically) the other teams account for the "other $82MM"--not enough to really enough to warrant inclusion in your point. It's really the top 5 teams that make the difference. The other teams are simply a red herring.

[Oxtung]

Now you are just purposefully ignoring the point. Does the incremental revenue of the top 10 teams add up to an additional $682M or not? Collectively, these teams have $682M more in revenue than the Twins. So, if the point is ability to afford good but not elite players (ie. E. Jackson) Some of them can afford two more players of that type and some of them can afford several. No matter how you slice it or dice it, these teams generate $682M more than the Twins. That $682M/yr is available to absorb a very limited number of good or elite FAs.

 

Put another way, however many $13M players the Twins can afford to employ, those top 10 teams can employ that many plus 52 more collectively.

 

What does "incremental revenue", as you put it, have to do with anything? It isn't how much more money the top 10 teams generate above the Twins. That is ~$2.6 billion per season. It isn't how much more those teams actually spent on payroll in 2013. That would be ~$1.4 billion. It certainly doesn't represent how much more money those teams have to spend during the 2014 free agency period above and beyond the Twins. That last number seems to be what you're aiming for but missing. That number is much much smaller than what you're suggesting.

 

Take for instance the Phillies. According to Forbes they generated $279MM in revenue. That is $65MM more than the Twins did. They spent $140MM on payroll in 2013. They have $120MM in guaranteed contracts on the books for 2014 plus roughly $20MM in arbitration increases. Now some of those players might be non-tendered but that still only leaves perhaps $10MM in payroll flexibility for free agents in 2014.

 

The Twins on the other hand brought in $214MM in revenue. They claim they are willing to spend 52% of that on player salaries, or ~$111MM. Their guaranteed commitments for 2014 amount to $46MM with another $8MM tied into arbitration increases. That means the Twins have $57MM to spend on free agents for 2014.

 

So, while the Phillies looked like they could spend $65MM more than the Twins, in reality they Twins can spend ~$47MM more than the Phillies this offseason on free agents (barring trades of course).

 

Many teams have these large payroll commitments that limit their FA spending. When it is all said and done the Twins should have more to spend on FA's than probably 2 or 3 teams. Now, I doubt they will, but they could.

[The Wise One]

Can you provide a link or two showing the top 10 teams average $80m mor per year per team in annual revenue?

 

.

 

A site IIRC you have quoted from

MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Full List - Forbes

 

If using fingers, thumbs and toes were correct, it comes out to about 65 million per team. Not 80/yr, but still a significant number when posted as $65000000. That is still half of what the Twins payroll could be in difference. That is Greinke, Lee, and Sabathia's contract. The average difference for 5-10 comes closer to 25 million by eyeball. That is just a Greinke contract difference.

[howieramone1406390264]

What does "incremental revenue", as you put it, have to do with anything? It isn't how much more money the top 10 teams generate above the Twins. That is ~$2.6 billion per season. It isn't how much more those teams actually spent on payroll in 2013. That would be ~$1.4 billion. It certainly doesn't represent how much more money those teams have to spend during the 2014 free agency period above and beyond the Twins. That last number seems to be what you're aiming for but missing. That number is much much smaller than what you're suggesting.

 

Take for instance the Phillies. According to Forbes they generated $279MM in revenue. That is $65MM more than the Twins did. They spent $140MM on payroll in 2013. They have $120MM in guaranteed contracts on the books for 2014 plus roughly $20MM in arbitration increases. Now some of those players might be non-tendered but that still only leaves perhaps $10MM in payroll flexibility for free agents in 2014.

 

The Twins on the other hand brought in $214MM in revenue. They claim they are willing to spend 52% of that on player salaries, or ~$111MM. Their guaranteed commitments for 2014 amount to $46MM with another $8MM tied into arbitration increases. That means the Twins have $57MM to spend on free agents for 2014.

 

So, while the Phillies looked like they could spend $65MM more than the Twins, in reality they Twins can spend ~$47MM more than the Phillies this offseason on free agents (barring trades of course).

 

Many teams have these large payroll commitments that limit their FA spending. When it is all said and done the Twins should have more to spend on FA's than probably 2 or 3 teams. Now, I doubt they will, but they could.

Can you confirm your theory that the Twins have the 3rd or 4th most money to spend in Free Agency in all of baseball?

[Mr. Brooks]

54% of gross revenue. Does that mean that the Pohlads will be investing $12.5 million from the recent MLB deal into the front office etc. instead of the full amount into player salaries. Is it absed on this year's revenue or next year's prediction?

 

I still argue that when the Twins had a $125 million organization and spent $60 million on payroll. Now then have $200 million and can spend $100 million, yet what is that additional $40 million spent on that they didn't spend it on before (increased ushers, more groundscrew, more office products, minor league updates.......etc.)

 

I always cringe when I hear that percentage thrown out. That means that if the Twins make $10 million in profit, $5 million goes back into the organization for what and $5 million is available for player upgrades.

 

Someone explain, please. But not Sid!

 

Umm, it's a business. The goal is to make a profit. It's not a non profit organization. That is where the rest of the money goes, and rightly so.

[Major League Ready]

in post #38 you claimed the top 10 teams had $800m more in revenue annually than the Twins.

 

in post 46 you showed the Forbes estimates of team value.

 

Now you're using team values to again make claims about revenue.

 

The terms value and revenue are not interchangeable.

 

And I still don't think your claims about annual revenue deltas are correct.

 

With all due respect, I think some of you are simply not willing to consider anything that challenges your assumption that the solution is spending more. You did not even look. The revenue is clearly listed but you were not looking for a comeback to support your position without actually considering the information.

 

I put the numbers in a spreadsheet and pasted below.

 

 

• The aggregate incremental revenue of the teams above the Twins in revenue is $822M.
  
• The aggregate incremental revenue of the top 10 teams is $718M.
  
• If the 5 teams at the bottom of the list don’t convince you that spending is not the key to success, I don’t know what will. There is only a handful of medium size FA contacts among them. And, those contracts were put in place when they were ready to contend.
  
• The Twins spending before they started rebuilding is consistent with the teams nearest them in revenue.
  

 

TEAM ------- Rev --- Pay --- Diff --- TOT

Yankees ---- 471 --- 230 --- 257

Dodgers ---- 336 --- 217 --- 122 --- 379

Phillies------- 279 --- 165 --- 714 --- 444

Red Sox----- 274 --- 150 --- 60 --- 504

Cubs--------- 274 --- 104 --- 60 --- 564

Tigers-------- 262 --- 148 --- 48 --- 612

Giants------- 245 --- 140 --- 31 --- 643

Angels ------ 239 --- 128 --- 25 --- 668

CWS -------- 239 --- 119 --- 25 --- 693

Blue Jays---- 239 --- 117 --- 25 --- 718

Cardinals---- 239 --- 115 --- 25 ---743

Rangers----- 239 --- 114 --- 25 ---768

Nationals---- 238 --- 116 --- 24 ---792

Mets--------- 232 ----- 73 --- 18 ---810

Braves------- 225 ----- 89 --- 11 ---821

Mariners----- 215 ----- 72 --- 1 ---822

Twins-------- 214 ----- 75 --- 0

Orioles------- 206 ----- 90

Reds--------- 202 ----- 107

Brewers----- 201 ----- 83

Rockies ----- 199 ----- 72

Astros ------ 196 ----- 22

Arizona------ 195 ------ 89

Marlins------- 195 ------ 36

Padres------- 189 ------ 67

Indians----- 186 ------ 77

Pirates ----- 178 ----- 79

Athletics---- 173 ----- 60

Royals ------ 169 ----- 81

Rays -------- 167 ----- 58

 

[Guest USAFChief]

A site IIRC you have quoted from

MLB Team Values: The Business Of Baseball - Full List - Forbes

 

If using fingers, thumbs and toes were correct, it comes out to about 65 million per team. Not 80/yr, but still a significant number when posted as $65000000. That is still half of what the Twins payroll could be in difference. That is Greinke, Lee, and Sabathia's contract. The average difference for 5-10 comes closer to 25 million by eyeball. That is just a Greinke contract difference.

 

Do these teams spend 100 percent of their revenue on player payroll, or "52 percent" like the Twins? Or some other percentage? Unless its 100 percent, the figures above don't represent reality, right?

 

Not to mention, as Oxtung has pointed out, the Twins aren't using anywhere near their self imposed revenue-salary "cap."

[cmathewson]

"[spending] is going to be up to Terry”

 

That is all I needed to read. On a scale of 1 to 100, my confidence in Ryan spending for other than his typical blue light specials this offseason is about 2. It could happen. But I would be shocked. He just hates getting into bidding wars for guys. He hates spending more than he thinks they're worth right now. In other words, he hates doing his job. Unless and until he starts doing his job, he will end his career a failure.

 

The game has changed. You just can't win consistently if you refuse to use one of the primary talent acquisition methods. But Ryan can't or won't adapt to the evolving game. He'll sign Pelfrey. He'll get another bargain. But if he upgrades the front of the rotation, I would be shocked and elated. Without upgrading the front of the rotation, we are in for another 90-loss season.

[cmathewson]

"[spending] is going to be up to Terry”

 

That is all I needed to read. On a scale of 1 to 100, my confidence in Ryan spending for other than his typical blue light specials this offseason is about 2. It could happen. But I would be shocked. He just hates getting into bidding wars for guys. He hates spending more than he thinks they're worth right now. In other words, he hates doing his job. Unless and until he starts doing his job, he will end his career a failure.

 

The game has changed. You just can't win consistently if you refuse to use one of the primary talent acquisition methods. But Ryan can't or won't adapt to the evolving game. He'll sign Pelfrey. He'll get another bargain. But if he upgrades the front of the rotation, I would be shocked and elated. Without upgrading the front of the rotation, we are in for another 90-loss season.

[Willihammer]

"The game has changed since I've entered," Ryan said. "It's for bright, energetic negotiators, moreso than anything I possess."

 

-Terry Ryan, Sept 2007

[Major League Ready]

What does "incremental revenue", as you put it, have to do with anything? It isn't how much more money the top 10 teams generate above the Twins. That is ~$2.6 billion per season. It isn't how much more those teams actually spent on payroll in 2013. That would be ~$1.4 billion. It certainly doesn't represent how much more money those teams have to spend during the 2014 free agency period above and beyond the Twins. That last number seems to be what you're aiming for but missing. That number is much much smaller than what you're suggesting.

 

Take for instance the Phillies. According to Forbes they generated $279MM in revenue. That is $65MM more than the Twins did. They spent $140MM on payroll in 2013. They have $120MM in guaranteed contracts on the books for 2014 plus roughly $20MM in arbitration increases. Now some of those players might be non-tendered but that still only leaves perhaps $10MM in payroll flexibility for free agents in 2014.

 

The Twins on the other hand brought in $214MM in revenue. They claim they are willing to spend 52% of that on player salaries, or ~$111MM. Their guaranteed commitments for 2014 amount to $46MM with another $8MM tied into arbitration increases. That means the Twins have $57MM to spend on free agents for 2014.

 

So, while the Phillies looked like they could spend $65MM more than the Twins, in reality they Twins can spend ~$47MM more than the Phillies this offseason on free agents (barring trades of course).

 

Many teams have these large payroll commitments that limit their FA spending. When it is all said and done the Twins should have more to spend on FA's than probably 2 or 3 teams. Now, I doubt they will, but they could.

 

The incremental revenue has Everything to do with. I am making a point of market economics. You are calculating how much payroll room a specific team has at a specific point in time which has very little to do with how the total available dollars impact market economics .

 

The point here is relative ability to spend on payroll and/or free agents. Total revenue is not germane to that discussion. The relative ability to spend is determined by the incremental revenue. If Team A has $50M more in revenue than Team B, they can spend and additional $2M per player on their 25 man roster. If two teams each generate $50M more than the Twins, collectively they have $100M in revenue more than the Twins to spend on their payroll.

 

More importantly, when competing in the FA market those aggregate dollars represent the collective advantage of those teams in payroll/free agent spending. That’s the macro view.

 

If you prefer a micro view … The cardinals have roughly an incremental $50M, they can retain or sign in free agency four players at $12M/yr where the Twins roster will have to be filled by a league minimum player.

 

On a side note, the reported net incomes make no sense to me but without the detail that’s no surprise. I would not expect operating costs to vary dramatically but the reported NOIs suggest a substantial difference. Should the FO, scouts, travel, etc be substantially different from the Cardinals to the Twins? What is the variable expense? Yet, if you look at the revenue and salary information I posted earlier, this roughly 50% theme seems to hold true. Given it appears to exists in several teams, I am inclined to believe there is a reason