Article: On Terry Ryan, Truth And Gravity

[Guest USAFChief]

DHTF,

 

I think there are a couple things that create the discontent with the front office. However, the two most prevalent are failure to recognize the competitive Landscape for FAs and the concept of rebuilding and how long-term contracts put that process at risk.

 

Let’s go back to last year. People were mad that we did not get one of the top three. (Grienke, Sanchez, or Jackson). Every team wanted Grienke and Sanchez. The situation with Sanchez was very simple. He wanted to stay where he was and his team offered market rate. It’s kind of like Mauer who every team would have loved to have. What kind of response would a fan from another team have gotten if they suggested their team should have ended up with Mauer. To complain about not getting Sanchez requires that we ignore the surrounding circumstances.

 

Complaining about not getting Grienke requires that one buries their head very deeply in the sand called economics. The Dodgers had just signed a TV deal that would net them $6B after revenue sharing or somewhere north of $250M/yr. The Twins new contract provides $29M/yr. In more general terms, the top 6-8 teams have landed the top FAs. People hoping or expecting something different is simply a product of love for their team. We better come to accept it because the landscape is changing in a way that will widen the gap. Of course, LAA signed a $150M/yr deal 2 years ago which matches the Rangers deal and Seattle just inked a deal that provides somewhere around $115M/yr. The Phillies are next in line for a huge TV contract. Of course, The Yankees are the Dodgers equals in terms of revenue and Boston is not far behind.

 

The second theory has been covered several times. It would not matter what any of us write on this topic. Those who cling to this premise are not going to change their position. The use of Boston as anecdotal evidence is a good example of how far knowledgeable baseball fans will bend their supporting logic. Those who argued the timing premise know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Red Sox and Twins of 2012 were not even remotely parallel situations but they supported trade scenarios and FA signings citing this example.

Comparing Mauer to Sanchez requires that one ignore some things as well...the most obvious of which is that one was a free agent, one wasn't. It also requires one to ignore that Mauer grew up in Minnesota and had been with the organization for a decade, while Santana "wanted to stay" with an organization he had been with for 3 months.

 

As to Grienke, it seems to me one has to bury their head in the sand called "woe is us" to think the Twins didnt have the financial resources to sign him. They did. Whether or not the Dodgers have higher revenue streams isn't the important factor. By their own statements of what they can support for payroll, we know with virtual certainty the Twins could have signed him. There are good arguments to be made about whether the Twins should have signed him. There is no economic argument to be made they couldn't have signed him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Comparing Mauer to Sanchez requires that one ignore some things as well...the most obvious of which is that one was a free agent, one wasn't. It also requires one to ignore that Mauer grew up in Minnesota and had been with the organization for a decade, while Santana "wanted to stay" with an organization he had been with for 3 months.

 

Very true but didn't Sanchez go back to Detroit and give them one more chance to sign him after getting contract offers from other teams? From what I remember, he was quite happy in Detroit and gave them every chance to meet or beat any competing offers.

 

Not the same situation as Mauer but it makes signing a guy like that an uphill battle.

 

Also, Sanchez was a pretty good pitcher early in his career but there were few indications that he'd pitch out of his damned mind in 2013 and post his best season ever after moving to the AL and out of a pitcher-friendly NL ballpark. It's great for Detroit that they signed him and he pitched so well in 2013 but without hindsight to guide us, that contract looked questionable 12 months ago.

 

Just as the Jackson deal probably won't end up as disastrous for the Cubs as it looked last season, the Sanchez deal probably won't look as rosy in three years as it does today. One great season is nice, particularly when you're a playoff team... But it's one season out of five. Still a lot of baseball to play before deciding the quality of that contract.

[goulik]

Fairness in conversation has to recognise that in order to sign a Greinke, you usually (though not always) have to have a team that hopes to contend. TR has acknowledged that some players took lesser deals to sign elsewhere over us last year. There are players that take the best deal and there are others that also want to win. I personally prefer the latter type of player though it currently is making things harder for the Twins.

[Major League Ready]

Comparing Mauer to Sanchez requires that one ignore some things as well...the most obvious of which is that one was a free agent, one wasn't. It also requires one to ignore that Mauer grew up in Minnesota and had been with the organization for a decade, while Santana "wanted to stay" with an organization he had been with for 3 months.

 

As to Grienke, it seems to me one has to bury their head in the sand called "woe is us" to think the Twins didnt have the financial resources to sign him. They did. Whether or not the Dodgers have higher revenue streams isn't the important factor. By their own statements of what they can support for payroll, we know with virtual certainty the Twins could have signed him. There are good arguments to be made about whether the Twins should have signed him. There is no economic argument to be made they couldn't have signed him.

 

Mauer is not an exact parallel but this does not diminish the point that he was resigning with his existing team. This is the same misdirection that is common here. Is the point valid or not regardless of the Mauer reference?

 

Viewing this from a payroll space perspective is a very parochial point of view. The capacity to purchase and the wisdom of said investment are two quite different things. There is not a GM in baseball that would have give 60 seconds of consideration to Grienke if they were given a combination of the Twins revenue and a rebuilding state. We should not be disappointed that fans are disappointed as a result of a fanatical perspective.

 

So, for once, someone give just one example of any team in the last 15 years that has signed the elite FA starting pitcher on the market to a 5+ year contract during a rebuild phase. Heck, give me an example of one for a contending team with equivalent revenues to the Twins. Let's qualify equivalent as 10% more than the Twins and to include anything below that revenue threshold. There should be a few examples if it is an even semi-reasonable expectation.

[diehardtwinsfan]

DHTF,

 

I think there are a couple things that create the discontent with the front office. However, the two most prevalent are failure to recognize the competitive Landscape for FAs and the concept of rebuilding and how long-term contracts put that process at risk.

 

Let’s go back to last year. People were mad that we did not get one of the top three. (Grienke, Sanchez, or Jackson). Every team wanted Grienke and Sanchez. The situation with Sanchez was very simple. He wanted to stay where he was and his team offered market rate. It’s kind of like Mauer who every team would have loved to have. What kind of response would a fan from another team have gotten if they suggested their team should have ended up with Mauer. To complain about not getting Sanchez requires that we ignore the surrounding circumstances.

 

Complaining about not getting Grienke requires that one buries their head very deeply in the sand called economics. The Dodgers had just signed a TV deal that would net them $6B after revenue sharing or somewhere north of $250M/yr. The Twins new contract provides $29M/yr. In more general terms, the top 6-8 teams have landed the top FAs. People hoping or expecting something different is simply a product of love for their team. We better come to accept it because the landscape is changing in a way that will widen the gap. Of course, LAA signed a $150M/yr deal 2 years ago which matches the Rangers deal and Seattle just inked a deal that provides somewhere around $115M/yr. The Phillies are next in line for a huge TV contract. Of course, The Yankees are the Dodgers equals in terms of revenue and Boston is not far behind.

 

The second theory has been covered several times. It would not matter what any of us write on this topic. Those who cling to this premise are not going to change their position. The use of Boston as anecdotal evidence is a good example of how far knowledgeable baseball fans will bend their supporting logic. Those who argued the timing premise know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Red Sox and Twins of 2012 were not even remotely parallel situations but they supported trade scenarios and FA signings citing this example.

 

In regards to your first point regarding the FO not being ready for FA last year, I can give you that. I think that did happen. I'm not sure I can give you your second point about long term contracts and rebuilding. I honestly think the rebuild was plan B and when it was obvious that the FAs were going to be overpriced, they decided to do the rebuild, and I think that was the right choice. It may have been the first choice all along, who knows.

 

But going back to last year, the only one of the big 3 that the Twins had a shot at was Jackson. Yes, the Twins might have been able to beat LA, but I don't think they should have.

[Guest USAFChief]

 

Viewing this from a payroll space perspective is a very parochial point of view. The capacity to purchase and the wisdom of said investment are two quite different things.

So then we're in agreement...the Twins had the financial capabilities to sign Grienke.

[johnnydakota]

So what would have happened if the Twins had signed both Grienke and Sanchez last off season?would have cost 45 million? But you would need to subtract the 10 million from Correia and Pelfrey, so it would have been 35 million, or a payroll simular to 2011s, What about an increase in ticket sales, instead of a decrease?Could 1 not make a point that those 2 would have paid for themselfs, and made the team better at the same time?

[Major League Ready]

So what would have happened if the Twins had signed both Grienke and Sanchez last off season?would have cost 45 million? But you would need to subtract the 10 million from Correia and Pelfrey, so it would have been 35 million, or a payroll simular to 2011s, What about an increase in ticket sales, instead of a decrease?Could 1 not make a point that those 2 would have paid for themselfs, and made the team better at the same time?

 

Good question, Johnny. The answer is we don’t have enough detail on revenue sources and expenses to calculate this accurately. We can calculate the POTENTIAL revenue impact from attendance. However, we have to make a rather large assumption in terms of the impact on attendance. How many more games would they have won with Grienke and Sanchez instead of Pelfrey/Correia? Is 10 a reasonable estimate? What is the effect of going from 96 losses to 86? Jack Groin might know.

 

Assumptions and facts are as follows.

 

 

1. The average ticket price in 2013 was $30.68.
   
2. We would have had to pay substantially more than LAD/DET to sign them.
   
3. $2M/each overpay seems reasonable so total cost of $39M.
   
4. 43,000 seats total
   
5. 2010 attendance = 3,223,640
   
6. 2013 attendance = 2,477,644
   
7. 40,000 in attendance for every home game = 3,280,000
   
8. Delta 2013 vs 2010 = 745,996
   
9. $39M/30.68=1,271,186 needed to cover salary via ticket sales.
   

 

We can conclude that based on ticket sales it is not even remotely possible even if they got back to 2010 levels. My guess is that if we had a 500 team attendance might get back to somewhere around 1012 levels or roughly 300K additional fans. (pure guess) Let’s just round up and say attendance covers $10M of the $39M investment. Obviously they make money on concessions and other products. We don’t have the information to determine that amount.

 

Riddle me this … There is one other gigantic hole in this analysis. What is it?

[Willihammer]

Riddle me this … There is one other gigantic hole in this analysis. What is it?

 

The $175m in national t.v. money for one.

 

Concession sales, merchandise, additional ad revenue from higher viewership/attendance.

 

Bonuses from going to the playoffs. Winning the WS is a 15-20m payday alone but the losers get paid too.

 

Also, a 10 game improvement could be on the low side. The 1998 Diamondbacks won 65 games. That offseason they signed Randy Johnson to a 4 year+team option for 65m, and traded for Luis Gonzalez and his 6 year contract. They won 100 games in 1999 and made the playoffs 3/5 years incl. 1 world series.

[thetank]

The $175m in national t.v. money for one.

 

Concession sales, merchandise, additional ad revenue from higher viewership/attendance.

 

Bonuses from going to the playoffs. Winning the WS is a 15-20m payday alone but the losers get paid too.

 

Also, a 10 game improvement could be on the low side. The 1998 Diamondbacks won 65 games. That offseason they signed Randy Johnson to a 4 year+team option for 65m, and traded for Luis Gonzalez and his 6 year contract. They won 100 games in 1999 and made the playoffs 3/5 years incl. 1 world series.

The Pyth for the Twins was 61 games so the Twins were 5 games better than the Pyth. Zach and Sanchez look at whether the team they sign with make the playoffs as a factor since they could be choose. Edwin Jackson became way overpaid to go to Chicago since he was always potential.

 

The Twins problem is their minor league development hasn't produced enough quality players since the mid-2000's.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The $175m in national t.v. money for one.

 

Concession sales, merchandise, additional ad revenue from higher viewership/attendance.

 

Bonuses from going to the playoffs. Winning the WS is a 15-20m payday alone but the losers get paid too.

 

Also, a 10 game improvement could be on the low side. The 1998 Diamondbacks won 65 games. That offseason they signed Randy Johnson to a 4 year+team option for 65m, and traded for Luis Gonzalez and his 6 year contract. They won 100 games in 1999 and made the playoffs 3/5 years incl. 1 world series.

 

A 10 game improvement may be on the low side but it would take a 20 game swing make a significant difference in attendance, much less making the playoffs, which would require a 25+ game swing.

 

So... Basically, the Twins would have needed Zack Greinke, Mike Trout, and Miguel Cabrera. Not exactly a reasonable request.

[Willihammer]

A 10 game improvement may be on the low side but it would take a 20 game swing make a significant difference in attendance

 

OK fine, the signings wouldn't boost attendance. For sake of argument, let's assume the Twins never make the playoffs and attendance holds at 2013 levels.

 

Jim Pohlad said "we're happy where we're at" when the payroll was 100m in 2012. Attendance was 2.744m in 2012 and went down by 300,000 in 2013. So, using the same assumptions and calculations above we can show there was 15m in gained income from ticket sales:

 

 

1. The average ticket price in 2013 was $30.68.
   
2. We would have had to pay substantially more than LAD/DET to sign them.
   
3. $2M/each overpay seems reasonable so total cost of $39M.
   
4. 43,000 seats total
   
5. 2012 attendance = 2,774,000
   
6. 2013 attendance = 2,477,644
   
7. 34,250 in attendance for every home game = 2,774,000
   
8. Delta 2013 vs 2012 = 300,000
   
9. $9.2m in reduced ticket sales
   
10. 25m in reduced payroll
    
11. 15.8m in gained income
    

 

 

Add in the 175m t.v. money and there's your 40m/yr

[cmathewson]

So then we're in agreement...the Twins had the financial capabilities to sign Grienke.

 

Yes, they most certainly did. The issue is, did Grienke want to come here? We will not know the answer to that. But rumor has it, he did not. Sanchez was a similar story. Tigers made him a deal that was as good or better than other offers to stay on a team and in a park that he loved. Did the Twins try to sign them? We also will never know that. But, considering what has transpired this offseason, the speculation that they never tried is weak.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't care if they try, I care if they succeed. Last year, they did not. Hopefully this year, unlike last year when Ryan revamped the rotation and made it worse compared to the league, he will have succeeded at making it better, substantially better.

[Major League Ready]

The $175m in national t.v. money for one.

 

Concession sales, merchandise, additional ad revenue from higher viewership/attendance.

 

Bonuses from going to the playoffs. Winning the WS is a 15-20m payday alone but the losers get paid too.

 

Also, a 10 game improvement could be on the low side. The 1998 Diamondbacks won 65 games. That offseason they signed Randy Johnson to a 4 year+team option for 65m, and traded for Luis Gonzalez and his 6 year contract. They won 100 games in 1999 and made the playoffs 3/5 years incl. 1 world series.

 

No to all of the above. You are changing Johnny’s hypothesis which suggested the addition of Grienke/Sanchez might have generated enough profit to fund their salaries.

 

 

• The national TV contract has absolutely nothing to do with that equation.
  
• Revenue gained from increased attendance was calculated using (average ticket price * 300,000) The 300,00 was a guess and I rounded up to $10M I thought was generous.
  
• If you look back, I discussed the fact that we don’t have adequate information to determine the addition profits from concessions and merchandise. However, I suggested it was likely less than attendance. So, a reasonable guess is probably less than $20M of the $39M
  
• You can’t add the assumption that the sign a bunch of other players too. Not only is it unrealistic, their costs would have to be included in the cost/benefit analysis.
  

 

Some of you remind us that Grienke and Sanchez probably did not want to come here. One of the assumptions was every man has his price. I used $2M/yr each. That might not be an accurate assumption but that was my estimate. It probably would have taken more but I wanted to be conservative.

 

The hole I was referring to is a risk metric. As history shows so clearly, Free Agents are often injured or underperform for at least part of the contract. (Pujlos, Hamilton, Howard, Teixiera, A-Rod, etc) We experienced this with Morneau. Santana is a good example as well. His contribution to the Mets was diminished because of injury and we could list many others. I don’t know what the risk metric should be but let’s just say for the sake of argument that FAs underperform or are injured for 30% of these contracts. ($39M/.7=$55.7M) In other words, in order to have even odds of breaking even on this investment, the annual profit would need to be $55M plus payroll takes on $39M. So, somewhere in the neighborhood of $60M

[cmathewson]

Fair enough. But the gist of this article is that Ryan is somehow bending the truth when he says he tried just as hard to put a winner together this year as last. That argument can only be made if you prove that he didn't try as hard last year.

 

John's argument dies when you show that Ryan could exert the same effort in the two years and get different results because the pool of available talent and their relative willingness to listen to his offers was different year to year.

[johnnydakota]

A 10 game improvement may be on the low side but it would take a 20 game swing make a significant difference in attendance, much less making the playoffs, which would require a 25+ game swing.

 

So... Basically, the Twins would have needed Zack Greinke, Mike Trout, and Miguel Cabrera. Not exactly a reasonable request.

 

you dont think players look at being down 6-1 after 3 innings and after seeing this time and agian just dont have the same spirte, the same ummph for the game?

Good pitching breeds good pitching, setting the bar highes makes other pickup the efforts, same as good hitting is contagouse...

[johnnydakota]

figure 5 million per 100,000 tickets and you will see that those 2 would have about paid for themselfs and the fan base would be happier,huh? would you be giddy to have those 2 in the top of our rotation?, would it have been nice to poach Sanchez from our foe?

[cmathewson]

I for one am glad they didn't sign those two. For sure, they would be better this year and last. But I don't like the long-term health of either of those guys. They could afford them. But they would only recover their salaries if they stayed healthy. Contracts for those dollars and years have rarely worked out. They are extremely risky. If they do work out, the GM is more lucky than good.

[johnnydakota]

As for Grienke wanting to come here, didnt he prefer to be in a small-mid market venue since he has that disorder? As for the arguement that the timing wasnt right to add quality players to your team ...bullcrunch, if you are doing your job and not worring about bonuses, you add as many quality players as you can afford to sign...and in 2013 we didnt....did we?

 

Look I dont care, bottom line I dont care if we are rebuilding or going for a championship , but stop blowing smoke up the fans skirts, if we are rebuilding then Terry did a piss pour job of it, he picked up 1 pitcher and a reliever...and if we were going for a championship , well then he did even worse....66 wins not kewl, the only thing you get from straddling the fense is a case of the blue balls

[Major League Ready]

figure 5 million per 100,000 tickets and you will see that those 2 would have about paid for themselfs and the fan base would be happier,huh? would you be giddy to have those 2 in the top of our rotation?, would it have been nice to poach Sanchez from our foe?

 

What are you assuming is the increased attendance?

 

How did you come up with a figure of $50 profit for every man/woman & child in attendance?

[jokin]

What are you assuming is the increased attendance?

 

How did you come up with a figure of $50 profit for every man/woman & child in attendance?

 

 

We do know the cost when you fail to put up even a mediocre product for 3 years running:

 

 

"Three years of losing costs Twins half their TV audience"

 

 

 

http://m.startribune.com/news/?id=231241241

 

But after all that is said and done, the core audience remains and the Twins have still done well financially:

 

"The Twins have lost half of their TV audience since 2010, and they sell 23 percent fewer tickets than they did in Target Field’s first year — they averaged only 758 more fans per home game last year than in the Metrodome’s final season. But there is little doubt that the Twins — and the sport as a whole — remain profitable."

 

 

"The best news for the Twins: Unlike through-the-turnstile attendance at Target Field, the decline in TV ratings has virtually no effect on their bottom line. In fact, their income from television is about to take a large jump in 2014.

The increased revenue comes from MLB’s new national media contracts with ESPN, Fox and TBS, which agreed to payments totaling $12.4 billion over the next eight years, more than doubling their expiring contracts. That means the Twins, like the other 29 teams, will collect more than $50 million a year from the networks, instead of the roughly $25 million they took in this year."

 

It appears that the way the TV deals are structured, there is little incentive to improve the product, so putting people in the seats is the main area to maximize the bottom line number.

 

 

The Twins Fans Cost Index for 2013 suggests these numbers are operative:

 

Minnesota $32.59/ticket $221.36/total cost per family of four

 

This works out to $55.34 per fan after ticket, parking, food and concession purchases. Not all pure profit, to be sure, but puts the revenue/attendee ratio in perspective...

 

http://www.kshb.com/dpp/sports/baseball/mlb-average-ticket-price--fan-cost-index-for-all-30-baseball-teams#ixzz2XtggOV6A

[johnnydakota]

What are you assuming is the increased attendance?

 

How did you come up with a figure of $50 profit for every man/woman & child in attendance?

 

ticket prices were an average of 31.50+ in 2013 and if you add in concessions and merchandice ( whats the cost of 2 beers and a bag of peanuts?) We drew 2.4 million , it is reasonible to think the fan base would get excited by making 2 big signings and we would have an attendance over 3.millionor even 3.1 million , so with an increase of 700,000x 50 + the 10 million not spent on Pelfrey and Correia , these 2 about pay for themselfs(yes jimmy doesnt get his cut, but to me if hes looking to Pocket more profit from a team that flat out sucked for the last 3 years he is more greedy then most believe)

[jokin]

ticket prices were an average of 31.50+ in 2013 and if you add in concessions and merchandice ( whats the cost of 2 beers and a bag of peanuts?) We drew 2.4 million , it is reasonible to think the fan base would get excited by making 2 big signings and we would have an attendance over 3.millionor even 3.1 million , so with an increase of 700,000x 50 + the 10 million not spent on Pelfrey and Correia , these 2 about pay for themselfs(yes jimmy doesnt get his cut, but to me if hes looking to Pocket more profit from a team that flat out sucked for the last 3 years he is more greedy then most believe)

 

My source above had the avg. ticket price @ $ 32.59 (perhaps more accurately reflecting premium pricing? But regardless, this further bolsters your point, if the Twins are competitive, all of those premium priced seats get sold, and maybe even at a higher average/tkt. to reflect the greater demand!)

[Major League Ready]

Thanks Jokin. That really helps understand the revenue implications. Incremental attendance has almost no variable cost. The $22.50/person for merchandise and parking obviously has some cost. So, we are talking roughly $50 profit for every ticket sold.

 

Now, we just have to estimate the impact on wins and then the impact on attendance from fielding a better team. Would it be fair to say Grienke would have taken us from 66 to 76-78 wins? What would that have done for attendance?

[jokin]

Thanks Jokin. That really helps understand the revenue implications. Incremental attendance has almost no variable cost. The $22.50/person for merchandise and parking obviously has some cost. So, we are talking roughly $50 profit for every ticket sold.

 

Now, we just have to estimate the impact on wins and then the impact on attendance from fielding a better team. Would it be fair to say Grienke would have taken us from 66 to 76-78 wins? What would that have done for attendance?

 

Probably to a great extent Greinke-specific games. Greinke started 28 games in 2013. Assuming that 15 starts come at home through a slight manipulation of the rotation, Greinke would potentially increase attendance by 10,000 per game (just used convenient rounding numbers from 30,000 per game to 40,000 per sellout game). That makes 150,000 X $50 = $7.5M. Clearly, the rest of the team would have to step up performance-wise to goose the W/L number to get the gate up sufficient enough (about $13.5M, or 270,000) to cover the difference between Greinke and Correia.

[Kwak]

The "average" cost per ticket should not be used because the most expensive tickets have already been sold. Incremental ticket sales will be from unsold seats--"the cheap seats". Those tickets were in the $13-17 range per seat.

[Major League Ready]

The "average" cost per ticket should not be used because the most expensive tickets have already been sold. Incremental ticket sales will be from unsold seats--"the cheap seats". Those tickets were in the $13-17 range per seat.

 

Nice catch, Kwak! I assumed this was probably the case but I did not want to be accused of any bias that might disprove financial viability. The 10,000 incremental seats sold probably does not fly either because of two factors. One, many people by tickets well in advance and don't know who is pitching. Two, even if they did come to specifically see Grienke, they likely chose his game instead of another game.

 

This is a somewhat crude analysis but I think we can say with confidence that the incremental revenue would not have come even remotely close to covering the cost of these players even assuming they remain healthy, make every planned start and perform to expectations for the entire duration of the contract which of course is HIGHLY unlikely.

[PseudoSABR]

The criticisms levied here against the Twins earnings and their spending can be used against every team. Ostensibly, every club should be able to sign any free agent, if they are willing to pocket less money. Though, there's clearly a diminishing return in terms of how much more money a club will earn in the future (or this season) by spending more money now. As others have stated, signing Grienke probably wouldn't have put many more butts in the seat, nor improved the club above it's battle for fourth place.

[The Wise One]

Probably to a great extent Greinke-specific games. Greinke started 28 games in 2013. Assuming that 15 starts come at home through a slight manipulation of the rotaion, Greinke would potentially increase attendance by 10,000 per game (just used convenient rounding numbers from 30,000 per game to 40,000 per sellout game). That makes 150,000 X $50 = $7.5M. Clearly, the rest of the team would have to step up performance-wise to goose the W/L number to get the gate up sufficient enough (about $13.5M, or 270,000) to cover the difference between Greinke and Correia.

 

Did 10,000 more fans come out to watch Santana pitch on days he was sceduled other than opening days? 2000 per game more for Frankie V? There is absolutely zero historical basis for the idea there would be that great of an icrease of Twins fans coming out to watch a specific pitcher.