jay

The Twins have room to add an SP. I'd much prefer trading for a younger pitcher or even signing a younger FA like E Santana. Buehrle would likely be the only move we'd see. I'd rather use that bullet elsewhere. No way at all the Jays want Nolasco in a deal... they'd be trading off Buerhle to go use that money elsewhere, not acquire another SP with significant money and years remaining.

If they wouldn't give him $5M, I'm not so sure an interview under the false pretenses of either side pretending to be interested is a good idea.

Do you think the Twins wouldn't give him $5M if he wanted the job? I think they would. I also think he'll end up getting more than that.

I might have to take back what I said earlier about so many people recognizing that he has a choice. I wish I could be more of a skeptical pessimist. Simple odds say I could blast the Twins for every guy they aren't going to get and be right most of the time.

Maddon might be the first instance of a highly desireable, free-agent like manager. I agree with you on the complications of measurement, but the number of organizations that have reportedly reached out to him would seem to indicate that he's viewed as significantly better than replacement level -- which should translate to wins in some way or another. There is an overabundance of candidates, but very few managers garner the reputation of being worth additional wins. If some team thinks he is worth 2 more wins than the other candidates available, why shouldn't he be worth $14M if the alternative is to go after those 2 wins on the free agent player market for the same price?

If that's accurate and you could determine which managers are on the high end of that, wouldn't that make them easily worth $5-10M/season?

That speculation is going to happen no matter what the Twins say or do. It'll happen even if the Twins do interview him, even though you've already highlighted why an interview isn't even really necessary. Heck, it'll happen even if TR says he offered him the job (...didn't offer him enough). I don't see a single real-world scenario other than hiring Joe Maddon that manages to avoid some people saying it was about the money.

Shouldn't that same manager be able to use those skills to get the runs needed to scratch out a few more close wins than his counterparts? I don't see how we can say situational decision making improves runs but doesn't improve situational runs.

If you're Joe Maddon and the Cubs are offering $5M/year (likely more, actually), how much do the Twins have to offer to convince you otherwise?

I find it interesting that so many people recognize he has a choice and that choice might very well not be the Twins for any number of reasons despite a limited number of suitors. I wish that rational line of thought would extend to free agent players a bit more often and not just free agent managers.

I'm a big Colabello booster, but this sounds like agent spin. Can't blame the guy. I'm sure there's at least some level of truth to it though.

I'm in on both Pelfrey and Meyer in the bullpen to start the year. Makes sense for both.

They didn't embrace an Astros-style rebuild, which I would have welcomed personally. There have been plenty of actions that do point to rebuild not mentioned here, but I'd agree that some don't. Consider this though... What would we hear from those who think the Twins already don't spend enough or that Target Field was a rip off? How much worse would it look to completely sell out on winning and inherently slash payroll two years into your new stadium? Look at what the Astros approach did to their attendance and ratings figures. Then, add in that you were scheduled to host an All-Star game.

I get your point, but is the odds of that hypothetical low level prospect even making it to MLB at all worth more than the odds of a guy already at MLB figuring it out to some degree?

When did you guys start agreeing on so much? I don't even need popcorn to read through this love fest... The World Series hasn't started yet and it seems like our TD spectrum is as closely aligned on how this offseason is going to play out as any topic out there. Maybe Terry's comments accomplished something after all...

I'm going to land on 'no thanks' here. I like his flexibility, but I'd like to see the Twins ingrain that on a few of the current players. The Twins have enough players of similar caliber to sort through as it is.

It would be hilarious to let mike do the interview... I'm not sure who would get frustrated and walk away first, but it'd be fun to find out.

Haven't seen any mention of BTN here. Getting their network picked up by cable networks negatively impacted my ability to watch Gopher sports for a short period of time. However, I love them now. I can watch any Gopher game they're televising from any device, anywhere, in real-time. THAT is what consumers want. It's included in my cable subscription, which is nice in that I don't have to pay anything additional... but it requires a cable subscription, which as others have alluded to... sucks. I'm not sure why they are able to do that and others don't.... maybe it has something to do with being a new network.

As was I! I'd add a few more: Have the Twins ever exceeded the 50-52% of revenues for payroll guideline in the last 15 years? Roughly where do the Twins rank among other MLB teams in their ability to generate revenue? How different would this be without Target Field?

How would you characterize Terry Ryan's recent comments?

Bloomberg does a revenue estimate and franchise valuation just like Forbes. I think we're better off using their estimates more like how WAR should be used (precise enough to get an idea and range), rather than an absolute gospel. Both publications place the Twins' franchise value at 19th. Both valuation methods are based on the revenues they generate, so you can equate that to mean the Twins' are roughly 19th at generating revenue. The industry model which the Twins have cited puts payroll expenses at 50-52% of revenue. That's going to mean the Twins have an average payroll somewhere in the range around 19th. If we didn't have Target Field, that revenue generation would be even lower. Franchise value would be lower. Average payrolls would be lower.

I have a hard time buying into points of view that rely on believing most statements made by the Twins, but then choosing which ones you don't want to believe because they don't fit the point of view. Do we know Forbes doesn't include revenue sharing in their figures? I think they actually do. I get they are probably the best numbers out there and more publicly-available information would be great. But, should we really put so much weight on them and frequently cite them as the truth if we don't even know for sure how they're calculated? ...let alone the Twins' financial accounting methods?

Yeah, maybe not hand picked. Point is, those data points don't allow us to compare the Twins to other teams even if we do assume the data is valid. How much they profited in 10 years isn't comparing them. We need to know how much all the other teams profited in order to compare. We need to know the financial ratios of margin to book value and revenue for all teams. You also highlighted that roughly half the other teams have had more variability, but that doesn't equate to more profitable than other teams over time. I'm not asking you do to any of that legwork, but don't fault me for not being convinced. I think it'd also be fascinating to see how the Twins' player expenses (via Forbes) and MLB payroll (via deadspin, etc) to revenue ratios come out in comparison to all the other teams. It'd be a neat way to say whether or not the Twins are spending enough.

Right, I'm mostly referring to short-term assets acquired via trade or FA once a core is either in place or, as the Royals did, projected to be in place. Absolutely, long-term assets are essential. Where do those come from? The cost for those acquired via the draft and int'l amateurs is far outweighed by the value they produce. I'm sure we agree on that. Through the other channels you've mentioned, you end up placing far fewer bets based solely on the costs at play and those bets frequently turn into liabilities rather than assets. Acquiring long-term assets that way is possible, but the success rates and associated costs rarely make it an appealing strategy in my eyes. Please note the words "rarely" and "appealing" there -- specifically not "never" and "potentially necessary".

Not saying it's your job, man! I agree with most of your thoughts on the Twins' approach... - they aren't going to lose money often, if ever - they are going to project revenues and expenses every year with a profit in mind I don't think that makes the Twins any different than the vast majority of other franchises. If I had a spare hour or eight, I'd crunch all the coveted Forbes data and we could see how the franchise value, revenues and payroll compare to their profitability and how that looks for all the other teams as well. Your hand picked data points don't provide anything close to that.