jay

Joe Mauer?

"not living up" and "self-imposed" sound like option c. If you don't believe what they are saying, then why use their quotes to support your beliefs here?

I'm confused. There's no mind to change when middle of the road is exactly what I said they are in the first place...I don't think the Pohlads have rigged up a profiteering scam any more than most other owners have. Your data points haven't proven otherwise. I think the first two sentences there could be fairly accurate. I think the last two are off base. I've lived enough places outside of the Twin Cities to know that every fan base thinks their owners should be spending their personal wealth to bankroll the team's player payroll. Even a lot of Yankees fans think they should be spending more...

Lol... that smiley is supposed to be a b ) Damn you, smiley autocorrect.

Chief, I know the quotes. You consistently advocate that the Twins need to sign more free agents to add talent to the MLB roster, time now. That costs money, which inevitably leads to bigger payrolls than they've had. If you subscribe to those quotes, is it that a) you think they are consistently lying and don't actually spend that much, or is it that you simply think they should be spending more than that? I suppose we could add c) both.

One could make a pretty good case that's exactly what the Twins do...I think the problem here is that it's not at the magnitude you'd like. The Twins' own statements DO say that. If it's objectivity you're after, I'd ask for that in both directions... which would be great since I'm usually the one stuck making that case. It also wouldn't include an overly simplistic revenue to payroll model.

Spend an unprecedented amount for your org in free agency on your biggest need like last offseason? Fans are mad every signing didn't pan out in year 1 and also now expect you to do this or more every year. Stretch your payroll when you think you still have a chance to contend like in 2011? Fans now base their expectations for your payroll on that and it should grow every year from there. Admit that payroll might not grow next year because you're trying to develop your young players so you can contend again? Fans are disgusted that you're lining the owners pockets with money and refusing to do what it takes it to win. I could go on and on... It's truly a no-win argument.

Remember contraction? Remember why? From a pure business standpoint, the Twins were consistently losing money. Does any business make it a habit to lose money? That so few teams lose money in a given year proves the answer is no. Having a P&L in the red that one time in 10 years is a pretty poor method to determine that organization has a financial approach that significantly differs from the Twins. If a long-term study with reliable data showed the Twins profit margins on their revenues are greater than most other teams, then we'd be perfectly justified to ask some tough questions about why.

I think you're extrapolating my statements a bit too far to make them sound far more extreme than they are. That seems to be happen often in the payroll debate. We're talking about the exact same talent pool, not solely 9-figure FAs. The high-priced stage meaning >6 years of service time. I didn't say anywhere, ever that a team can't sign a free agent. I simply said "the successful teams build around young players before they reach that high priced stage". You frequently mention the international free agent pool and I agree with you. I'd like to see the Twins be more aggressive there. If you don't have enough cost controlled young players to build around, the next best thing is probably expensive young players to build around. Certainly more so than expensive old players. However, the Abreu signing and the results of the CWS also verify that it's not enough alone (which I know you aren't saying). A successful team is going to need production from young, cost-controlled players. It's the only model that works. Worrying about a payroll number doesn't. Again, I want to see the Twins be flexible in their payroll. That's what I care about. If there's a window of success that is open, let's swing at it and push payroll as high as it can go within the organization's ability. If we're rebuilding, the number really doesn't matter. Build the farm and develop talent.

Thanks for doing some research. I definitely agree with you the Twins are not likely to be the Tigers, Yankees or Dodgers in their financial approach. However, those teams aren't middle of the road -- they are the extreme. Not being in that group doesn't mean the Twins aren't similar to the majority of teams. Now, that doesn't mean they spend or profit as much on an absolute basis -- I'm talking on a relative basis. The 50-52% of revenues thing comes from somewhere, right? The Twins didn't just randomly invent it on their own. It's an industry standard. Do some teams exceed that? Sure... but if the Twins are following the industry standard (which granted, some people question), doesn't that by definition put their approach in line with the majority of teams?

I would tend to believe the Twins' financial approach is close to in line with the majority of other teams. I'd love to see a long-term analysis across all of MLB or other pro sports to prove otherwise.

I'm sure they won't. Given those Forbes numbers haven't really ever aligned to the MLB payroll @ 50%, you're left to either assume the Twins outright lie about it every time they bring it up (which feeds the juicy story of lining rich owner pockets with more cash... ooooh yes, that one please) OR your calculation technique varies significantly (far more likely).

Being rich is synonymous with being a pro sports owner. Let's not pretend it's unique to the Pohlads. The "afford it" argument is plausible, but the number of owners that have done it across all of pro sports can be counted on one hand. When payroll rationale is based on unrealistic statements, it reminds me that this is purely an exercise in voicing frustration. Let's be real, NO level of payroll would be enough to satisfy everyone. There's always that one more guy they could sign. [eye roll]

That was incredibly Minnesotan. Thanks for the laugh.

But clicks. Short of the B/R approach and putting every comment on its' own page, creating payroll commiseration threads is the next best option. TD has bills to pay!

That part is true. Unfortunately, I don't think we'd find it realistic to expect that to happen. Across all sports, even salary capped, the successful teams build around young players before they reach that high priced stage. It's not an accident that essentially every professional sports organization uses that model (except maybe the Yankees). To suggest something else would work better ignores a lot of real world reality.

Chief... I couldn't possibly disagree more with your model. Not in the sense that it can't work, but in that it isn't going to work for the Twins in the reality of this structure. The Twins (and every other MLB team) are "continually looking to add talent". That's unquestionable in their existence as an organization. The only differentiation in your approach is the "high priced talent", which can be translated to free agents. If MLB had a salary cap and/or a different talent development model, I could buy into your methodology in full. The obvious and proven reason it doesn't work is the real fact that the Twins (and most orgs) have a finite level of resources.

The $7.5M number comes from external free agents based on the retrospective value they generated (as explained in detail in the article). It's hindsight 20/20. No roster is constructed fully of external free agents as your comment would allude to, but it highlights why that'd be quite the expensive endeavor.

Mike... check out Lucid sometime off 494 and 62. They somehow haven't invested in a taproom yet, but they do growler fills and free samples/tours on Thur-Sat. Their Foto IPA and Duo dIPA are my tastes, but they do some other interesting beers as well.

Would you call that a fair analysis?

They played for the Twins this year? I was trying to forget that. I think that expands the definition a bit since they weren't guaranteed roster spots (although some would say they essentially were). Include them and it bumps the numbers to $34M for 6.6 fWAR and $5.2M/win. Still only 70% of the expected cost...

I think that is definitely suggested. Comments about not spending this year's payroll, lining the owners pockets with profits, etc... all indicate that $X should have been spent. I completely agree with you that the Twins success model is reliant on quality draft cycles. That's true for probably the majority of MLB teams though. No team with that model can expect unending success... or at least it hasn't ever happened yet. Does the bottom of that cycle mean the front office has fundamental flaws? Maybe, but I'm not so sure we can determine that with much certainty (although it feels good to lay the blame somewhere). A well regarded farm system when given better draft positioning tells me they're doing something right. I also agree with questioning where the Twins have spent their money, but I don't think we'd find an exhaustive analysis to say the Twins' external free agents dollars have significantly underperformed other teams. It all goes back to the draft.... not payroll.

Suzuki; 2.1 fWAR; $2.75M Pelfrey; -0.6 fWAR; $5.5M Hughes; 6.1 fWAR; $8.0M Nolasco; 1.2 fWAR; $12.0M Morales; -0.8 fWAR; $3.0M Total; 8.0 fWAR; $31.25M We vividly recall the flops, but <$4M/WAR from free agents is incredible.

But since I can't resist logic... The Twins spent about $31M on 5 external free agents in 2014. Those 5 generated roughly $60M of value using $7.5M/win for external free agents. (http://www.hardballtimes.com/methodology-and-calculations-of-dollars-per-war/) That's not so bad, but also a reminder that free agency is a terrible place to look for value.

I'd reply to that with logic, but it won't change the emotions anyway... so I won't waste my time.