Twins Front Office Talk Payroll, Twitter Sounds Off

[Parker Hageman]

Phil Miller at the Star Tribune spoke with Twins general manager Terry Ryan and team president Dave St. Peter regarding the 2015 payroll. It does not sound like there will be pennies raining from heaven. The reaction on Twitter was nonplussed, to say the least. 

 

 

 

 

 

St. Peter said that payroll was tied to the revenue in which attendance plays a significant role. 

 

 

Some blamed Mauer and his $23M a year salary.

 

 

Others weren't bothered, considering the development stage of the team.

 

 

What are your thoughts on the payroll?

 

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think it's more a practical thing than anything. I don't see them adding pitching without figuring out a way to get rid of someone who isn't doing well (and no one will take on Pelf or Nolasco). The only open spot that isn't tied up with someone who is a part of the future is LF. Not much in terms of free agency there, so unless the Twins are up to absorbing a bad contract for a productive player, I suspect it drops.

[drjim]

 

What are your thoughts on the payroll?

 

The Twins should definitely have one.

[Parker Hageman]

The Twins should definitely have one.

 

 

It would be so Moneyball if they could figure out how to field a team without one.

[Mike Sixel]

I think this:

 

1. Whether they explicitly said it or not, asking for a new stadium "to remain competitive" implies they will spend more on payroll.

 

2. MLB salaries are going up faster than inflation, so just spending some more is not really, IMO, keeping up with their promise.

 

3. NO ONE expects them to compete solely on FA, or to have a payroll like the Dodgers (that is all strawman BS).

 

4. St. Peter really doesn't get PR. Blaming the fans for the awful attendance and payroll is just plain stupid. Reminiscent of saying we shouldn't worry about the last 2-3 men on the roster (when, you know, you only get 25).

 

5. I get how payroll can ebb and flow, but Gleeman is right about how this fan feels. It stinks for the owners to pocket profits one year, and not see the payroll go up in following years. Maybe if this team is ever good again, we'll see a change, but we'll never know and will have to take their word for it. Who here is really going to believe them?

 

6. I think that this ownership cares more about making a certain amount of money, than about winning. I don't know this, I think it based on years of observation. But there are clearly owners that appear more willing to spend money to increase the likelihood of winning (note, another straw man alert, no one is saying payroll guarantees winning).

[Parker Hageman]

I get how payroll can ebb and flow, but Gleeman is right about how this fan feels. It stinks for the owners to pocket profits one year, and not see the payroll go up in following years. Maybe if this team is ever good again, we'll see a change, but we'll never know and will have to take their word for it. Who here is really going to believe them?

 

 

I think Gleeman's got a very valid point. If the money in baseball isn't used, the other 50% of revenue goes to the ownership.

 

How is this not more of a talking point/area of frustration with other team's fan bases? Are other teams in similar situations as the Twins better at PR and controlling the spin of message? 

[Mike Sixel]

It might be, I don't pay attention to other fans and conversations.

[Boom Boom]

I think Gleeman's got a very valid point. If the money in baseball isn't used, the other 50% of revenue goes to the ownership.

 

How is this not more of a talking point/area of frustration with other team's fan bases? Are other teams in similar situations as the Twins better at PR and controlling the spin of message? 

 

Well... for one thing, it probably is more of a talking point with other teams than you might think because you probably don't follow every single team... I would guess there's a fair amount of fan complaints about the Indians payroll, or the Marlins payroll, or the Rays, A's, Padres, what have you.

 

A big reason why it's such a huge talker amongst Twins fans is that we (the taxpayers) built them a palace hoping that they didn't have to play budget-ball anymore, but now it's the Twins' oppressive TV deal holding them back (because Victory Sports was such an Edsel).  

[USAFChief]

At the least, this is another questionable method of keeping and/or attracting season ticket holders.

[DJL44]

Atlanta - same attendance, bad TV deal and $112M payroll in 2014.

Arizona - same attendance, losing team and $112M payroll in 2014.

 

Crying poor is garbage. They're $25M under what they could justify by their revenues. It seems pretty clear to me that the plan is to whine, lose and cash checks like the Cubs.

[drjim]

It would be so Moneyball if they could figure out how to field a team without one.

 

The Cardinals would figure out how to do this. The Twins should be more like the Cardinals.

[Mike Sixel]

It is interesting that now it is the TV deal that holds them back. It is always something that holds them back. I can only recall one year since 92 or so where there wasn't an excuse for why the payroll was low.

[Mike Sixel]

The Cardinals would figure out how to do this. The Twins should be more like the Cardinals.

 

I might make this my sig, can't decide.

[Winston Smith]

Pohlad said that 50-52% of revenue would go to payroll. Forbes had the Twins at $212m last year and we have heard the 50% number from St Peter and others. My Mn. math says 50% is $106m and payroll was about $85m.

There really isn't any reason to hash this over every year. We (taxpayers) were sold a bill of goods and now we can do nothing about it except stop buying tickets and merchandise. Target Field is not going away until at least 2020 when we'll hear they need a new stadium in order to compete.

 

It is what it is they lied. Is that really so hard to believe?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Atlanta - same attendance, bad TV deal and $112M payroll in 2014.

Arizona - same attendance, losing team and $112M payroll in 2014.

Didn't both of these teams just dump their GMs?  I guess the lesson learned is, if you are going to lose, do it on a budget to keep ownership happy.

[jay]

The only thing that matters to me is whether or not the Twins are willing to spend what it takes to fill a key void when the rest of the pieces are in place to contend.  Just like the Cardinals did with Peralta.  The Twins should be more like the Cardinals.

 

I couldn't care less what the actual payroll number is.  Setting some arbitrary dollar figure that has to be spent based on fan angst is a good way to end up with a bunch of crappy contracts and blocked prospects.

[Mike Sixel]

Jay, I agree, but I also care that they try to win games even when they aren't that mythical "one player away". I think they owe it to ticket buyers to try to win games, not try to stay under a budget. I don't really think they've done that the last few years. 

 

I mean, they are still charging the same price, right? Even though they are basically saying "there aren't enough good FA available under our budget, so we are signing Pelfrey and Correia, but you still need to pay full price".

[Winston Smith]

Friedman is leaving the Rays for a job with the Dodgers. That really sucks for the Rays. I still think we should try a trade for Maddon. Betting he'll be the new Dodgers manager tho.

[jay]

Pohlad said that 50-52% of revenue would go to payroll. Forbes had the Twins at $212m last year and we have heard the 50% number from St Peter and others. My Mn. math says 50% is $106m and payroll was about $85m.

There really isn't any reason to hash this over every year. We (taxpayers) were sold a bill of goods and now we can do nothing about it except stop buying tickets and merchandise. Target Field is not going away until at least 2020 when we'll hear they need a new stadium in order to compete.

 

It is what it is they lied. Is that really so hard to believe?

 

If we wanted to hold the Twins accountable to certain spending levels in order to approve a new stadium, we should have demanded that public accountability to their revenue and payroll with independent auditors.  Internet analysis to accomplish that is bunk. 

 

The "but we built you Target Field" payroll story is so worn out and, frankly, false.  We want a new ballfield to mean that payroll should increase.  IT HAS. 

 

The Twins' MLB payroll increased faster than any measure of general inflation or MLB salary inflation.  Look at 2003-2009, then look at 2010-2014.  Get back to me if that's not "increasing the payroll".  http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

[tobi0040]

Guys, Guys Guys...come on.  They said they will have the ability to add in season if we are in contention.  What more could we ask for?

[Mike Sixel]

Guys, Guys Guys...come on.  They said they will have the ability to add in season if we are in contention.  What more could we ask for?

 

kind of a self fulfilling prophecy right now......

 

I do like how they signed a guy to flip him this year. It didn't work like they hoped, but they tried. That was, imo, progress.

[tobi0040]

If we wanted to hold the Twins accountable to certain spending levels in order to approve a new stadium, we should have demanded that public accountability to their revenue and payroll with independent auditors.  Internet analysis to accomplish that is bunk. 

 

The "but we built you Target Field" payroll story is so worn out and, frankly, false.  We want a new ballfield to mean that payroll should increase.  IT HAS. 

 

The Twins' MLB payroll increased faster than any measure of general inflation or MLB salary inflation.  Look at 2003-2009, then look at 2010-2014.  Get back to me if that's not "increasing the payroll".  http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

 

Last 5 years in the Dome, we averaged 21st in payroll. 

 

2005 - 20th

2006 - 19th

2007 - 18th

2008 - 25th

2009 - 24th

 

Target Field

2010 - 11th

2011 - 9th

2012 - 13th

2013 - 22nd

2014 - 24th

 

Let's assume a flat payroll for 2015 and another 24th place finish.....our six year average in Target field would be 21st. We were actually 18th in both 2003 and 2004 as well, so using those years would have lowered the Dome ranking.

 

I don't want to speak for everyone else, but I would have expected the Twins to move up in team payroll. 

 

http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

[Otto von Ballpark]

Setting some arbitrary dollar figure that has to be spent based on fan angst is a good way to end up with a bunch of crappy contracts and blocked prospects.

I don't think anybody is suggesting this, at all.  Just that payroll should not be a limiting factor for improving this team.  The amounts discussed in these threads are just examples of what the Twins should reasonably have to work with, NOT mandated spending.

[jay]

Your math is off there... divide by 6, not 5.  Average payroll in TF assuming next year is flat = 17th.

 

I don't think the "Target Field promise" included higher payroll relative to other teams, but they have.  In absolute terms, even accounting for inflation, there's no question the payroll has increased.

[jay]

The amounts discussed in these threads are just examples of what the Twins should reasonably have to work with, NOT mandated spending.

 

Reasonable based on what?  Bar napkin interpretation of their quotes and internet estimates?

 

It definitely sounds mandated.

[tobi0040]

Your math is off there... divide by 6, not 5.  Average payroll in TF assuming next year is flat = 17th.

 

I don't think the "Target Field promise" included higher payroll relative to other teams, but they have.  In absolute terms, even accounting for inflation, there's no question the payroll has increased.

 

You got me, but the broader point I believe is valid.   Most probably thought payroll would move up more with a new stadium.  I certainly did. 

 

The Twin Cities would make the 18th largest city in the US (add Mpls and St. Paul) together.  Many of the cities ahead of us don't have a team and most the others don't have a brand new stadium.

 

Would you have expected a 3 position increase and been OK with it?  For me, the bigger rub is Miller's article sounds like payroll CANT increase next year.  That is a bigger issue.  In a perfect world, they would find a sucker for Nolasco and sign a better pitcher and payroll would be flat because we want young players to play next year.  Many on these boards would be okay with that.  But if we want to have better pitching but we can't afford Ervin Santana and sign another scrub....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

[nicksaviking]

I'm at the point where I want to see the young guys play.  The free agent market looks like crap this year, anyone of any value is going to get a QO, meaning even if I had a slight urge to go after a Melky Cabrera, (who will be out for an entire year next time he fails a PED test), I'm not giving up a draft pick for him and a likely four or five year commitment.

 

I guess assuming the team doesn't make a magical trade, I don't want a high payroll this year.  Don't get me wrong, the team absolutely put themselves in a position where spending money might not make a ton of sense right now and they should be absolutely gutted for this underhanded tactic.  But now that we're here, I want to see the youngsters.

 

Of course saying crap like Sano isn't going to get called up in 2015 goes against the idea of seeing the young guys play.  F this BS. This organization can't get anything right these days.  They're like the bad guys in a Sci Fi movie that end up dying becaue they lost control of the evil device/monster they created.  Gardy got the vivid on-screen bloody death, the rest look like they're going to die in the giant fireball that is soon to blow up their lair.

[Mike Sixel]

People seem to mistake some things, IMO.

 

1. Fans' anger over payroll is a multi-year thing. There is an excuse, many years, for why the payroll should not go up. Regardless of how logical that one decision might be, one data point does not fix the emotional disgust that some people hold.

 

2. You can't "fix" people's emotions with logic. go read the research on this and come back......

 

3. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that they are more than "one player away" right now. Had THEY done their jobs better, they wouldn't be this awful right now. Refusing to sign a big time FA 3 years ago, and 2 years ago, leads to a crappier team now. Drafting and developing not enough good players, that is on them. The payroll is low because they have an awful team.

 

4. Their ability to manage this message is awful, and does not seem to improve over time. It's like they can't help themselves. St. Peter should never be allowed to tweet again.

[jay]

You got me, but the broader point I believe is valid.   Most probably thought payroll would move up more with a new stadium.  I certainly did. 

 

The Twin Cities would make the 18th largest city in the US (add Mpls and St. Paul) together.  Many of the cities ahead of us don't have a team and most the others don't have a brand new stadium.

 

Would you have expected a 3 position increase and been OK with it? 

 

The fallacy there is that you're basing your judgment on payroll levels during rebuilding.  Context matters.  We saw in 2011 that they have the ability to push payroll higher than that when they think the team can contend (oh, how wrong that was...).  That's what matters to me. 

[Mike Sixel]

It would be nice that, when they spend more money, they actually do a good job and sign/retain/trade for the right players. How's that working out lately?