Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Front Page: The Royals Problem: Just How Much Are You Willing to Give Up to Win a World Series?


Recommended Posts

 

 

This is the opposite of true. They signed the most expensive free agent pitcher last year. And others. Nothing about this post is accurate.

They also let a top position player walk. They let a 330 million dollar player leave for a 140 million one. That would not be considered going all in. The rest of the free agents was not major additions. Sanchez rose, Rosenthal and Dozier flopped. So signing Harper, McCutcheon, and Robertson after signing Arrietta and Santana the year brfore is not going for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the posts so I apologize if this restates earlier points.

I've said before that the goal of any franchise should be to contend for a postseason berth every year. EVERY year. That means scouting and player development must be the highest priorities. Good scouting means good drafts, trades, and free agent signings. Good player development speaks for itself. If a team takes care of this infrastructure it means that mortgaging a franchise's future to go all-in would never be necessary. In cases where a significant trade or free agent signing would be indicated such moves would not hamstring the franchise's future.

BTW, Toronto should also be mentioned in this discussion. I think it was 4 or 5 years ago that they went all-in and got nothing. Now they are nowhere. They have been reported to have agreed to terms with Ryu, but if that comes to pass it would at best move them up to contention for a winning record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 They are not a first source of income or wealth. They are a hobby.

I agree with the first sentence. I strongly disagree with the second sentence. Even though the team may not be an owner's primary business it doesn't mean the owner doesn't care about the bottom line. Owners are in the sports franchise business to make money off their teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also let a top position player walk. They let a 330 million dollar player leave for a 140 million one. That would not be considered going all in. The rest of the free agents was not major additions. Sanchez rose, Rosenthal and Dozier flopped. So signing Harper, McCutcheon, and Robertson after signing Arrietta and Santana the year brfore is not going for it?

What does what Philly did have to do with Washington?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What does what Philly did have to do with Washington?

The OP

Not only did the Washington Nationals not go "all in" in 2019, but they went "all out" when they let Harper go. The Phillies went "all in" and I don't think they made the playoffs. Or maybe they did win the World Series and the Nationals winning it was a mirage. I would be very happy to see the Twins win the Central again in 2020 and then not go into a coma just because a team has NY on its unis in the playoffs.

 

To answer your question

IGK, you said this post was completely false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The OP

Not only did the Washington Nationals not go "all in" in 2019, but they went "all out" when they let Harper go. The Phillies went "all in" and I don't think they made the playoffs. Or maybe they did win the World Series and the Nationals winning it was a mirage. I would be very happy to see the Twins win the Central again in 2020 and then not go into a coma just because a team has NY on its unis in the playoffs.

 

To answer your question

IGK, you said this post was completely false.

 

It is false they went all out. They raised payroll and added multiple free agents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Trading for Segura and Realmuto, moving top prospects and adding 400 million of payroll over time was just attempting to stay mediocre?

 

But yes, Philly is going for it. And, as I've pointed out, since they signed players this year, they didn't lose that all important "financial flexibility" last year.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Royals fan here (I’ve always seen Twinsbros as kindred spirits and root for you in the playoffs).

 

There is not a single Royals fan I know who thinks that 2015 wasn’t worth it. In fact, if Wade Davis and LoCain don’t get hurt in 2016, we would have likely been back to the playoffs again. In 2017, if Yordano doesn’t tragically pass away, we could have been back then, too. Arguing that the moves we made in 2015 cost us the next two seasons in a zero sum fashion isn’t accurate. However - even if that was true - it would still be worth it. Flags fly forever.

 

The moral is that when you have a chance to go all the way, you take it and don’t look back. All in all, the only productive player we lost through trading was Sean Manaea, and our spending really only prevented us from singing Eric Hosmer. Hos and Manaea wouldn’t have changed our outcomes in 2018 and 2019 (Manaea was even hurt for both of those years).

 

You are all so close to making serious noise in October. It’s nerve-wracking to trade prospects, it is. In fact, the Royals were just 6 outs away at Minute Maid Park to being bounced in the 2015 ALDS. But honestly, if that had happened? It still would have been worth it. At the end of the day, we would have traded Sean Manaea for a chance to go all the way - and that still would have been totally worth it.

 

I’m rooting for you all next year. With the White Sox making noise this offseason, I’d love for you to make a few big moves to keep the Central out of their reach ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Royals fan here (I’ve always seen Twinsbros as kindred spirits and root for you in the playoffs).

There is not a single Royals fan I know who thinks that 2015 wasn’t worth it. In fact, if Wade Davis and LoCain don’t get hurt in 2016, we would have likely been back to the playoffs again. In 2017, if Yordano doesn’t tragically pass away, we could have been back then, too. Arguing that the moves we made in 2015 cost us the next two seasons in a zero sum fashion isn’t accurate. However - even if that was true - it would still be worth it. Flags fly forever.

The moral is that when you have a chance to go all the way, you take it and don’t look back. All in all, the only productive player we lost through trading was Sean Manaea, and our spending really only prevented us from singing Eric Hosmer. Hos and Manaea wouldn’t have changed our outcomes in 2018 and 2019 (Manaea was even hurt for both of those years).

You are all so close to making serious noise in October. It’s nerve-wracking to trade prospects, it is. In fact, the Royals were just 6 outs away at Minute Maid Park to being bounced in the 2015 ALDS. But honestly, if that had happened? It still would have been worth it. At the end of the day, we would have traded Sean Manaea for a chance to go all the way - and that still would have been totally worth it.

I’m rooting for you all next year. With the White Sox making noise this offseason, I’d love for you to make a few big moves to keep the Central out of their reach ;)

Thanks for your perspective ... and your support against the White Sox! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Owning a MLB baseball team, or any professional sports team, certainly does not fit economics 101. The business is an outlier, and really, there are no rules on what owners will, could, should, or decide to do. They are not a first source of income or wealth. They are a hobby. That might be the only part of owning a MLB team that fits in economics 101. And when you have a billionaires like Pohlads as owner, there truly are no rules that must be followed.

 

 

 

This is not in the vicinity of today's reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is absolutely the truth. If a businessman buys a professional team to make mega money, he's living in a dream world. I'll say it again, if the owners of the Reds, Royals, Twins, Pirates, etc. wanted to spend the bucks, they absolutely could do so! They don't want to, it's their choice, of course, but let's not live in this fantasy land that these owners are counting every cent. They just choose not to spend. 

 

 

Back this up please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is absolutely the truth. If a businessman buys a professional team to make mega money, he's living in a dream world. I'll say it again, if the owners of the Reds, Royals, Twins, Pirates, etc. wanted to spend the bucks, they absolutely could do so! They don't want to, it's their choice, of course, but let's not live in this fantasy land that these owners are counting every cent. They just choose not to spend. 

 

Owning a MLB baseball team, or any professional sports team, certainly does not fit economics 101. The business is an outlier, and really, there are no rules on what owners will, could, should, or decide to do. They are not a first source of income or wealth. They are a hobby. That might be the only part of owning a MLB team that fits in economics 101. And when you have a billionaires like Pohlads as owner, there truly are no rules that must be followed.

Owners do not lose money on the sports in in the higher level of sports. The arena football leagues folded because of lack of money, The spring football leagues and others have folded for a lack of money. How many soccer teams have folded? The sports team may be a hobby, but they they do follow one rule, do not spend more than you make.  Find a baseball club that spent more than they made. Tigers had a huge payroll when they signed Zimmerman and Upton. Payroll was still 100 million less than revenue. The first clue they run a lean scouting department is all of their successful drafts. 

Billionaires did not become billionaires by having 100 million dollar hobbies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owners do not lose money on the sports in in the higher level of sports. The arena football leagues folded because of lack of money, The spring football leagues and others have folded for a lack of money. How many soccer teams have folded? The sports team may be a hobby, but they they do follow one rule, do not spend more than you make. Find a baseball club that spent more than they made. Tigers had a huge payroll when they signed Zimmerman and Upton. Payroll was still 100 million less than revenue. The first clue they run a lean scouting department is all of their successful drafts.

Billionaires did not become billionaires by having 100 million dollar hobbies.

Billionaires did not become poor by having multi-million dollar hobbies either. The values of teams go up at such a rate that losing money in any given year or series of years doesn’t make much of a difference.

 

In club soccer in Europe, FIFA had to institute Financial Fair Play rules you prevent wealthy owners from running teams at too much of a deficit. It’s not at all uncommon for wealthy owners to spend their own money to make their teams the best in the world because that is more important to them than making money in the short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of the successful, championship winning teams in recent years have generally consisted of homegrown, organizationally developed lineups.

 

When the homegrown position players peak, the front offices have gone out and signed or traded prospects for established pitching.  

 

Obviously exceptions can be pointed out like Strasburg (he was drafted by Washington), but he seems to be more the exception than the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Billionaires did not become poor by having multi-million dollar hobbies either. The values of teams go up at such a rate that losing money in any given year or series of years doesn’t make much of a difference.

In club soccer in Europe, FIFA had to institute Financial Fair Play rules you prevent wealthy owners from running teams at too much of a deficit. It’s not at all uncommon for wealthy owners to spend their own money to make their teams the best in the world because that is more important to them than making money in the short term.

Europe is not America

Could you please name a baseball team that has spent the owner's money for payroll. I see people post all the time about Pohlads should spend their own money for salary. Why should they do a different model from what has been done before. Baseball has always been about making someone money. The Wilpons used the revenue to pay their share of the Madof(sic, I forgot the exact spelling)   There was 220 some million revenue for the Marlins. You think the owners aren't going cheap on the payroll to recoup their investment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe is not America

Could you please name a baseball team that has spent the owner's money for payroll. I see people post all the time about Pohlads should spend their own money for salary. Why should they do a different model from what has been done before. Baseball has always been about making someone money. The Wilpons used the revenue to pay their share of the Madof(sic, I forgot the exact spelling) There was 220 some million revenue for the Marlins. You think the owners aren't going cheap on the payroll to recoup their investment

I didn’t say that any owners of MLB teams dig into their own pockets for payroll. Just saying that it wouldn’t hurt them if they did. The value in the investment alone far exceeds concerns over operating costs. It could be viewed like a real estate investment, where you don’t make any money, and you spend a lot on development, until you sell the project. And there are a lot of examples of businesses in which owners make investment with an eye towards building value, rather than short-term profit.

 

When fans defend the owners not spending money on players salaries based on some kind of financial necessity, it seems naive to me. No owner of any MLB team has ever lost money by overpaying players. All owners can afford a high payroll roster, whether you own the Twins or the Yankees. Some simply are willing to spend more than others at the risk of making less money in any given year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Europe is not America

Could you please name a baseball team that has spent the owner's money for payroll. I see people post all the time about Pohlads should spend their own money for salary. Why should they do a different model from what has been done before. Baseball has always been about making someone money. The Wilpons used the revenue to pay their share of the Madof(sic, I forgot the exact spelling)   There was 220 some million revenue for the Marlins. You think the owners aren't going cheap on the payroll to recoup their investment

 

How about then, when FO keeps salaries down one season and they make bank? Yet the next season, that extra income isn't invested? Does that count? Or does that money disappear as soon as the season ends? 

 

It's quite OK, to take a hit for a season or two if you have banked up enough the prior few in order to try and win a championship. This ownership has never done that though. If they had, there would be more folks that defend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How about then, when FO keeps salaries down one season and they make bank? Yet the next season, that extra income isn't invested? Does that count? Or does that money disappear as soon as the season ends? 

 

It's quite OK, to take a hit for a season or two if you have banked up enough the prior few in order to try and win a championship. This ownership has never done that though. If they had, there would be more folks that defend them.

a. Never is a long time.   Pohlad got 2 World Series and had the Twins' payroll on the top half of the league's payroll in the late 80s - early 90s.

 

b. (The facts for this are here.)  The Minnesota Twins had $14 Million operating income (AKA "profit") last season.  The were half a big contract away from losing money.   It is not like they are making a whole bunch of $.  From that previous link, their franchise value is $1.2 Billion (btw they are 23rd in value in MLB, and their player payroll was 18th, so they are overspending if anything.)  That $14 million return of an $1.2 Billion investment is 1.16%,  which is way way under-performing even savings accounts.  If anything, the Twins are overspending, if you look at it as a business; in other words, they are investing more in their business to reap future profits.

 

c. Also, the last few seasons the Twins have invested more money than ever in player development, coaches, facilities, academies, etc.  They must have quadrupled their previous investment in that area by now, and that has started to pay dividends and will continue to do so in an even higher degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196669/revenue-of-the-minnesota-twins-since-2006/ - REVENUE

 

 

It has been said around here that Twins have a number of 52% of revenues will be re-invested in payrolls. By looking at this chart, that has not happened every year. In fact, most years its not close. Have they invested less than that? Yes, multiple times. Have they invested more than that? NO, not in this example except in 2011. However, they quickly reduced it the years following to cover that. 

 

My point is. This franchise has never taken profits from one season and used it towards payroll the next. They won't. They have to make what they have to make. If that means losing or letting guys go, they will do so. It's a business to them 100%. They hire people to make sure they don't ever mess this up. 

 

This is why people don't trust them or take anything they say at face value. They don't follow through with what they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

b. (The facts for this are here.) The Minnesota Twins had $14 Million operating income (AKA "profit") last season. The were half a big contract away from losing money. It is not like they are making a whole bunch of $. From that previous link, their franchise value is $1.2 Billion (btw they are 23rd in value in MLB, and their player payroll was 18th, so they are overspending if anything.) .

These estimates are from 2018, not 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When fans defend the owners not spending money on players salaries based on some kind of financial necessity, it seems naive to me. No owner of any MLB team has ever lost money by overpaying players. All owners can afford a high payroll roster, whether you own the Twins or the Yankees. Some simply are willing to spend more than others at the risk of making less money in any given year.

 

I have not seen any post that suggesting financial necessity. Owners and pro athletes are all in this to make money. Gewt used to it. This is also not a complex financial equation. It makes all the difference in the world if you are the Yankees or the Twins. When the Yankees spend $257M on payroll as projected for 2020, they are still going to be very profitable. The Twins would lose in the neighborhood of $100M. We are dealing with estimates but how complicated is it that a team with $400M in incremental revenue will not be losing money money. The scenario suggested here is that small market owners take huge sums on money out of their own pockets while large market teams make $50-100M/yr. 

 

If an owner was willing to take $50 or $100M out of their pockets, I would sure hope they would donate it to supporting military vets / battered women shelters / homeless shelters / cancer research / children's hospitals etc. than add a couple players to their team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

a. Never is a long time.   Pohlad got 2 World Series and had the Twins' payroll on the top half of the league's payroll in the late 80s - early 90s.

 

b. (The facts for this are here.)  The Minnesota Twins had $14 Million operating income (AKA "profit") last season.  The were half a big contract away from losing money.   It is not like they are making a whole bunch of $.  From that previous link, their franchise value is $1.2 Billion (btw they are 23rd in value in MLB, and their player payroll was 18th, so they are overspending if anything.)  That $14 million return of an $1.2 Billion investment is 1.16%,  which is way way under-performing even savings accounts.  If anything, the Twins are overspending, if you look at it as a business; in other words, they are investing more in their business to reap future profits.

 

c. Also, the last few seasons the Twins have invested more money than ever in player development, coaches, facilities, academies, etc.  They must have quadrupled their previous investment in that area by now, and that has started to pay dividends and will continue to do so in an even higher degree.

 

Wow. Another example of using baseball and its profits as business. Except, baseball is a closed club. One must be approved to buy a team. Calvin Griffith had to sell to the Pohlads for MLB. Except, baseball clubs (exception SF Giants) have the public fund their businesses like getting stadiums. Except, the dollars we read are all estimates because these are private businesses and we DO NOT know.

The Pohlads are decent citizens by many accounts and I have supported them, but they certainly don't  need a legion of apologists for how they handle their money.

I can't decide which is worse, ripping the Pohlads or being their public defender.

 

To the topic though ... I would like to see the Twins take a chance once or twice on a player. It sure seemed like there were years when the Twins won the division under Gardy when one or two players could have helped. It sure seems like one or two players now could help now too. The Wild took a chance and even their disappointed fans appreciate that effort.

One last item - Kansas City was really a fun team to watch and their fans remember those teams fondly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BTW, Toronto should also be mentioned in this discussion. I think it was 4 or 5 years ago that they went all-in and got nothing. Now they are nowhere. They have been reported to have agreed to terms with Ryu, but if that comes to pass it would at best move them up to contention for a winning record.

They lost the ALCS in 6 games to the eventual WS champs. 

 

For reference, that Toronto team came closer to a WS than the Twins have been in almost 30 years. They also won more playoff games that postseason than MN has won this entire decade. I'd say the Jays are an argument for pushing in, rather than shooting for sustained mediocrity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have not seen any post that suggesting financial necessity. Owners and pro athletes are all in this to make money. Gewt used to it. This is also not a complex financial equation. It makes all the difference in the world if you are the Yankees or the Twins. When the Yankees spend $257M on payroll as projected for 2020, they are still going to be very profitable. The Twins would lose in the neighborhood of $100M. We are dealing with estimates but how complicated is it that a team with $400M in incremental revenue will not be losing money money. The scenario suggested here is that small market owners take huge sums on money out of their own pockets while large market teams make $50-100M/yr. 

 

If an owner was willing to take $50 or $100M out of their pockets, I would sure hope they would donate it to supporting military vets / battered women shelters / homeless shelters / cancer research / children's hospitals etc. than add a couple players to their team.

First, I never said that the Twins could spend as much as the Yankees. To imply that i did is insulting. If your argument comes down to "the Yankees can spend more than the Twins because they have more revenues," you're knocking down a straw man that has never been argued on this site by anyone . . . ever.

 

You obviously did not get my point in using the Yankees as a contrast to the Twins, and that EVEN the owners of the Twins can afford a high payroll. They can, even using conservative numbers. And people who argue that paying players more money will handicap the team going forward are naive to think that, in my opinion. People have been blaming Mauer for years, unjustly, for how much he was paid, claiming that it prevented the owners from getting other players that would help our team. Now, it's a hypothetical expensive pitcher who is going to prevent us from getting other players that would help our team in future years. I think that is incorrect.

 

As far as how much goes to charity? I'd trust the players to use a much higher percentage of any "$50 or $100 million" that is up for debate towards charitable causes than I would the owners. So I think that's a terrible argument in favor of advocating stinginess by the owners. Although, I did just watch A Christmas Carol, so it's never too late . . . . ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...