DeRosa To Indians/Aaron Miles to Cubs/Improving The 2009 Twins
December 31st, 2008 by ubelmann
Tags: 2009, Aaron Miles, Brendan Harris, Casey Blake, Mark DeRosa, Minnesota Twins, Nick Punto, Replacement Level, UZR
DeRosa has been traded to the Cleveland Indians for minor league pitchers Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer and John Gaub. DeRosa will likely slide into Cleveland's opening at third base.
I'm sure this will irk fans who long for the Twins to do something and especially those who would like the Twins to add someone they've heard of before, but DeRosa wouldn't really be a significant upgrade.
In related infielding news, the Cubs signed Aaron Miles. Elsewhere, I've seen the total value of the contract listed at 2 years/$4.9M.
For these two infielders, some internal options, and other names we've heard this offseason, let's look at projected wOBA (as determined by Marcel the Monkey), and career OPS+.
.394 wOBA, 147 OPS+ -- A-Rod
.350 wOBA, 97 OPS+ -- DeRosa
.335 wOBA, 105 OPS+ -- Blake
.329 wOBA, 97 OPS+ -- Harris
.323 wOBA, 93 OPS+ -- Buscher
.308 wOBA, 77 OPS+ -- Miles
.299 wOBA, 74 OPS+ -- Punto
.290 WOBA, 67 OPS+ -- Cesar Izturis
DeRosa's a little younger than Blake, which is likely the main reason his projected wOBA is better than Blake's. DeRosa has been much better than his career averages over the last three years, which is likely the main reason that his projected wOBA is better than Harris'.
First we see that none of the non-Rods are elite hitters and Punto isn't so bad when you compare him to other guys who have gotten similar 2-year deals this offseason. If we're considering these guys as potential full-time players, let's look at how many runs above average their wOBA would make them over 550 PA:
29.7 -- A-Rod
8.6 -- DeRosa
1.4 -- Blake
-1.4 -- Harris
-4.3 -- Buscher
-11.5 -- Miles
-15.8 -- Punto
-20.1 -- Izturis
DeRosa is better at the plate than Harris and Buscher, by maybe about one win over the course of the season. Then it becomes a matter of how well everyone can field. Defensive stats are a bit of a mess for a number of reasons, but let's take a look at career UZR per 150 games at third base for these guys. There are definitely sample size issues here, and I don't think all of these ratings make sense, but it will give us a place to start the conversation.
18.7 -- Punto
8.2 -- Izturis
0.9 -- A-Rod
??? -- Miles
-3.4 -- Blake
-4.1 -- DeRosa
-12.8 -- Buscher
-18.3 -- Harris
First things first--I think that Punto's rating and Harris' rating are each too extreme. No one else seems to rate Punto that high at 3B and I would guess that he's closer to a +10 defender at 3B. Harris, on the other hand, has started only 39 career games at 3B, so there are extreme sample size issues with that number. UZR has him as a -3.9 runs/150G defender at 2B and a -9.9 runs/150G defender at 3B. Compared to other metrics, I think that's generous, but given his tools and the information from 200 games started at 2B/SS, I think it's reasonable to expect that Harris can be a -5 defender at 3B. Optimistically, I would guess he's average and pessimistically, I think -10 is about right at 3B.
Taking those things into consideration, and rounding to emphasize that these are rough measures, here is how I would rate those players as defenders at third base, in runs above average:
10 -- Izturis
10 -- Punto
0 -- A-Rod
0 -- Miles
-5 -- Blake
-5 -- DeRosa
-5 -- Harris
-10 -- Buscher
Using those defensive estimates, we get, for overall value at third base, in runs above average:
30 -- A-Rod
4 -- DeRosa
-4 -- Blake
-6 -- Punto
-6 -- Harris
-10 -- Izturis
-12 -- Miles
-14 -- Buscher
Of the group, I also have the least confidence in Buscher since he had an awfully weak history before the last couple of years and I'm most concerned about his defense, which could very well be worse than -10.
The more I look at it, the more I would lean towards making Harris the full-time 3B, with Buscher playing against tough right-handed pitchers or when we're not as concerned about infield defense. Harris seems more or less to be Casey Blake from 6-8 years ago, and we doesn't cost us anything to acquire him.
I think DeRosa would have been an upgrade. But he would have been a small upgrade, and for an extra $5.5M in salary, plus giving up more talent than the Indians gave up. I'm not sure at all about how good those minor league pitchers are (I suspect they aren't very good), but I'm sure that they have some value. $5.5M and low-value prospects are more than I would have given up for one extra win.
The Twins did a lot last offseason, and they did have done very little this offseason, but given their performances in 2007 and 2008, I think that makes sense. In 2007 we had a number of below-replacement-level performances. Upgrading from awful to mediocre is the easiest kind of improvement that you can make.
In 2008, a big reason that the Twins improved is that they had barely any below-replacement-level performances. Monroe and Everett, for instance, were annoying, but as a group they were only as far below replacement level as Darnell McDonald, Matt LeCroy, and Chris Heintz were (as a group) for the Twins in 2007. Mike Lamb was all kinds of fail this year (especially when you include his glove), but that's nothing compared to the devastation that Rabe, Garrett Jones, Luis Rodriguez, Rondell White, Alexi Casilla, and Nick Punto brought us the year before.
All totalled, the Twins improved from -76 runs in below-replacement-level performance in 2007 to just -19 runs in below-replacement-level performance in 2008. That's a 5-6-win improvement in just replacing your worst players with barely adequate players. That's very nearly as good as the difference between A-Rod and a replacement-level third baseman.
I think that's a pretty overlooked part of the '07 to '08 improvement, but it also means that we've more or less exhausted the cheap and easy ways to improve the team--at least in position players. We ought to be scouring the waiver wires and looking for interesting NRIs to shore up the bullpen and rotation depth. Even there, I don't know how much you can realistically expect improvement. On results, Bonser sucked last year, but I suspect he'll be at or above replacement level this year. Bass was also bad, but he wasn't even below replacement level based on runs allowed--so I wouldn't expect for miracles in improving the bullpen.
The Twins have a roster that can be substantially improved for 2009 in three main ways:
1) Fleece someone in a trade
2) Trade future value for present value
3) Spend $$$$ to improve spots where we are okay but not great
The first option always sounds great, but you can't always depend on deals with suckers to come through. The second option probably doesn't make sense for the Twins because money is a very scarce resource for them and prospects usually costs less money than players you would acquire in a trade. The third option doesn't work because we're not lucky enough to be sitting on a 25-million-resident gold mine.
I didn't really plan on coming back to this, but here I am again. For as much as some people want to be delusional about the advantage that the Yankees have, it's ridiculous to think that small-revenue teams like the Twins aren't at a significant disadvantage compared to large-revenue teams when it comes to assembling their roster. I can hope that the Twins can turn fool's gold into gold, but it's not reasonable to expect that, and I see no obvious, significant upgrades for this team.
Terry Ryan built the basis for this team by being patient and not trading the future for one wild run at a ring. Bill Smith would be wise to follow that precedent. Our offseasons are bound to be boring not because of our management, but because of our budget. Until MLB decides to do something about that, it's just the way it is.
freealonzo replied on December 31, 2008 at 7:19:16 pm
I agree with all written here except the dismissal of the Twins "Spending $$$$ to improve spots where we are okay but not great."
Although they couldn't handle a Bosox or Cubs budget, the Twins could easily move up to the $80M to $90M range. As the Twins look like they'll be lucky to hit $60M this year salary-wise, a player or two taking up $20-30M could definitely upgrade a couple of positions.
ubelmann replied on December 31, 2008 at 7:44:10 pm
Although they couldn't handle a Bosox or Cubs budget, the Twins could easily move up to the $80M to $90M range.
Based on what? All we have to go on here is the cynical belief that Pohlad has decided to give Bill Smith an artificially small budget or that Bill Smith isn't using the money that he has at his disposal. I'm quite sure that Smith would use money if it was available, so then we're left with figuring out what the Twins' revenues and costs were last year.
Also, it's not just as easy as the 2009 budget, since plenty of our younger players will be getting raises starting in 2010. It's difficult to sign premium talent to short-term contracts.
If someone has proof that the Twins are allocating less of their revenue to baseball operations than other teams do, I'm all ears, but until then I have no way of knowing what the Twins can spend, and I certainly wouldn't say that they could easily spend $80M or $90M this year. Pohlad isn't Santa Claus, but he's not Jeffrey Loria, either.
DK replied on December 31, 2008 at 9:00:25 pm
I think future planning is a huge part of year-to-year budgetary concerns. It amazes me in a way that some Twins fans get up in arms about the organization not wanting to overpay for marginal upgrades and then get their pants in a bunch over some Shooter blather about how the Red Sox like Joe Mauer. Once the organization reaches the point of considering trying to extend Mauer, it's going to be helpful to not be owing things like another 5.25 million to a 38-year-old Casey F'ing Blake.
CarterHayes replied on January 1, 2009 at 2:44:14 am
All we have to go on here is the cynical belief that Pohlad has decided to give Bill Smith an artificially small budget or that Bill Smith isn't using the money that he has at his disposal. ... If someone has proof that the Twins are allocating less of their revenue to baseball operations than other teams do, I'm all ears, but until then I have no way of knowing what the Twins can spend, and I certainly wouldn't say that they could easily spend $80M or $90M this year.
There's plenty of evidence the Twins could be spending more money than they are. The Brewers' payroll last year approached or exceeded $80 million depending on the source. ESPN claims $74,687,499, while Cot's places the figure at $80,937,499. The Brewers' payrol was ~$20 million higher than the Twins' last year, this despite the team playing in one of the smallest metropolitan media markets in MLB - significantly smaller than the Twin Cites.
And yet, the Brewers' principal owner stated in an interview that an $80 million payroll was an acceptable level, enough to keep the team competitive without cutting into the bottom line:
It seems that Attanasio realizes that he has to spend money to make money. The increased payroll (judiciously spent, of course) allowed the Brewers to make the playoffs and increased their total regular season attendance to 3,068,638, up from 2,869,144 in 2007. By contrast, though the Twins fell only one game short of the playoffs, they drew a measly 2,302,611 in 2008, up only 6,228 from their non-contending 2007.
The Brewers might have fallen short in the Sabathia sweepstakes, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. The Brewers made a pretty honest effort to resign him at a fair price, which would have significantly impacted their payroll over the next few years. Considering the Brewers have a similar number of young impact players on their roster (though at different positions than the Twins' young studs), I'd say in general terms their spending considerations are similar to those of the Twins.
For the Brewers, solving the attendance challenge involved first getting to .500, and then making the playoffs. For the Twins, the challenge involves putting a more exciting team on the field and getting deeper into the playoffs than a four-game ALDS. No one expects them to win the league championship every year or anything, but it would help if they deliver one of these years. The Twins'/Pohlad's deep aversion to spending any more money to acquire some talent that could put the team over the top becomes, in the eyes of many fans, a self-imposed restraint on success.
As for the relationship between cynicism and Carl Pohlad, I think a good dose of cynicism is only healthy at this point. Not only are the citizens of Hennepin County going to be paying for a very expensive playground for the richest owner in the game during a re/depression, but we're talking about the guy who volunteered the team he owns for contraction.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 3:35:09 am
The Brewers have a park that is much more amenable to extracting revenue from the public. The Twins have a park with very, very few seats from first to third and no parking or concessions revenue.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 4:48:34 am
And really, the Twins out-spent the Brewers in 2005 and 2006 despite being in the crappier stadium. So Attanasio is 2-4 in beating the Twins in payroll.
Looking at next year's payroll, even giving some reasonably generous arb salaries to players on Milwaukee's roster (Hardy at $5M, Bush at $5M, Weeks at $2M, Fielder at $4M), I only see 13 players making over the minimum, totaling about $58M for 2009. For the Twins (assuming arb at $3M for Kubel, $1.5M for Guerrier, $1M for Delmon, and $1M for Bonser), I see 14 players making over the minimum, totaling about $56M for 2009. The Twins just might out-spend the Brewers next year.
(Also, the Twins have never drawn 3 million fans for a 90-win season, despite having three of them in the last seven seasons. Maybe at some point Twins fans ought to start blaming themselves, pull their heads out of their asses, and go to more games to support what has been a pretty damned good team over the last 7-8 years.)
For the Twins, the challenge involves putting a more exciting team on the field and getting deeper into the playoffs than a four-game ALDS. No one expects them to win the league championship every year or anything, but it would help if they deliver one of these years.
Pohlad has owned the team since 1984. Despite being in a smaller market and bringing in relatively low revenues, in the last 25 years, I would argue that the Twins have been extremely successful. Assuming that they have a 1-30 chance of winning a WS, we should have expected ~0.83 WS titles and we got 2 WS titles. Assuming that they had a 1-14 chance at an AL title over the last 25 years, we should have expected 1.8 AL titles and we've gotten 2 AL titles. Assuming a 1-7 chance at a division title in 93 and before, and a 1/5 chance at a division title after, we should have expected 4.4 division titles and we've gotten 6 division titles.
The Twins have had more than their fair share of success under Pohlad, even without adjusting for their small-market status.
CarterHayes replied on January 1, 2009 at 12:45:56 pm
And really, the Twins out-spent the Brewers in 2005 and 2006 despite being in the crappier stadium. So Attanasio is 2-4 in beating the Twins in payroll.
The Twins may have outspent the Brewers in 2005 and 2006, but I think the point we're both focusing on is if higher payrolls - judiciously spent - are possible for small market teams that want to contend. When you look at their window of opportunity, it would have done the Brewers no good to spend like sailors in '05 and '06, as Braun and Gallardo were still in the minors and Fielder in his first full year in '06. Their front office likely realized that their window for contention began, at the earliest, in 2007, and when it came around, spending was brought online to advance the talented young team's fortunes. Meanwhile, the Twins have been in a competitive window since 2002 and only once in that time has their payroll been within $15 million of the $80 million threshold. I'm not demanding that the Twins spend $80 million every year regardless of what their playoff chances are. I'm just demanding that they spend that kind of money when they have a serious chance of impacting their success by maintaining a higher level of spending. The point Algonad made about a bit of give and take year-to-year is a good one.
Also, the Twins have never drawn 3 million fans for a 90-win season, despite having three of them in the last seven seasons. Maybe at some point Twins fans ought to start blaming themselves, pull their heads out of their asses, and go to more games to support what has been a pretty damned good team over the last 7-8 years.
The problem here is that the well has been significantly poisoned by the club's ownership. Over the last eight years, the owner has also very nearly killed off the franchise, and he's previously threatened to move the team elsewhere on a number of occasions. Rooting for a team like that is like buying a car from a company that might go bankrupt - some people might be okay with it, but others will spend their money elsewhere. Now that the new ballpark is about to open, that's less of an issue, but the club still needs to demonstrate a commitment to fielding the best team possible, and that means spending money when the occasion warrants it.
Pohlad has owned the team since 1984. Despite being in a smaller market and bringing in relatively low revenues, in the last 25 years, I would argue that the Twins have been extremely successful. Assuming that they have a 1-30 chance of winning a WS, we should have expected ~0.83 WS titles and we got 2 WS titles. Assuming that they had a 1-14 chance at an AL title over the last 25 years, we should have expected 1.8 AL titles and we've gotten 2 AL titles. Assuming a 1-7 chance at a division title in 93 and before, and a 1/5 chance at a division title after, we should have expected 4.4 division titles and we've gotten 6 division titles.
Unfortunately, this just doesn't work in a statistical vacuum. From a statistical standpoint, 25 years is a decently rich data set, and yes, the Twins have been statistically more competitive than one might expect. The problem is that most people don't perceive the team that way.
For example: You and I are likely about the same age. We both grew up watching that great core of mostly-competitive teams in '87-'92. My younger brother, who is headed to college next year, was born in September of '91. His most formative years as a fan began in the Dark Ages leading up to the run of success the Twins have had since 2002. He can easily perceive the recent success, but he also remembers the years of Ron Coomer: All Star. The World Series title in 1991 is something that happened the year he was born, and 1987 might as well be 1887 as far as he's concerned - a nice bit of history to read about, but nothing that really impacts his experience as a Twins fan.
I'd argue most casual fans of any team operate with the same limitations. All of us here possess longer frames of reference, but that skews our perspective. Casual/bandwagon fans won't care about the two World Series Championships in 1987 or 1991, simply because they weren't in 1997 or 2001. Like it or not, those bandwagon fans are the ones that clubs really care about and market toward. Clubs need to keep those fans interested enough to maintain or grow their rate of ticket and merchandise purchases, and going deep into the postseason is the most effective way to build and nurture that level of interest. The increased number of Red Sox hats in ballparks in the last five or so years should be evidence enough of that.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 2:35:12 pm
The point Algonad made about a bit of give and take year-to-year is a good one.
This is a dangerous game for small-market teams, though. What looks like a little bit of give and take one year may include signing a couple of multi-year contracts and/or giving up valuable prospects, which wind up significantly hurting the team in the long run, putting us in the late '90s again. Personally, I think it's almost never in the Twins' benefit to go "all-in" in any given year because there are so many rounds of the playoffs that you just can't increase your odds that significantly. Back with two rounds of 7-game playoffs, it might have made more sense to do that, but I can't see a situation like that arising for the Twins unless they find an atypical free agent or two.
The problem here is that the well has been significantly poisoned by the club's ownership. Over the last eight years, the owner has also very nearly killed off the franchise, and he's previously threatened to move the team elsewhere on a number of occasions. Rooting for a team like that is like buying a car from a company that might go bankrupt - some people might be okay with it, but others will spend their money elsewhere. Now that the new ballpark is about to open, that's less of an issue, but the club still needs to demonstrate a commitment to fielding the best team possible, and that means spending money when the occasion warrants it.
Fans can't have their cake and eat it too. If they don't want to trust Pohlad, fine, don't trust him, go away and quit bitching about how much the team spends because you refuse to give them your money. It's certainly within fans' rights to not support the team by buying tickets, but the consequence of that decision is that the team can't spend as much money.
Unfortunately, this just doesn't work in a statistical vacuum. From a statistical standpoint, 25 years is a decently rich data set, and yes, the Twins have been statistically more competitive than one might expect. The problem is that most people don't perceive the team that way.
Then these people are silly. Look at the Mariners--what have they done so much better than the Twins? They are in a very similar market, over the last 15 years they've lost Griffey, A-Rod, and Randy Johnson--three no-doubt HOFers--and they have never, ever in the history of their franchise, won a playoff series.
Yet, somehow, the Mariners managed to out-draw the Twins this year, in a season where they lost 101 games and where the Twins won 88 games and nearly took the division.
Even in 2006, with the Mariners playing sub-.500 ball and coming off back-to-back 90-loss seasons, and the Twins having a miracle season, the Mariners out-drew the Twins by 200,000 fans.
We barely out-drew Cleveland this year, and what has Cleveland done lately that's been so spectacular?
And it's not even just that the Twins have been good--they've also had legitimate top-notch talent that some team's fans would dream of. Mauer has won the AL batting title twice in the last three years--as a catcher. Back in Puckett's day, I remember people saying that Puckett himself was worth the price of admission. Well, I think that Mauer by himself is worth the price of admission.
We had a five-year stretch where Johan Santana was the best pitcher in baseball and arguably should have earned four Cy Young Awards. Johan Santana by himself was worth the price of admission. Brewers fans went nuts for a couple of months of CC--but we had kind of incentive to go to games for five straight years.
And while I don't think Morneau has been MVP-caliber, a lot of people do, and he's got two top-2 MVP finishes in the last three years. Morneau is nearly worth the price of admission.
Before that, you had Hunter running around playing elite defense for a while and then simply very, very good defense, while popping one out of the yard every now and then.
Either other teams have more hardcore fans or we have unrealistic standards of success, because other teams can draw comparably well with worse on-field results or they can out-draw us with comparable on-field results. And again, if fans don't want to go support the team, that's within their rights, but without increased fan support, payroll isn't going to go up, so there's no use complaining about it.
CarterHayes replied on January 1, 2009 at 3:40:26 pm
Fans can't have their cake and eat it too. If they don't want to trust Pohlad, fine, don't trust him, go away and quit bitching about how much the team spends because you refuse to give them your money. It's certainly within fans' rights to not support the team by buying tickets, but the consequence of that decision is that the team can't spend as much money.
I'm going to assume the "you" here is a generic third person, so I'll try to address it from that perspective.
The thing is, being a fan is different than being a customer or an investor. To simply equate the status of a "good fan" as someone who sponsors a team by paying to attend games is very dangerous and plays into MLB's business scheme: pay for the tickets, buy the concessions and the way overpriced merch, subscribe to the Game Day feeds, etc. but don't put any thought or passion into following a team and thinking critically about it, because we can't make money off that. Blogs like the WGOM, USSM, even sites like Baseball Prospectus and THT fall outside that definition of fandom because MLB doesn't see a penny from all the thought and dedication on which these sites thrive.
Think about it for a second. Is a Twins fan who lives in California and attends 1-2 games out of the year (at best) but follows the team religiously, even in the offseason, less of a fan than the big spender who buys season tickets with company money and never goes to a game? What about comparing the working dad who lives in Madison or Fargo and has to figure out how to work in the cost of transportation and lodging to see more than a handful of games a year to the blue-collar dad who lives in St. Anthony and doesn't have to consider those things?
Equating a good fan with a good consumer is simply bogus.
Unfortunately, this just doesn't work in a statistical vacuum. From a statistical standpoint, 25 years is a decently rich data set, and yes, the Twins have been statistically more competitive than one might expect. The problem is that most people don't perceive the team that way.
Then these people are silly. Look at the Mariners--what have they done so much better than the Twins? They are in a very similar market, over the last 15 years they've lost Griffey, A-Rod, and Randy Johnson--three no-doubt HOFers--and they have never, ever in the history of their franchise, won a playoff series.
People are silly - even fickle? Imagine that.
Seriously, most people don't care about what happened ten years ago, much less a quarter century ago. That bears out in baseball as easily as it does in politics. In both cases, the majority of the people who participate in some way are underinformed and make decisions based on underquantifiable criteria. When something falls outside the scope of statistical analysis, is it SOP to simply call it "silly" and disregard or discredit it?
The questions you're asking are good. Why does Seattle outdraw the Twins despite their comparable lack of success? Why did the Twins barely outdraw Cleveland despite being the better team? The answers don't lie in dismissing Twins fans as "silly" relative to the fans in Seattle or Cleveland, but they are out there somewhere.
I can tell you're frustrated by the argument, ubes. It doesn't fit cleanly into analysis like we'd prefer. But the point is, people often aren't rational about what teams they root for or the politicians they vote for. The best we can do is look at the data sets and make some inferences based on what we see there - maybe we even figure out that the Twins are underutilizing their market relative to Seattle and Cleveland. But we don't get to that point if we just dismiss fans out of hand as silly. You're better than that, man, and I say that with great admiration for everything you've written.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 10:03:54 pm
Here's the bottom line--Twins fans want a higher payroll but have been unwilling to purchase more than 2.3M tickets per season despite loads of on-field talent, very good results, and significantly below-average ticket prices. Apparently, they want not only that, but for the Twins to achieve those results through a particular means, namely signing big-name free agents. Quite frankly, Twins fans are not as supportive of their club as fans in other cities and other situations are. I don't know exactly how much more evidence I would need to show that.
I mean, I think the system needs fixing, but you're not getting a higher payroll unless you start feeding the beast.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 3:54:30 am
The Brewers might have fallen short in the Sabathia sweepstakes, but it wasn't for a lack of trying
From the rumors I heard, the Twins' best offer to Santana was similar to Milwaukee's best offer for Sabathia. In Santana's case, he manipulated his no-trade clause to get the most money, and in Sabathia's case, he used his free agent status to get the most money.
As for the relationship between cynicism and Carl Pohlad, I think a good dose of cynicism is only healthy at this point. Not only are the citizens of Hennepin County going to be paying for a very expensive playground for the richest owner in the game during a re/depression, but we're talking about the guy who volunteered the team he owns for contraction.
Some cynicism is fair enough, but at some point I want evidence. Show me the money trail and I'll agree that Pohlad could reasonably be putting more money into the team. If there's no evidence to support the claim, I might as well be complaining about how A-Rod's no good because he's not clutch. Maybe it's true, but I have a feeling that people simply scrutinize him more because he gets paid a lot.
Personally, I think that Pohlad catches a lot of heat because he's Carl "the richest owner in baseball" Pohlad, but if I told you that the Rays' owner was the richest man in baseball, would that immediately make him a tight-fisted good-for-nothing owner? The Phillies are in the fifth largest media market* in the US, and they've never cracked $100M in payroll, even with a new stadium in a city that is renowned for being sports-crazed. Is Pohlad more miserly than their owner? Not only do I not really have any idea what the Twins' revenue, costs, or total baseball operational costs are, I wouldn't have any context for those numbers until I know what those numbers are for all (or at least most) of the teams in the league.
*Minneapolis is 14th on that list, and I think it might be reasonable to expect them to have a median-ish payroll after they've been in their new stadium a few years, but right now, I think the Dome significantly hampers their ability to extract money from their consumers.
zooomx replied on January 1, 2009 at 7:13:52 am
I had an extended, and heated, conversation with my family at Christmas about the Twins payroll issues. I agree with you on Pohlad, ubes. Obviously, I wish he would pony up a bit more cash so we can sign better players, but you cannot argue with the success the Twins have had with limited revenue resources. One just cannot expect Pohlad to personally pump in 10's of millions to try to compete with the Bostons and New Yorks in spending.
Instead, as an ownership group, the Pohlads have built competitive teams through a consistent approach of growing your own talent. I think with the new stadium, we will see more spending, but only in a way that does not undermine the teams basic philosophies. I would much rather follow, and root for a team like the Twins, than a team like the Sawks, Yankees, or Mets.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on December 31, 2008 at 9:36:03 pm
I was surprised to hear about the Miles signing. He was well-liked in StL and played a Punto-esque multiple number of positions for the Cards last year.
I know people want to bad-mouth Pohlad for being tight-fisted with his budget, but I'd much rather have that than the opposite (re: Steinbrenner) situation. Even if it means we're at a big disadvantage.
Algonad replied on January 1, 2009 at 10:18:53 am
I'm going to agree with freealonzo on this one. I've read in the Star Tribune that the Twins budget 50-52% of revenue to player salaries and that they were comfortable with a $70 million salary budget for 2007. This is what the Twins feed the media so I have no idea if it is true or not.
Assuming that $70 million is the midpoint of 51%, that would put revenue at about $137 million. If we assume their budget targets a net profit of 10% of revenue, we can back into other expenses of about $53.5 million. Profit would be $13.7 million.
The Hardball Times had a baseball finance article where they used 14 times earnings as the benchmark for franchise value. Forbes valued the Twins at $180 million in 2007 (previous to the new stadium approval). $180 million is 13 times $13.7 million so I'm guessing the $13.7 million is in the ballpark.
If we assume total revenue is up 3% in 2008 compared to 2007 (basically just inflation since attendance was fairly flat), revenue would be $141 million. According to Cot's, payroll was $57 million. Assuming the same 3% increase in other expenses, results in profit of $29 million or 21% of revenue. 2008 profit ends up $15 million above the acceptable budget.
I'm fine with the occasional year of below-budget player salaries, but we have to have some comparable above-budget years too. I've seen estimates of revenue increases of $20-$40 million per year for the new stadium. If you take the midpoint and still fix player salaries at 51% of revenue, you could expect budgeted player salaries of $89 million in 2010. If Carl "pays back" that extra $15 million from 2008, that could equate to $104 million. If Carl does that, I'll be satisfied with his low payroll in 2008 (and probably 2009). If not, Carl is being cheap.
Remember, Carl paid $44 million in 1984 for this team and it is now valued at $328 million. That's about a 9% compound annual return without considering the yearly cash flow he's taken from the business. I don't expect Carl to fund the organization beyond what it generates but since the new stadium was approved he has underfunded the team. That's fine for 2008 and 2009 but he better be building up to breaking the bank in 2010!
Algonad replied on January 1, 2009 at 10:19:49 am
And here are some sources:
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/10/09/3815/are_pro_sports_in_minnesota_recession-proof_ticket_prices_may_tell_the_story
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/minnesota-twins_17.html
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-can-gms-increase-the-value-of-their-franchise/
brianS replied on January 1, 2009 at 11:07:10 am
so, what you are saying is that baseball teams are good investments?
Algonad replied on January 1, 2009 at 5:30:30 pm
Not as good as repossessing farms during the Great Depression but pretty good, yeah.
CarterHayes replied on January 1, 2009 at 12:58:37 pm
I'm fine with the occasional year of below-budget player salaries, but we have to have some comparable above-budget years too.
Exactly. I don't think any of us expect the team to spend $80 million year in, year out. The point is that the club spends the extra money when it has a serious chance of making hay.
I don't expect Carl to fund the organization beyond what it generates but since the new stadium was approved he has underfunded the team. That's fine for 2008 and 2009 but he better be building up to breaking the bank in 2010!
Unfortunately, I doubt the club will spend much more on free agents in 2010 than they have in recent years past. The Assistant GM doesn't seem to think so, either:
So, with the opening of their new ballpark, the Twins will be able to retain Joe Mauer or Michael Cuddyer beyond 2010 if they so choose, but their ability (or willingness) to pursue other free agents won't be dramatically improved? Isn't that essentially the same situation they're in now?
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 2:05:08 pm
So, with the opening of their new ballpark, the Twins will be able to retain Joe Mauer or Michael Cuddyer beyond 2010 if they so choose, but their ability (or willingness) to pursue other free agents won't be dramatically improved? Isn't that essentially the same situation they're in now?
If they do keep Mauer beyond 2010, they will have to sign him as a free agent, unless they extend him next off-season, in which case they'll still be paying almost all of what he would make as a free agent. As far as I can recall, the last player the Twins re-signed who actually became a free agent was Shannon Stewart. And Joe Mauer is going to potentially be the best position player free agent since Alex Rodriguez in 2000.
Without a significant boost in payroll to the $85-95M level, I don't think that the Twins can keep Mauer on a contract that fits in their budget and keeps them competitive. Without the new stadium, Joe Mauer becomes the new Johan Santana--one of the top 10 best players in baseball who the Twins can't afford to keep.
(Of course, it would also be easier to keep Mauer if the Twins hadn't committed $14M/year for Morneau's age 30, 31, and 32 seasons, but most people scoffed when I suggested that Morneau's extension could turn out to be a problem for the Twins, and I'm guessing that just in general, people want to keep Morneau around.)
CarterHayes replied on January 1, 2009 at 3:48:16 pm
Of course, it would also be easier to keep Mauer if the Twins hadn't committed $14M/year for Morneau's age 30, 31, and 32 seasons, but most people scoffed when I suggested that Morneau's extension could turn out to be a problem for the Twins, and I'm guessing that just in general, people want to keep Morneau around.
Agreed. The point isn't necessarily spending money because it's there, but spending it wisely and upping the ante when the club's hand is stronger. The Morneau extension was a poor idea, even when a presumably higher payroll from the new ballpark is taken into account, simply because it hamstrings the team's ability to retain Mauer and make significant upgrades at other, more expensive-to-man-competitively positions.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 1:57:41 pm
Okay, it's time for me to use a lazy argument that constantly gets used against me when I try to advocate using . Who were we going to sign in 2007 for $13M that would have significantly improved the organization? Was that $13M in one particular year really the problem?
I guess I would say, well, maybe they could have maybe signed Mike Cameron, but that didn't really fit in with the Twins' plan of bringing Delmon on board (which for better or worse was a plan aimed at 2010 over 2008.) Had the Twins kept Bartlett/Garza and brought aboard Mike Cameron, they would have been a lot better, but the Delmon trade wasn't even a salary dump, so I would tend to say that Cameron just didn't fit in with the Twins' plans. Cameron would have been nice because he required only a short commitment, but I'm not sure how many other players out there would have been worthwhile and required only a 2-year commitment.
Another thing is that with attendance essentially flat over the last three years, I wonder if the team went a little over budget in 2007. Come to think of it, that may have been in part why the Twins wound up spending less on draft bonuses in 2007 than many fans wanted them to spend. Based on the bonuses that are listed at Cot's baseball contracts, over the last three years, the Twins spent $2.8M in 2006, $1.1M in 2007, and $5.24M in 2008 on draft signing bonuses. Adding that to overall payroll evens things out a little bit to $66.2M, $72.5M, and $62M. Still a decrease in spending this year, but not as large, and in general I don't keep in touch with how much the Twins spend on international free agents. Certainly they don't make international FA signings that are as flashy as some other bigger budget teams, but the Twins could reasonably still spend ~$1-5M/year on them and it probably fluctuates from year-to-year somewhat.
That's fine for 2008 and 2009 but he better be building up to breaking the bank in 2010!
He might need fairly significant increases in payroll in 2010 just to keep the current team together. I'm never 100% sure who is eligible for arbitration when, but it looks to me that Kubel, Guerrier, Bonser, Harris, Baker, Liriano, and maybe Young are eligible this year. For 25 players, I get around $64.5M that the Twins are already committed to in 2009, including those arb. raises. Over the course of the season, they'll probably need ~5 more min. contracts, and I also suspect that they might yet make a $3-5M pickup on a 1-year deal, so figure 2009 is somewhere in the range of $67-72M.
In 2010, Lamb, Redmond, and (I suspect) Breslow will come off the books. I also think that Gomez becomes arb. eligible that year. Including various other raises built into contracts, I get the Twins committed to ~$79M for 2010 on 22 players. Figuring 8 more minimum contracts, that would put them at about $82M in 2010.
2011 is the really interesting year thanks to Mauer. In my estimation, Mauer as a free agent--even taking a hometown discount--will make annually about what Teixeira just signed for. There's the catcher-longevity question, so years are a question, but Pudge got 4 years as a 32-year-old and Mauer will be just 28 in the first year of that contract. I figure with the hometown discount, the very least it will take to sign him then would be a 6-year, $130M contract with some kind of vesting option for the 7th year. Even then, Mauer will be a way better free agent than Teixeira was this off-season, so it would not surprise me that even with a home-town discount, Mauer would require something like 7 years, $170M to re-sign.
At any rate, supposing that the Twins can actually hold onto Mauer--which is going to be very, very, very expensive--it's probably going to be about $20M/year for the first two years of the deal. Assume that Cuddyer, Punto, Kubel, Crain, Humber, and Neshek all leave that year. That puts the Twins at about $80M in 2011--but for only 16 players. If they pick up Cuddyer's 2011 option, then they're at $90.5M for 17 players in 2011. Even supposing that Cuddyer is a goner, they'll need $400K/player for the last 14 players, they are at about $86M in 2011 and they haven't signed a single free agent from another team. (This is likely a big reason why, even other than his aging, the Twins weren't too interested in paying Casey Blake $5-6M in 2011.)
Going back to this offseason's free agent market, say that the Twins had the means to boost the payroll to $80M this year with premium free agents and that they are only locked into $65M for 2009 already. Unless you can find someone pretty old, $15M/year free agents are going to require a 3-4 year commitment. So in 2011, even if you decline Cuddyer's option, you're looking at a situation where you're committed to $81M before you've signed Mauer. And suppose that you got hurt by injuries in 2010 and didn't win too many games. You could be looking at a big drop in attendance for 2011 (like the Brewers experienced) and all of the sudden you're looking around wondering how you're going to pay Mauer $20M that next year when you might only have $85M to spend.
DK replied on January 1, 2009 at 6:51:22 pm
This is likely a big reason why, even other than his aging, the Twins weren't too interested in paying Casey Blake $5-6M in 2011.
See, great minds think alike! (Or maybe in my case, a blind squirrel finds an acorn.)
E-6 replied on January 1, 2009 at 10:49:37 am
I hear he's so rich he bought his dog a boy.
Twins manager Billy Gardner on Carl Pohlad, 1984.
brianS replied on January 1, 2009 at 11:12:56 am
I've got nothing substantive to add, but I would like to note that this thread was the epitome of the WGOM: informative, respectful-yet-slightly-snarky exchange. It was a pleasure to read. And then E-6 put the cherry on top.
CarterHayes replied on January 1, 2009 at 7:34:06 pm
I'm moving this discussion down to a fresh thread to accommodate the images I'll be posting.
Minneapolis is 14th on that list, and I think it might be reasonable to expect them to have a median-ish payroll after they've been in their new stadium a few years, but right now, I think the Dome significantly hampers their ability to extract money from their consumers.
Let's take a look at the middle third of MLB media markets and see how the Twins fare. Representing that middle third based on the Wikipedia entry ubes linked to, we get (in order of size, largest to smallest) the Astros, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Twins, Indians, Padres, Rockies, Rays, Cardinals, and Braves. Here's how they payrolls of those teams have fluctuated since 2000, using data from Cot's:
I've put the highest payroll in green, followed by the remaining top third in blue, the middle third in orange, and the bottom third in violet. Now, the attendance figures for the same period, using data from ESPN (they don't have offer data for 2000):
Just as above, the highest drawing club is in green, followed by the remaining top third in blue, the middle third in orange, and the bottom third in violet.
A couple of things stick out immediately. First, the Braves are amazingly consistent at drawing fans to Turner Field. They average about 2,562,545 per year, which puts them in the top half of this group despite having the smallest media market. Likewise, St. Louis draws a massive number of fans every year, averaging 3,251,573 fans per year. That's far and away the best average in the group, and St. Louis is the second-smallest market.
Now, St. Louis has a reputation as a baseball town regardless of how well the Cards are performing (though it doesn't hurt that they've been consistently very good over the last eight years), and Atlanta was on a historic run of crazy-goodness until 2006, so I have no problem with setting them aside for a moment as outliers.
The next three teams in order of average attendance are the Mariners (2,933,293), the Astros (2,823,877), and the Padres (2,548,642). This is the key group that the Twins with which should be looking to competitive in terms of payroll and attendance going forward. The Mariners were a pretty good team until 2003, and they play in a newish ballpark. The Astros have maintained their success longer than the M's, and they also play in a newish yard. Finally, though the Padres have been pretty putrid in some years (and pretty decent in others), they've been a pretty solid draw, and their attendance jump coincides with the club's opening of a new park in 2004.
The Diamondbacks Rockies are just a cut below this group. Their parks aren't too much older than the Mariners', and they've had more success in recent years. The Diamondbacks took an attendance hit in 2005 and 2006, but have reloaded with young talent in a weak divison. The Rockies maintained a pretty consistent level of spending (and a consistent level of poor performance) until the lean years of '05 and '06, got younger and gradually improved through 2007, and are now about where they were from 2001-2004 spending-wise and attendance-wise.
And then there's the Twins, the Indians, and the Rays. The Twins have been consistently the best team in the group, with a number of very good players, but they play in an aging, multi-use facility that evolved a bad reputation at the same time the franchise was sucking on a fairly historic level. Despite the success, the Twins have been a consistently underperforming draw at the gate. The Indians have been less consistent, but there are a three good years in there, and the Jake is still a modern facility. As for the Rays, the story is pretty clear: suckitude until this past season, low payrolls, lame facility. No surprises there.
To briefly summarize:
1. Braves - pre-2006 historic run of excellence, newish ballpark, consistently excellent attendance levels
2. Cardinals - baseball town to the core, solid, successful team, new ballpark in 2006
3. Mariners - success expired in 2003, newish ballpark, very solid attendance 2001-2005 has been waning
4. Astros - have remained competitive, newish ballpark, have largely maintained their attendance levels
5. Padres - mix of bad and good teams, new ballpark in 2004, attendance took a hit in 2008
6. Rockies - recent successes, newish ballpark, attendance recovered after lean years
7. Diamondbacks - have gotten younger and better, newish ballpark, attendance recovered after dip in '05-'06
8. Twins - can't translate success on field to butts in the seats, play in maligned old multi-use facility
9. Indians - inconsistently competitive, newish ballpark, consistently poor at the gate since 2003
10. Rays - duh
Looking at the information above, I'm not convinced the Dome is the only thing holding the Twins back from having a higher payroll. While it's true that the Astros, Mariners, Padres, Rockies, and Diamondbacks all have more modern ballparks with the requisite improved revenue streams, so do the Indians. Since the Twins began to increase their payroll into semi-respectable territory in 2002, the club has an average yearly payroll of $56,752,753. Over the same time, the Indians have averaged $57,141,567. The Twins have drawn an average of 2,099,992 fans to the Dome over that period of time; the Indians have drawn 2,088,397 to the Jake in the same period. Perhaps the difference has something to do with the Twins winning four division titles over that time, compared to the Indians' lone title in 2007? Well, the Padres play in an even newer ballpark than the Indians, which means the revenue streams are even more tightly attuned on separating fans from their cash. The Padres have drawn an average of 2,573,048 fans since 2002, but their average payroll isn't much higher than the Indians' or the Twins - $58,530,499. The Padres have even finished first in the NL West twice.
Well, if success is what puts butts in the seats, what explains the Mariners's attendance? Over the same time period discussed above, the Mariners have averaged 2,851,262 in attendance without a single division crown. Sure, they've finished second twice in a four-team division over that period of time, and they have Ichiro and King Felix on the squad, but they've managed to finish last the other four years. The difference in average attendance over San Diego can't be a ton of fans flying in from Oakland, Orange County, and Texas, either.
Maybe it's a combination of a high-profile players and solid on-field performances that bring in the fans? Well, that seems to be the case in Houston, where the fans have been coming in steadily at a average of 2,812,391 per year. The Astros' average payroll since 2002 has been $79,415,048, mainly due to the Astros' willingness to retain (Oswalt, Berkman) or sign (Clemens, Pettitte, Valverde, Lee) high-priced talent as needed. The Astros haven't finished first in the NL Central in that period of time, but have two Wild Card berths to show for their four second place finishes. Their 4-3 loss in the 2004 NLCS and their league championship the next year doubtless helped attendance the following years. The locomotive at the Juice Box might be neat and all, but it seems that the continued competitive performances and the occasional shiny new roster addition are doing the better job of keeping the fans interested and motivated to come down to the ballpark.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 9:48:22 pm
The Padres have drawn an average of 2,573,048 fans since 2002, but their average payroll isn't much higher than the Indians' or the Twins - $58,530,499. The Padres have even finished first in the NL West twice.
So the Padres have a significantly higher attendance (something like 500K/year, a 25% improvement), a newer stadium, and essentially the same payroll as the Twins. Given those circumstances, it seems quite possible to me that the Twins and EVIL CARL POHLAD are putting a larger portion of their revenue into the payroll than the Padres are.
Actually, here's a list average ticket prices in 2008. With 2.3M tickets and an average ticket price of $20.68, we could estimate the Twins' gate revenue at $47M. With 2.4M tickets and an average ticket price of $27.43, we could estimate the Padres' gate revenue at $66M. That's an extra $19M for the Padres, and their payroll was $16M more than the Twins' payroll this year.
The Padres have been actively looking to drastically slash their payroll for next year, and I guarantee that there would be cries for the owner's head if he was EVIL CARL POHLAD.
Well, if success is what puts butts in the seats, what explains the Mariners's attendance?
Beautiful summer weather in an outdoor stadium. Having a good team coupled with the opening of a new stadium gave them league-leading attendance at the beginning of the decade. They drew pretty well in the Kingdome when they played well (certainly better than the Twins have been able to draw under their recent success) but not close to league-leading. Having a nice stadium will help draw more fans, all other things being equal.
Maybe it's a combination of a high-profile players and solid on-field performances that bring in the fans?
The Twins have had high-profile players and solid on-field performances. Morneau's as high-profile as Berkman and Nathan's an elite closer just as Oswalt is an elite starter. And if the Twins could have kept Santana for 5 years, $73M, I'm sure they would have. As it is, the reality of the situation is that the Twins could have kept Santana/Mauer or Santana/Morneau/Nathan or Mauer/Morneau/Nathan. They chose the last option, and I think that's the right choice given Santana's age and the risks associated with 6-7-year pitching contracts. I wouldn't necessarily have always gone with keeping the closer, but it was a pretty short contract and really is minuscule compared to what it would have cost to keep Santana.
If people are disappointed that our high-profile players make their names for themselves while in a Twins uniform, I just don't know what to tell you. I think that's silly. How ecstatic would Royals fans be at the chance to consistently watch star talent like Santana, Mauer, Morneau, and Nathan in Kansas City?
The Twins have been an excellent product on the field the last few years. I guess Twins fans have just been spoiled with the success or something. It's frustrating that we can't print money like the Yankees can, but given the system that is in place, I don't think the Twins could have done substantially better. A little better here, a little better there, sure, but overall they've been managed very well. If you proposed to trade our front office and owner with a randomly selected front office and owner, I would not accept that trade. We, as fans, ought to go to more games or accept that the payroll isn't getting any higher.
Algonad replied on January 1, 2009 at 10:55:17 pm
So the Padres have a significantly higher attendance (something like 500K/year, a 25% improvement), a newer stadium, and essentially the same payroll as the Twins. Given those circumstances, it seems quite possible to me that the Twins and EVIL CARL POHLAD are putting a larger portion of their revenue into the payroll than the Padres are.
I guess I missed where someone said that Carl was evil in this discussion. I thought the discussion was based on whether or not the Twins could afford a higher payroll.
We, as fans, ought to go to more games or accept that the payroll isn't getting any higher.
I don't accept any argument that blames the customers for the success or failure of a business. Baseball, more than any other sport, is about the facility and atmosphere as much as it is about the product on the field. The Metrodome isn't a bad baseball stadium, it's a TERRIBLE baseball stadium.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 11:23:02 pm
I guess I missed where someone said that Carl was evil in this discussion. I thought the discussion was based on whether or not the Twins could afford a higher payroll.
All we know about whether or not the Twins could afford more money on the payroll is a rumor and some guesswork. And again, I think there are practical concerns at play where it is not that easy to increase the payroll significantly on one- or two-year contracts and the Twins need to keep long-term money off the table or they lose Mauer, which would be a gigantic PR disaster. Even a mediocrity like Casey Blake took three years to sign.
The Metrodome isn't a bad baseball stadium, it's a TERRIBLE baseball stadium.
If the Metrodome is keeping the revenue down, then the Metrodome is keeping revenue down and their revenue is maxed out. I think there's some merit to the idea that attendance isn't really going to go over 2.3-2.5M/year without a different ballpark. Even if we look back to '87-'92, the Twins only outdrew 2.5M in one season--1988--when they had 3M. Otherwise they drew 2.5M in 1992, and they are nearly at that level without having won a WS since then.
I'm just fighting against the conventional wisdom that the Twins are somehow cheating us out of big-name free agents because they are taking more profit than a typical team takes. (And we can say "the Twins" here, but the underlying issue is that Carl Pohlad has a reputation.) I'm generally convinced that at least 50%--and probably more--of all MLB owners would be giving their GM the same budget or less given the same revenues. This is only an issue because people have noted that Carl Pohlad is "the richest owner in baseball."
I don't accept any argument that blames the customers for the success or failure of a business.
It's not about the success or failure of the business, it's about the quality of the product that you're getting in exchange. If you're only willing to spend $15,000 on a car, don't complain that you can't buy a Porsche. In baseball, as it currently stands, fans get the payroll that they pay for. There are more Yankees fans so it it is easier for them to get enough money for a big payroll, but if we want a higher payroll, at some point we have to start putting more money into the team. And maybe you think that it's okay having a $15,000 car--we certainly didn't have fancy cars in my family and we did just fine--but it still wouldn't make much sense to complain that it's not a Porsche.
The Twins can clearly operate as a successful business given the current consumption of tickets--it's unclear to me whether or not they will be a feasible long-term business if they significantly increase payroll from what it has been unless more fans buy tickets.
CarterHayes replied on January 2, 2009 at 12:38:45 am
If the Metrodome is keeping the revenue down, then the Metrodome is keeping revenue down and their revenue is maxed out. I think there's some merit to the idea that attendance isn't really going to go over 2.3-2.5M/year without a different ballpark. Even if we look back to '87-'92, the Twins only outdrew 2.5M in one season--1988--when they had 3M. Otherwise they drew 2.5M in 1992, and they are nearly at that level without having won a WS since then.
But what were comparable markets drawing at the time? It's all about context. The Twins were the first team in baseball history to draw that many fans, which seems like they'd be significantly outperforming their market. Drawing even 2.5 million fans a year in that period of time was likely a pretty stout achievement for a mid-market team.
It's not about the success or failure of the business, it's about the quality of the product that you're getting in exchange. If you're only willing to spend $15,000 on a car, don't complain that you can't buy a Porsche. In baseball, as it currently stands, fans get the payroll that they pay for. There are more Yankees fans so it it is easier for them to get enough money for a big payroll, but if we want a higher payroll, at some point we have to start putting more money into the team. And maybe you think that it's okay having a $15,000 car--we certainly didn't have fancy cars in my family and we did just fine--but it still wouldn't make much sense to complain that it's not a Porsche.
That tired line of reasoning seams to lead to the same result found here:
Whether one is trying to sell cars or tickets to baseball games, the key is not letting quality fall below publicly acceptable levels. If the product slips noticeably and quality goes uncorrected for a long period of time, that demonstrates a lack care for the product and therefore a lack of concern for the customer. People perceive that and spend their money elsewhere. In the case of cars, people quit buying products from GM and turn to Toyota, Honda, BMW, etc. In the case of baseball, there are plenty of other ways for people to spend money amusing themselves.
It boils down to this:
Consistently put out a good product, and people will patronize your business and even get excited about - become fans of - the product. Consistently insult formerly faithful customers by putting out dreck and, even if you fix the product years later, a substantial number of those former customers, as well as new prospective customers, will have moved on to better things. That's not their fault. That's the fault of the business, and it's the responsibility of the business to figure out a way of winning those customers back. The Twins haven't figured out how to do that yet because everyone's still interested in blaming the customers/fans. From a business standpoint, GM has at least admitted they marketed crap for a number of years (it might be just cynical ploy to get bailout money, but that would involve political analysis, so I won't go there), so they're a step ahead in bridging that gap with potential customers.
ubelmann replied on January 2, 2009 at 3:18:22 am
I throw my hands up at this point. If baseball fans from the state of Minnesota are going to let worries about what happened years and years ago scare them away from some damned fine baseball, it's their loss. And if they are going to keep away from watching amazing 90+-win teams and some of the best baseball players to ever walk God's green earth because they are too busy bitching about how the payroll isn't high enough, and that the Twins aren't any good because they won't sign Casey Effing Blake or they won't trade for Mark Effing DeRosa, then it's their loss. If they can't see that the biggest reason that other teams outspend the Twins is that other teams' fans outspend our fans, then I apparently have no way of convincing them of that.
And if that means that I am unfair towards consumers or that I'm an apologist for a bad business, then I guess I'm just a big consumer-hating jackass. The money just isn't there for this organization to substantially improve via free agency in this offseason.
Algonad replied on January 2, 2009 at 9:07:04 am
If baseball fans from the state of Minnesota are going to let worries about what happened years and years ago scare them away from some damned fine baseball, it's their loss.
I don't think it is really about holding a grudge. I think it is more about habits. Once people have replaced going to the ballpark with fishing, boating, or whatever they do, it's harder to get them back.
CarterHayes replied on January 2, 2009 at 9:34:49 am
Exactly.
E-6 replied on January 1, 2009 at 11:40:13 pm
The Metrodome isn't a bad baseball stadium, it's a TERRIBLE baseball stadium.
Therein lies the rub. I love baseball. I'm huge fan of the Twins. Yet, I only go to 2-4 games a year, primarily because the Dome is a fucking joke. (I know some of the citizenry are apologists for the dump, but I ain't one of 'em.) Assuming tickets are available, I'll try to go to 10 or more at the new park. I have friends and family who have stated much the same thing.
The Twins will easily draw over 3 million fans in 2010 and continue to do so for a few more seasons on the "new stadium smell" alone. A winning ballclub will ensure that continues. Big salaries don't necessarily ensure a winning ballclub.
ubelmann replied on January 2, 2009 at 12:13:29 am
Big salaries don't necessarily ensure a winning ballclub.
It helps, though.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on January 2, 2009 at 6:58:58 am
It isn't that the Dome is a dump, it's that attendance at the Dome helps the bottom line much less than other stadiums do. The combination of loss of parking/concesssion $$, plus having lower ticket prices (thank you, Carl), means that having larger attendence is less helpful than it would be to most/all other teams. Sure, it helps, but less. The new stadium not only means larger attendence figures, but capturing a bigger % of higher ticket sales with those larger attendence figures.
CarterHayes replied on January 1, 2009 at 11:24:53 pm
So the Padres have a significantly higher attendance (something like 500K/year, a 25% improvement), a newer stadium, and essentially the same payroll as the Twins. Given those circumstances, it seems quite possible to me that the Twins and EVIL CARL POHLAD are putting a larger portion of their revenue into the payroll than the Padres are.
I don't disagree with that point; it does seem that the Twins are sinking a greater portion of their gate revenue into the team, despite playing in a older facility. But that alone raises two problems - if the Twins can pull that kind of gate without a new ballpark and without concessions revenue, then what exactly is the argument for the new ballpark? Keeping homegrown talent longer before eventually losing them to free agency anyway? I'm sure that line of argument would have bowled over everybody.
The second problem is, what are the Padres doing to draw fans that the Twins aren't? If the Twins could match the Padres' attendance, the additional revenue from difference in ticket prices wouldn't mean that much. If the Twins allocated the same proportion of the increased revenue to payroll as they are now, then they'd be able to raise the payroll without hiking ticket prices or cutting other areas. So if that's the rationale for the new ballpark, then why not be up front about it from the beginning? That's the kind of argument that people would be interested to hear, but of course that sheds too much light on the behind-the-scenes hocus pocus that is MLB's ledger books.
Instead of simply stating ad nauseam that "Twins fans should go to more games," an interesting line of inquiry would involve sifting through the numbers for a reason why the fans aren't going to those games. Are the Padres outperforming in attendance relative to what we should expect from their market size (an unlikey possibility considering the Rockies aren't that far behind them in attendance or market size), or are they skimping on payroll relative to their attendance (a more likely possibility, considering the Padres' penchant for the San Diego Discount and the Rockies' average payroll). The San Diego media market is about 500,000 people smaller than the Seattle market, while the Twin Cities market is about 360,000 smaller than Seattle. So we should expect the Twins' attendance figures to be closer to San Diego's, but as you said, the Padres enjoy about a 25% advantage in attendance despite the Twins' greater success. If I'm a front office/marketing guy looking at those numbers, I'm wondering what are the Padres doing that the Twins aren't? It's not all sunshine and fish tacos.
The Padres have been actively looking to drastically slash their payroll for next year, and I guarantee that there would be cries for the owner's head if he was EVIL CARL POHLAD.
If Carl Pohlad was going through the divorce that John Moores is, the criticism would be just as inappropriate. The Padres are essentially the casualty of the Moores' divorce, and I haven't seen anyone upset about it in a way that didn't essentially sympathize with the human situation behind the budget cuts.
Having a nice stadium will help draw more fans, all other things being equal.
Sure, but all other things aren't equal in this case. You've said it yourself - the Mariners were woefully inept on the field last year, and they haven't been much better recent years. And yet, the Mariners still draw pretty sizeable crowds. It can't just be all "beautiful summer weather in an outdoor stadium," because why would anyone pay $25.29 a head just to sit out in the summer weather when they could be doing it somewhere else for free? And it's not like the Pacific Northwest is lacking for things to do out of doors. Moreover, the weather in San Diego is twice as nice as it is in Seattle, and the Padres aren't averaging more fans than the Mariners, even with a superior on-field product and a ballpark half as old - in other words, all other things not being equal. So what's the deal there? Shouldn't someone be looking into those kinds of discrepancies in the name of better market penetration?
If people are disappointed that our high-profile players make their names for themselves while in a Twins uniform, I just don't know what to tell you. I think that's silly. How ecstatic would Royals fans be at the chance to consistently watch star talent like Santana, Mauer, Morneau, and Nathan in Kansas City?
Seems to me they were pretty ecstatic to have Carlos Beltan around, and likely just as disappointed when he left as most Twins fans were when Santana left. But then again, maybe Kansas City - a true small market team, much like Pittsburgh - can only afford one of Santana, Mauer, Morneau, and Nathan anyway. Or maybe even those teams can afford more than they're admitting, if you take Milwaukee as an example of what those teams can do. How do we know until people start looking at the data and asking questions?
ubelmann replied on January 2, 2009 at 12:11:49 am
If I'm a front office/marketing guy looking at those numbers, I'm wondering what are the Padres doing that the Twins aren't? It's not all sunshine and fish tacos.
The Twins already have done that and they've decided that the Padres play in a beautiful ballpark and the Twins play in a dump. So they've done everything in their power to get a new ballpark and they finally succeeded. I don't think there are really any mystical secrets to be found here. When the new park opens, as long as the team remains competitive, attendance will increase and the team will spend more on payroll.
If you want more evidence that it's not really about the Twins' lack of recent success, from 1987 to 1991, the Twins had a total attendance of about 11.4M. From 2004-2008, the Twins had a total attendance of about 10.8M. I don't know if it would be reasonable for the Twins to expect attendance to increase if they keep everything constant and just increase payroll, hoping for attendance to spike. And if the attendance isn't going to go up, then there's no reason to expect the revenue to go up, so spending that extra money is going to cut into the bottom line--and we don't know what the Twins' bottom line looks like compared to a typical team.
At this point, I think we're starting to get off track. My main point in the post was:
And that:
Unless you can tell me that the Twins are going to sell more tickets next year, we can't forecast a revenue increase. If we can't forecast a revenue increase, then we can't forecast a big payroll increase. From what I can tell, the Twins have already increased payroll from last year's $57M to about $65M. With even a couple of minor pick-ups, that basically puts us back where we were in 2007, when the payroll was high enough that it seemed to keep the team from spending much in the draft.
So it still doesn't seem to me that the Twins have a bunch of money lying around that they ought to be spending on payroll. We hit our attendance limit around 2.4M and we hit our payroll limit around $65-70M. It would be nice to be bigger players in the free agent market, but the money just isn't there right now.
Nick N. replied on January 1, 2009 at 7:40:52 pm
It seems pretty clear from the numbers that you posted that DeRosa is an upgrade over what the Twins currently have both offensively and defensively. I think there's a pretty good chance that upgrade is significant. I just don't see much downside to parting with a few expendable pitching prospects to bring him in. The money is not an issue. It's just not. With a decent year, wouldn't DeRosa bring in a draft pick or two if he left as a free agent? I feel like that's something that's being overlooked.
The Twins can't hope for the same type of internal improvement this year that they got last year. They were victimized by a lot of injuries and down years in 2007. Not so much in 2008.
Nick N. replied on January 1, 2009 at 7:41:30 pm
Ew. Why do I have a Kevin McHale avatar??
brianS replied on January 1, 2009 at 8:59:29 pm
look up next to the Cup o' Coffee, Nick.
ubelmann replied on January 1, 2009 at 9:04:51 pm
It's maybe about a win upgrade. I would also be hesitant to describe DeRosa as a defensive upgrade over Harris. It's less than that if you platoon Harris and Buscher some. If they have to give up Mulvey, that's probably giving a win right back and they've gained nothing. (And, like all trades, we have no idea who the Cubs were asking for from us. Maybe the Indians prospects look worthless to us, but the Cubs could have been demanding prospects from the Twins that we think are more valuable. It would look like an unreasonable position to us, but if the Cubs have a different evaluation of the players involved, then it could make a DeRosa trade potentially more costly for the Twins than it was for Cleveland.)
With a decent year, wouldn't DeRosa bring in a draft pick or two if he left as a free agent? I feel like that's something that's being overlooked.
DeRosa was borderline A/B this year. Looking at the free agent market this year, I would not guarantee that we would receive picks if DeRosa stays as a Type A. I don't think people are going to want to pay a Casey Blake clone $18M/3yr and give up a pick to do it. So DeRosa might just accept arbitration (probably adding another $7-8M or so to our 2010 payroll) and take his chances at being reclassified as a Type B free agent the next year so he can get a better multiyear deal. He'd have a good chance at being a Type B, which would be fine, but we could be picking pretty late in the supplementary round and a lot of supplementary round guys wind up like the guys in this trade.
John Stevens has been a reliever, but still has a bunch of strikeouts (344 in 312 IP) and his walk rate is mediocre. The numbers are pretty close to what Jesse Crain was in the minors.
Chris Archer has huge walk problems, but he's young enough to maybe work that out and has missed bats. His upside is a right-handed Matt Thornton.
It's tough to say anything about John Gaub, but he's a lefty and missed a lot of bats in his only real pro experience. Could be a serviceable major league LOOGY in 2-3 years.
Those aren't franchise players, but for a team--really an organization--that has bullpen questions, I think that there's a real cost in tossing three guys like that overboard when out of the bunch you could realistically expect 2-3 player-seasons of league average relief pitching for the league minimum.
I hadn't thought of his free agent status, but I still don't think that DeRosa would meaningfully improve this team. It would make us stronger at third base for one year and weaker in the bullpen as early as mid-season and maybe over the next couple of seasons. The Twins went with six instead of a half-dozen.
greenmachine replied on January 3, 2009 at 10:13:16 am
EPIC THREAD!!!!!!
Way to bring in the new year, folks.
E-6 replied on January 3, 2009 at 5:21:57 pm
I agree. This one deserves some sort of memorial. Like a fountain, or something...
brianS replied on January 3, 2009 at 7:09:24 pm
Heh. Face-off at 3 paces.
spookymilk replied on January 6, 2009 at 10:59:38 am
I'm way late on this, but living in Washington now, I can explain the Mariners to some degree: the Sonics have been average for a long time and the 'hawks were awful for years, so in the mid-'90s when the Mariners got good, the fans showed up (well, and Safeco rules, too).
The coverage/hype for the Mariners is in-freaking-sane. It's nothing like Minnesota. When I moved here for the first time in 2004, I got a copy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and checked out the baseball section. The Mariners were a shambles and out of the running already, but there was a huge two-page spread on their midweek series with the Devil Rays or Orioles or someone equally bad at the time. Each player on each team (including backups!) were ranked in several categories and each pitching matchup warranted something like a 1000-word essay. It was mind-blowing. You can just feel it here...it's a true baseball state.
SBG replied on January 6, 2009 at 12:01:10 pm
Plus, they have some of the best baseball blogs in the world. To say that the boys at USSMariner are passionate is to put it very mildly.