All Things 2024 Minnesota Twins In-Season Thread

Donate To GopherHole
If money is so tight, maybe you shouldn't have thrown a quarter of a billion dollars at a SS when you had a couple of very promising guys just waiting in the wings.
 



world series winners - with their ranking by payroll
2010 - Giants - 9th
2011 - Cardinals - 11th
2012 - Giants - 18th
2013 - Red Sox - 4th
2014 - Giants - 7th
2015 - Royals - 17th
2016 - Cubs - 6th
2017 - Astros - 17th
2018 - Red Sox - 1st
2019 - Nationals - 4th
2020 - Dodgers - 2nd
2021 - Braves - 11th
2022 - Astros - 8th
2023 - Rangers - 9th

money helps - but it's not the only deciding factor.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
world series winners - with their ranking by payroll
2010 - Giants - 9th
2011 - Cardinals - 11th
2012 - Giants - 18th
2013 - Red Sox - 4th
2014 - Giants - 7th
2015 - Royals - 17th
2016 - Cubs - 6th
2017 - Astros - 17th
2018 - Red Sox - 1st
2019 - Nationals - 4th
2020 - Dodgers - 2nd
2021 - Braves - 11th
2022 - Astros - 8th
2023 - Rangers - 9th

money helps - but it's not the only deciding factor.
Click to expand...
The one thing all of those teams have in common is they developed well within the organization. Development isn't the only piece of the puzzle but it is the most important IMO.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
It's not like the Pohlads have some huge room full of cash, like Scrooge McDuck.

according to various financial publications, the Pohlad family companies collectively own over 20 businesses including car dealerships, financial services firms, commercial real estate development, and a company that manufactures advanced engineering systems. Of course, they also own the Twins and Bill Pohlad's movie production company.

the point is - each business has its own budget, revenue and expenses. so if one business, like the Twins, runs a deficit, they can't just grab money from another business to cover the loss. Well, I suppose they could, but that would be very poor business practice.

Would a different owner be willing to lose money? Maybe - Forbes magazine estimates that the Mets lost $138-million in 2022.

but if anyone is thinking that some wacky rich person is going to swoop in, buy the Twins and be happy while losing money, well, don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...
No one held a gun to their head to have a $155 million payroll last year. The fact remains that they finally won a play-off series, the division is there for the taking, they're very much in a win-now window. And they've chosen to respond with an offseason message of "poor us we're losing our TV $$, so we have to cut payroll but you'll be able to access the games via streaming at least" to "Oops we lied, you can't access the games, but at least we have some TV $$" to "Actually we're still poor and a $10 million drop in TV $$ means we have to cut payroll $30 million."

From a PR standpoint is been a giant cluster $%%^
 

howeda7 said:
No one held a gun to their head to have a $155 million payroll last year. The fact remains that they finally won a play-off series, the division is there for the taking, they're very much in a win-now window. And they've chosen to respond with an offseason message of "poor us we're losing our TV $$, so we have to cut payroll but you'll be able to access the games via streaming at least" to "Oops we lied, you can't access the games, but at least we have some TV $$" to "Actually we're still poor and a $10 million drop in TV $$ means we have to cut payroll $30 million."

From a PR standpoint is been a giant cluster $%%^
Click to expand...
$14.5 Million of the salary reduction is from letting Pagan and Gallo walk.

Big whoop, about cutting the overall payroll.

They might still add, hopefully a solid starting pitcher or righthanded bat.
 

Ope3 said:
$14.5 Million of the salary reduction is from letting Pagan and Gallo walk.

Big whoop, about cutting the overall payroll.

They might still add, hopefully a solid starting pitcher or righthanded bat.
Click to expand...
If they at least go get someone like Clevinger and bring Taylor back it will be much easier to stomach. The line-up outside of Buxton and the bullpen are solid. But having no real back-up plan for Buxton and relying on Paddock and Disco to be your #4 and #5 starters will almost certainly bite them. Outside of the Boras 4, none of the remaining free agents will cost that much.
 

I finally signed up for the Athletic. Ken Rosenthal has an article about all of the players who are still unsigned. here are comments from 3 GM's.

Rangers GM Chris Young: “I don’t think there are any additions coming at this point.”

Blue Jays GM Ross Atkins: “At this point, additions that would be of significance would mean some level of subtraction.”

Giants president of baseball operations Farhan Zaidi: “It’s a little bit more disruptive to add at this point. And, you know, anybody who’s a free agent, we’ve theoretically had 3 1/2 months to figure out a deal and if it hasn’t happened yet, at some point organizationally, you just need to turn the page and focus on the players you have.”

It's not just the Twins. It's not just the "Cheap Pohlads."

the RSN issue is real. another article called local media rights an "atomic bomb" hanging over the sport in terms of the current and future impact.
 



howeda7 said:
No one held a gun to their head to have a $155 million payroll last year. The fact remains that they finally won a play-off series, the division is there for the taking, they're very much in a win-now window. And they've chosen to respond with an offseason message of "poor us we're losing our TV $$, so we have to cut payroll but you'll be able to access the games via streaming at least" to "Oops we lied, you can't access the games, but at least we have some TV $$" to "Actually we're still poor and a $10 million drop in TV $$ means we have to cut payroll $30 million."

From a PR standpoint is been a giant cluster $%%^
Click to expand...
If they are winning the Central this year, most people will forget.
 


Breakin' The Plane said:
If money is so tight, maybe you shouldn't have thrown a quarter of a billion dollars at a SS when you had a couple of very promising guys just waiting in the wings.
Click to expand...
It seems entirely possible the ramifications of Diamond Sports filing for Bankruptcy were not known at the time of the Correa re-signing.
 






It can always be worse -

www.cbs17.com

Rafael Devers lobbies Boston Red Sox front office for roster help

Rafael Devers is looking for some help — from the front office of the Boston Red Sox. With the Red Sox ramping up at the start of spring training, Devers made it clear Tuesday that he felt the fran…
www.cbs17.com www.cbs17.com

Rafael Devers lobbies Boston Red Sox front office for roster help​


The GM said they’re watching their bottom line - it’s an epidemic, grab your 😷
 

Well, golly gee whiz. I sure feel bad for these down-on-their luck Pohlad folks. Is there a Go Fund Me set up so we can help these nice people get back on their feet?
 
Last edited:




FWIW - Arizona D-backs are offering a streaming package - stream the entire season with no blackouts for $99.

So, let's do some math.

Let's say the Twins are getting $40-million this year from Diamond/Bally.
if the Twins had said 'no' to Diamond, they would have needed to sell roughly 400,000 streaming packages at $99 to equal the money from Diamond. (and that does not include operating expenses - not sure if MLB picks those up or if they would split the expenses with the team)

I'm sorry but I don't see any way they would have sold that many packages. maybe I'm wrong. sure, the hard-core fans would sign up. I'd pay that much for a full season of games.

but those are the numbers that the Twins were likely looking at as they made their decision.

P.S. if you are still a cable subscriber, you are paying about $66 in rights fees for six months of BSN. ($11 per subscriber per month). of course, you get more than just the Twins, but the Twins are the primary offering during much of the season.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
FWIW - Arizona D-backs are offering a streaming package - stream the entire season with no blackouts for $99.

So, let's do some math.

Let's say the Twins are getting $40-million this year from Diamond/Bally.
if the Twins had said 'no' to Diamond, they would have needed to sell roughly 400,000 streaming packages at $99 to equal the money from Diamond. (and that does not include operating expenses - not sure if MLB picks those up or if they would split the expenses with the team)

I'm sorry but I don't see any way they would have sold that many packages. maybe I'm wrong. sure, the hard-core fans would sign up. I'd pay that much for a full season of games.

but those are the numbers that the Twins were likely looking at as they made their decision.

P.S. if you are still a cable subscriber, you are paying about $66 in rights fees for six months of BSN. ($11 per subscriber per month). of course, you get more than just the Twins, but the Twins are the primary offering during much of the season.
Click to expand...

SoN, to get to the $40M number I think there would be other ways aside from selling 400,000 subscriptions to get there or at least in the neighborhood. By "neighborhood" granted, I am talking a very liberal use of the term.

- Still could sell some rights to over-the-air partners for X amount of dollars.
- Selling the subscriptions directly and maintaining the production, means they would get the revenue from advertisements/sponsorships.

Regardless, I think you are spot on that they the calculation would have been significantly less so they took the short term money under the time constraint, with hopes of building a long term solution.

Personal opinion, if they get anywhere near the $40M mark in local TV/Streaming revenue in 2025 and beyond it will be a huge victory.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
FWIW - Arizona D-backs are offering a streaming package - stream the entire season with no blackouts for $99.

So, let's do some math.

Let's say the Twins are getting $40-million this year from Diamond/Bally.
if the Twins had said 'no' to Diamond, they would have needed to sell roughly 400,000 streaming packages at $99 to equal the money from Diamond. (and that does not include operating expenses - not sure if MLB picks those up or if they would split the expenses with the team)

I'm sorry but I don't see any way they would have sold that many packages. maybe I'm wrong. sure, the hard-core fans would sign up. I'd pay that much for a full season of games.

but those are the numbers that the Twins were likely looking at as they made their decision.

P.S. if you are still a cable subscriber, you are paying about $66 in rights fees for six months of BSN. ($11 per subscriber per month). of course, you get more than just the Twins, but the Twins are the primary offering during much of the season.
Click to expand...
Are the D-Backs making no attempt to be carried on any streaming/cable/satellite service? I believe the Padres had clearance on DirecTV and some others in addition to selling the streaming package.

I can't see going exclusively to a subscription package being smart long-term at all. You must be able to reach casual fans who watch once in a while but would never sign up for this. Those people buy tickets. Either some availability via DirecTV/Fubo etc. and/or some over the air games should be part of the strategy or you're completely blacking yourself out from a huge % of the public who will never pay for this.
 


howeda7 said:
Are the D-Backs making no attempt to be carried on any streaming/cable/satellite service? I believe the Padres had clearance on DirecTV and some others in addition to selling the streaming package.

I can't see going exclusively to a subscription package being smart long-term at all. You must be able to reach casual fans who watch once in a while but would never sign up for this. Those people buy tickets. Either some availability via DirecTV/Fubo etc. and/or some over the air games should be part of the strategy or you're completely blacking yourself out from a huge % of the public who will never pay for this.
Click to expand...

after further research: other TV options are still TBD. from Arizona Sports.com:

But the D-backs may or may not be on the same distribution platforms as they were toward the end of last season, when the team left Bally Sports Arizona and appeared on separate cable and streaming options. The team on Thursday announced streaming options with linear distribution methods coming at a later date.

“People are going to be able to watch on cable and satellite just as they did last year,” D-backs president and CEO Derrick Hall told Arizona Sports’ Wolf & Luke on Friday. “MLB is in the process of negotiating with the distributors like COX and DirecTV and then the same platforms that everybody has used. Then they’ll get the smaller distributors around the state that were also carrying our games.”

In addition to the MLB streaming option, the Diamondbacks from that point on (last season) aired games locally for Phoenix-area COX cable subscribers on Yurview channel 4 and channel 7 in Tucson. DirecTV, Spectrum, Comcast xfinity all carried the games. Games were also available on Fubo and DirecTV Stream.

(of course, the question is how much revenue will be generated from other sources. I would think that the rights fees are going to be a lot lower than what Diamond was able to generate. So they would still need a pretty sizeable number of streaming subscribers to break even.)
 

Joe Pohlad is right-sizing the business. The television uncertainty was just cover to do so. This is the new normal.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
FWIW - Arizona D-backs are offering a streaming package - stream the entire season with no blackouts for $99.

So, let's do some math.

Let's say the Twins are getting $40-million this year from Diamond/Bally.
if the Twins had said 'no' to Diamond, they would have needed to sell roughly 400,000 streaming packages at $99 to equal the money from Diamond. (and that does not include operating expenses - not sure if MLB picks those up or if they would split the expenses with the team)

I'm sorry but I don't see any way they would have sold that many packages. maybe I'm wrong. sure, the hard-core fans would sign up. I'd pay that much for a full season of games.

but those are the numbers that the Twins were likely looking at as they made their decision.

P.S. if you are still a cable subscriber, you are paying about $66 in rights fees for six months of BSN. ($11 per subscriber per month). of course, you get more than just the Twins, but the Twins are the primary offering during much of the season.
Click to expand...
Cheaper than the packages on The MLB network. IIRC it was $129-139 for the year or ~$25 a month.
 

Gopher_In_NYC said:
Cheaper than the packages on The MLB network. IIRC it was $129-139 for the year or ~$25 a month.
Click to expand...

from what I saw, the Arizona deal had two options: D-backs games only for $99 or the all-games package for $199 that had access to all out-of market games plus all D-backs games.

the MLB network all-teams package is $149 as a stand-alone.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom