All Things 2023-2024 Minnesota Twins Off-Season Thread


short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
LaVelle had a column in the Strib a while back talking about the economics of baseball. He seems to think that MLB (at least some clubs) is open to at least discuss more sharing of local revenue.

Here's the bigger picture. While national television revenue — from ESPN, Fox, etc. — is distributed equally among teams, local television revenue is not. That disparity gives larger markets an advantage from a payroll standpoint. For instance, the Twins received $54.8 million from their Bally deal last season. They anticipate a drop in that revenue this season, which will lead to them reduce payroll by around $25 million. The World Series champion Texas Rangers reportedly made about $111 million from their local TV deal.

I have long advocated for teams to share local revenue equally. There would be less disparity among payrolls while no one has to utter the dirty words — salary cap — to the player's association.

This idea is now being kicked around the league. In addition to reacting to the regional broadcast problem, some owners have grumbled about the Mets carrying a $370 million payroll into last season and the Dodgers signing Shohei Ohtani to a heavily deferred $700 million free-agent contract.

Convincing the big dogs to sign off on sharing local TV revenue will be challenging. But the little dogs are yapping more than ever.

So there is hope. The Twins will be on television somewhere this season. And the league is ready to pursue a new economic model. It's about time.


I remain skeptical that teams will agree to sharing local revenue. but it would put baseball in a situation more like the NFL, where teams have roughly the same amount of money to spend - and the teams that spend wisely get the advantage over teams that spend unwisely.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
39,735
Reaction score
20,197
Points
113
LaVelle had a column in the Strib a while back talking about the economics of baseball. He seems to think that MLB (at least some clubs) is open to at least discuss more sharing of local revenue.

Here's the bigger picture. While national television revenue — from ESPN, Fox, etc. — is distributed equally among teams, local television revenue is not. That disparity gives larger markets an advantage from a payroll standpoint. For instance, the Twins received $54.8 million from their Bally deal last season. They anticipate a drop in that revenue this season, which will lead to them reduce payroll by around $25 million. The World Series champion Texas Rangers reportedly made about $111 million from their local TV deal.

I have long advocated for teams to share local revenue equally. There would be less disparity among payrolls while no one has to utter the dirty words — salary cap — to the player's association.

This idea is now being kicked around the league. In addition to reacting to the regional broadcast problem, some owners have grumbled about the Mets carrying a $370 million payroll into last season and the Dodgers signing Shohei Ohtani to a heavily deferred $700 million free-agent contract.

Convincing the big dogs to sign off on sharing local TV revenue will be challenging. But the little dogs are yapping more than ever.

So there is hope. The Twins will be on television somewhere this season. And the league is ready to pursue a new economic model. It's about time.


I remain skeptical that teams will agree to sharing local revenue. but it would put baseball in a situation more like the NFL, where teams have roughly the same amount of money to spend - and the teams that spend wisely get the advantage over teams that spend unwisely.
The Yankees are around $150M so just in TV money they have an extra $100M to play with. It'll be even more this year.

I think this would be a better option than a salary cap. But I think it should require a salary floor if this becomes a thing.
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
79,325
Reaction score
35,653
Points
113
The Yankees are around $150M so just in TV money they have an extra $100M to play with. It'll be even more this year.

I think this would be a better option than a salary cap. But I think it should require a salary floor if this becomes a thing.
Yep. You can't give the Rays and extra $50 million and let them have a $50 million payroll.
 


short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
in other baseball news - ESPN has a long article posted on the Wander Franco situation.

the short version - prosecutors in the Dominican Republic allege that Franco had a sexual relationship with a 14-year old girl. (he was 21 at the time) the prosecution case is laid out in a 600-page document presented to the Judge hearing the case. the report includes transcripts of interviews with the girl and her relatives - and messages exchanged between Franco and the girl.

Franco - who signed an 11-year, $182-million contract with Tampa Bay in 2021 -could potentially face up to 20-years in prison if convicted. If he is convicted and sent to prison, Tampa Bay could try to have the contract negated on grounds that Franco violated the 'personal conduct' clause that is contained in all MLB contracts.

no trial has been scheduled yet. prosecutors have up to 6 months to complete their investigation.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
39,735
Reaction score
20,197
Points
113
I’ve been following the Hall ofFame discussion and voting a good amount mainly because of Mauer. The one argument I still see is that Mauer shouldn’t be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer. That so and so wasn’t so he shouldn’t be.

I’m glad though it seems like the voters are moving away from that mattering. I always thought not voting for someone because not wanting them to be 1st ballot was stupid. Like 1st ballot should be reserved for the best of the best only. If they’re good enough, vote them in.
 

7Gopher7

Active member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
230
Reaction score
205
Points
43
I’ve been following the Hall ofFame discussion and voting a good amount mainly because of Mauer. The one argument I still see is that Mauer shouldn’t be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer. That so and so wasn’t so he shouldn’t be.

I’m glad though it seems like the voters are moving away from that mattering. I always thought not voting for someone because not wanting them to be 1st ballot was stupid. Like 1st ballot should be reserved for the best of the best only. If they’re good enough, vote them in.
Yes, also when they don’t vote for a sure thing like Jeter or Mariano Rivera because Ty Cobb or whoever wasn’t unanimous.
 

Slim Tubby

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
4,651
Points
113
I’ve been following the Hall ofFame discussion and voting a good amount mainly because of Mauer. The one argument I still see is that Mauer shouldn’t be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer. That so and so wasn’t so he shouldn’t be.

I’m glad though it seems like the voters are moving away from that mattering. I always thought not voting for someone because not wanting them to be 1st ballot was stupid. Like 1st ballot should be reserved for the best of the best only. If they’re good enough, vote them in.
I've always failed to understand how someone's credentials get better as time goes by.
 



Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
8,102
Reaction score
5,837
Points
113
Yes, also when they don’t vote for a sure thing like Jeter or Mariano Rivera because Ty Cobb or whoever wasn’t unanimous.
Rivera is not a good example. He was the first (and only) to get in via 100% vote from the BBWAA. Only 1 dope didn't vote for Jeter. Cobb was 4 short.

Amazingly 23 morons didn't vote for Willie Mays. Seriously, WTF?!?

 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
on the Hall of Fame - I admit I am in the minority on this. But I believe the HOF should be restricted to the elite level players - the Best of the Best.

the 1st class elected to the Hall in 1936 was: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. and None of those players were unanimous. 4 voters did not have Cobb on their ballots. 11 did not vote for Babe Ruth! among players who did not receive enough votes for induction in that 1st year - Cy Young, Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove.

so I think the Hall should be special, and a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer needs to be really special.

Mauer had a solid career that was impacted by injury. By modern standards, he is a Hall of Fame player - but a 1st-ballot HOF? that is a stretch for me.

BTW - Harmon Killebrew was elected to the HOF on his 4th year of eligibility. 573 HR's - 5th all-time when he retired, and it took him 4 years to get in.

Ted Williams was a 1st-ballot HOF - with 93% of the vote. 7% of the voters did not vote for Williams in his first year of eligibility - for one of the greatest hitters of all time.

voting standards have changed.
 


Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
8,102
Reaction score
5,837
Points
113
the 1st class elected to the Hall in 1936 was: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. and None of those players were unanimous. 4 voters did not have Cobb on their ballots. 11 did not vote for Babe Ruth! among players who did not receive enough votes for induction in that 1st year - Cy Young, Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove.
That 1st HoF vote in 1936, Ruth had only retired from playing the year before. They didn't have the 5 Year waiting period yet. Voters weren't even restricted from casting a ballot for active players.

Pretty interesting, just about anyone that received votes, eventually got in. Shoeless Joe, with 2 votes, was an exception.

 



GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
39,735
Reaction score
20,197
Points
113
on the Hall of Fame - I admit I am in the minority on this. But I believe the HOF should be restricted to the elite level players - the Best of the Best.

the 1st class elected to the Hall in 1936 was: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. and None of those players were unanimous. 4 voters did not have Cobb on their ballots. 11 did not vote for Babe Ruth! among players who did not receive enough votes for induction in that 1st year - Cy Young, Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove.

so I think the Hall should be special, and a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer needs to be really special.

Mauer had a solid career that was impacted by injury. By modern standards, he is a Hall of Fame player - but a 1st-ballot HOF? that is a stretch for me.

BTW - Harmon Killebrew was elected to the HOF on his 4th year of eligibility. 573 HR's - 5th all-time when he retired, and it took him 4 years to get in.

Ted Williams was a 1st-ballot HOF - with 93% of the vote. 7% of the voters did not vote for Williams in his first year of eligibility - for one of the greatest hitters of all time.

voting standards have changed.
Joe DiMaggio was 4th ballot as well. Mauer getting in on the 1st try doesn’t mean Mauer was better than Killebrew or DiMaggio.

There’s never been a guideline on how to vote. It’s never been consistent. I don’t think people remember if someone is a 1st ballot, 4th ballot or 8th ballot.

There’s no different levels in the Hall of Fame. Either you’re in or you’re not. I just don’t think it matters.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
16,337
Reaction score
11,322
Points
113
on the Hall of Fame - I admit I am in the minority on this. But I believe the HOF should be restricted to the elite level players - the Best of the Best.

the 1st class elected to the Hall in 1936 was: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. and None of those players were unanimous. 4 voters did not have Cobb on their ballots. 11 did not vote for Babe Ruth! among players who did not receive enough votes for induction in that 1st year - Cy Young, Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove.

so I think the Hall should be special, and a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer needs to be really special.

Mauer had a solid career that was impacted by injury. By modern standards, he is a Hall of Fame player - but a 1st-ballot HOF? that is a stretch for me.

BTW - Harmon Killebrew was elected to the HOF on his 4th year of eligibility. 573 HR's - 5th all-time when he retired, and it took him 4 years to get in.

Ted Williams was a 1st-ballot HOF - with 93% of the vote. 7% of the voters did not vote for Williams in his first year of eligibility - for one of the greatest hitters of all time.

voting standards have changed.
Exactly.

Svott Rolon a HOFer?

The last year the BBWAA didn't elect anyone to be inducted into the Hall of Fame was 2013. It's the ninth time in BBWAA voting history that the rare outcome has occurred, according to the Hall of Fame. No one was elected in 1945, 1950, 1958, 1960, 1965, 1971 or 1996.

It makes money for MLB and Cooperstown, so that may influence some voters to lower their standards; I’m sure it’s a heck of a party as well.

Another example of participation ribbonitis run amok.
 
Last edited:

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
16,337
Reaction score
11,322
Points
113
 



short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
Twins Daily is also hammering this narrative that "The Twins Aren't doing anything!"

with no TV deal as of today, the Twins have potentially lost just over 20% of their total revenue.

Show me any business that is potentially losing 20% of its revenue, and they are not going to be taking on more expense.

but "The Pohlads are rich" so they're just supposed to be happy losing money on the Twins.

the World Series Champion Texas Rangers aren't doing squat, either - because they don't have a TV deal either - and they were getting $110-million from Diamond/Bally.
 

Gophers1992

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,449
Reaction score
4,817
Points
113
Exactly.

Svott Rolon a HOFer?

The last year the BBWAA didn't elect anyone to be inducted into the Hall of Fame was 2013. It's the ninth time in BBWAA voting history that the rare outcome has occurred, according to the Hall of Fame. No one was elected in 1945, 1950, 1958, 1960, 1965, 1971 or 1996.

It makes money for MLB and Cooperstown, so that may influence some voters to lower their standards; I’m sure it’s a heck of a party as well.

Another example of participation ribbonitis run amok.
I could go either way on Rolen in the HOF, but he wouldn't even come close to cracking the short list of egregious HOF elections. So if he's out, a whole bunch of guys should be out.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
16,337
Reaction score
11,322
Points
113
I could go either way on Rolen in the HOF, but he wouldn't even come close to cracking the short list of egregious HOF elections. So if he's out, a whole bunch of guys should be out.
Good!!!

It should be for the best of the best
 


Slim Tubby

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
4,651
Points
113
Twins Daily is also hammering this narrative that "The Twins Aren't doing anything!"

with no TV deal as of today, the Twins have potentially lost just over 20% of their total revenue.

Show me any business that is potentially losing 20% of its revenue, and they are not going to be taking on more expense.

but "The Pohlads are rich" so they're just supposed to be happy losing money on the Twins.

the World Series Champion Texas Rangers aren't doing squat, either - because they don't have a TV deal either - and they were getting $110-million from Diamond/Bally.
SON...Twins fans have had to endure our Owners treating this team like a business just trying to break even rather than an "all-in" effort to win dating back to Calvin.

With that said, as a fan, my resentment is based out of jealousy of other fans with owners willing to overspend on a regular basis.

When the TV deal materializes, how many marginal fans will tune in or buy tickets following another season of nothingness? The Rangers just won the WS...their fans have already been placated.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
16,337
Reaction score
11,322
Points
113
Sure but where's the cutoff?
That’s, of course, subjective.
The problem is you can't remove guys from the hall, so now we will always say "if X player is in, you have to allow Y in"
Obviously - I was referring to a hypothetical.

on the Hall of Fame - I admit I am in the minority on this. But I believe the HOF should be restricted to the elite level players - the Best of the Best.

the 1st class elected to the Hall in 1936 was: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. and None of those players were unanimous. 4 voters did not have Cobb on their ballots. 11 did not vote for Babe Ruth! among players who did not receive enough votes for induction in that 1st year - Cy Young, Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove.

so I think the Hall should be special, and a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer needs to be really special.

Mauer had a solid career that was impacted by injury. By modern standards, he is a Hall of Fame player - but a 1st-ballot HOF? that is a stretch for me.

BTW - Harmon Killebrew was elected to the HOF on his 4th year of eligibility. 573 HR's - 5th all-time when he retired, and it took him 4 years to get in.

Ted Williams was a 1st-ballot HOF - with 93% of the vote. 7% of the voters did not vote for Williams in his first year of eligibility - for one of the greatest hitters of all time.

voting standards have changed.
Son’s post sums up my feelings regarding the HOF voting; if you agree or disagree, grand. You’re entitled to your opinion as am I; I don’t view differences on subjects as binary, ergo, either/or (right or wrong). I try to view them as both/and, meaning that generally opinions other than mine are just as valid, have points which I can learn from.

FYI - I’ll be 60 in a few years, pissing contests bore me incessantly.

Cheers 🍻
 

Slim Tubby

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
4,651
Points
113
That’s, of course, subjective.

Obviously - I was referring to a hypothetical.


Son’s post sums up my feelings regarding the HOF voting; if you agree or disagree, grand. You’re entitled to your opinion as am I; I don’t view differences on subjects as binary, ergo, either/or (right or wrong). I try to view them as both/and, meaning that generally opinions other than mine are just as valid, have points which I can learn from.

FYI - I’ll be 60 in a few years, pissing contests bore me incessantly.

Cheers 🍻
Who are you to decide that 60 is too old to be inducted into a pissing contest? 🙂
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
39,735
Reaction score
20,197
Points
113
SON...Twins fans have had to endure our Owners treating this team like a business just trying to break even rather than an all-in-one effort to win dating back to Calvin.

With that said, as a fan, my resentment is based out of jealousy of other fans with owners willing to overspend on a regular basis.

When the TV deal materializes, how many marginal fans will tune in or buy tickets following another season of nothingness? The Rangers just won the WS...their fans have already been placated.
What organizations are overspending on a regular basis? Organizations like the Yankees and Dodgers are still turning a profit most years. 2023 numbers aren’t out yet but in 2022 the Twins lost 26.3M (only 4 teams lost more). The Yankees profited 16.3M and Dodgers 14.3M for comparison.

I think it’s a misconception that these top organizations are willing to spend more than they’re bringing in on a regular basis. It just isn’t true.

 


Slim Tubby

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
4,651
Points
113
What organizations are overspending on a regular basis? Organizations like the Yankees and Dodgers are still turning a profit most years. 2023 numbers aren’t out yet but in 2022 the Twins lost 26.3M (only 4 teams lost more). The Yankees profited 16.3M and Dodgers 14.3M for comparison.

I think it’s a misconception that these top organizations are willing to spend more than they’re bringing in on a regular basis. It just isn’t true.

So you can spend 2 to 3 times more than the Twins in team payroll and still turn a profit? 😉

(I know there are other factors.)
 

Breakin' The Plane

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
3,096
Points
113
Twins Daily is also hammering this narrative that "The Twins Aren't doing anything!"

with no TV deal as of today, the Twins have potentially lost just over 20% of their total revenue.

Show me any business that is potentially losing 20% of its revenue, and they are not going to be taking on more expense.

but "The Pohlads are rich" so they're just supposed to be happy losing money on the Twins.

the World Series Champion Texas Rangers aren't doing squat, either - because they don't have a TV deal either - and they were getting $110-million from Diamond/Bally.
Texas has at least signed Mahle and Kirby Yates. And they did spend more than a few bucks the last couple years adding Seager, Siemian, deGrom, Eovaldi, Jon Gray, etc.
 





Top Bottom