Thread: Twins thought process leading to pitching rotation

Originally Posted by LoganJones

Its fine if it boggles your mind, but go back and look at attendance records. Winning has little impact on in-season attendance. The only bump you get is from making the playoffs last year and that even isn't all that great. A great example is last year. the Twins were 12th. Notable behind them? The Washington Nationals. Nats Park has a capacity of 41,400. Despite being a shoo-in for the playoffs from June, and having a close race with Atlanta, they still got out drawn (over 4,000 fans a game) by the 66 win Twins coming off a 63 win season.

The White Sox were in first place until September, and drew and avg of 24,000 fans. It's just not a huge factor. Playoff games are the way to generate excitement for next seasons regular season attendance. Without them, you're just stuck with the prevailing attitude that your team sucks.

(I'm not suggesting I think the season is a failure, I'm saying as a marketing tool, nearly missing the payoffs is of no use to you.)

I'm not sure how using attendance statistics from other markets is really relevant. Different contexts and situations. You're telling me that the Twins still would have had Target Field half-full frequently in August and September if they were in a race? You're telling me the same number of season tickets would have been dropped this year if the team hadn't lost 95 games?

Success-to-attendance studies have been done, over the long term you will suffer from losing additional games. You can talk about one season, but it's not just one season, this will (most likely) be the third, with interest and attendance continuing to spiral downward.

The gross-oversimplification of "making the playoffs is all that matters" just isn't accurate.

Last fall I read somewhere that Twins season ticket renewals were at 81% already. I can't find the source. But if true, it opens the possibility that the Twins decided early to sandbag 2013 so that as TF's honeymoon wears off, they can invest the savings in a more earnest attempt at supplementing whatever roster holes have emerged by 2015 or whenever this new class of minimum wage all-stars is ready.

The problem with that of course is the Twins longstanding claim to put 50% of revenue into payroll on a year to year basis, without regard to prior years.

what about Twins attendance records in the mid-late 90s...I used to buy nosebleed seats and then move down to ground level between home and first after the third inning with no problem...

Additionally, Big City places seem to have fans that hold their teams more accountable...South End Chicago, Washington, NY, Boston, Southern California...these are places where there are many, many other options for entertainment. As a whole, Minnesota nice people have a bit of a longer time frame of patience. Continue on this course though...

P.S. The Twins were 3rd in the majors in attendance drop (by percentage). They saw a 12% drop. Only Houston and Cleveland saw a bigger drop in attendance. League attendance AVERAGE was UP almost 2%.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I'm not sure how using attendance statistics from other markets is really relevant. Different contexts and situations. You're telling me that the Twins still would have had Target Field half-full frequently in August and September if they were in a race? You're telling me the same number of season tickets would have been dropped this year if the team hadn't lost 95 games?

Twins had the 3rd largest drop in attendance last year. Only Houston and Cleveland saw a bigger drop-off

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...rs-and-losers/

Originally Posted by snepp

Success-to-attendance studies have been done, over the long term you will suffer from losing additional games. You can talk about one season, but it's not just one season, this will (most likely) be the third, with interest and attendance continuing to spiral downward.

The gross-oversimplification of "making the playoffs is all that matters" just isn't accurate.

The Twins averaged 25000 fans a game in 1987, 15000 in 1986. the bump in attendance was not from a 1986 post championship season

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

how do they buy a player mid season? is there another free agency in july?

You know the answer to that...they trade a low-level prospect or two for a large expiring contract from a team that's not going anywhere and is looking to shed dollars, adding to the Twins' 2013 payroll. I thought it was obvious.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Twins had the 3rd largest drop in attendance last year. Only Houston and Cleveland saw a bigger drop-off

Attendance Winners And Losers | FanGraphs Baseball

But yet 2012 was still the fourth largest attendance number in Twins history. While winning in the dome didn't draw nearly the numbers Target field did, the drop in part can be attributed to the newness to Target Field wearing off. I remember reading that sales taxes collected in year 2 dropped by a million. Part of the decline in attendance can be attributed to cost

Originally Posted by tmerrickkeller

You know the answer to that...they trade a low-level prospect or two for a large expiring contract from a team that's not going anywhere and is looking to shed dollars, adding to the Twins' 2013 payroll. I thought it was obvious.

Or they use the cash to buy more prospects, by partially or totally buying out the remaining years of either Willingham or Mauer's contracts.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I'm not sure how using attendance statistics from other markets is really relevant. Different contexts and situations. You're telling me that the Twins still would have had Target Field half-full frequently in August and September if they were in a race? You're telling me the same number of season tickets would have been dropped this year if the team hadn't lost 95 games?

You think the Twin Cities is some sort of magic place where market factors behave differently than everywhere else? Fan engagement works the same everywhere. There are diehards, who are outnumbered by fair-weathers who are outnumbered by casual fans. Casual fans make up most of every game's attendance until the end of the season when playoffs may or may not be in the offing. 'Big' games will sell out based on competetive interest, but that won't last more than a series or two. There might be a 3-4 game stretch where 'clinching' is a draw, but really, you're looking at 10-15 games tops where the competitive value of the game is really an advantage to ticket sales. The thing is, the actual distribution of fans doesn't change, it's just that more of the die-hards scrape together a couple bucks and fair-weathers are active. The casual fans are a bit less casual because they read in the paper that the team is close to playoffs. But overall, the atmosphere, the cost of the tickets and the quality of the spectator experience is what really draws fans to ballparks over a long season. If you have a large market, your job is easier.

Of course year after year of losing will choke you out, but for fair weather and casuals, not making the playoffs is losing.

Rarely does a team go with a single strategy like you outlined. Virtually all of them mix approaches, and the Twins were no different this offseason:

Kevin Correia fits your approach #2 in the Twins eyes (durable innings eater)
Pelfrey straddles 2 & 3 (injury make good)
Harden straddles 3 & 4 (minor league contract)
Vance Worley probably fits plan 1 (spending) although the cost was players(s) in trade rather than money
May & Meyer probably count toward plan 4 too (rebuilding)

Most of us have argued they didn't do a very good job at approaches 2 & 3, and many are disappointed they didn't execute approach #1 on the free agent market, but I don't think there is anything unusual here.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Twins had the 3rd largest drop in attendance last year. Only Houston and Cleveland saw a bigger drop-off

Attendance Winners And Losers | FanGraphs Baseball

And they ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until they see the drop in attendance this season.

I think the strategy was play for the future, and 2013 was all about not making any long term commitments. I think the strategy was to cut costs. So they paid low dollars for low impact guys.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I'm not sure how using attendance statistics from other markets is really relevant. Different contexts and situations. You're telling me that the Twins still would have had Target Field half-full frequently in August and September if they were in a race? You're telling me the same number of season tickets would have been dropped this year if the team hadn't lost 95 games?

Personally i think most season tickets were dropped after seeing what moves the front office made...

Originally Posted by tmerrickkeller

You know the answer to that...they trade a low-level prospect or two for a large expiring contract from a team that's not going anywhere and is looking to shed dollars, adding to the Twins' 2013 payroll. I thought it was obvious.

This line of thinking will likely come into play for the Twins this year, just not in the direction you're referring to.

Originally Posted by tmerrickkeller

You know the answer to that...they trade a low-level prospect or two for a large expiring contract from a team that's not going anywhere and is looking to shed dollars, adding to the Twins' 2013 payroll. I thought it was obvious.

So your saying , after assembling this team , you believe we will be in contetion and will go get a big salary contract or 2?
or even believe we will part with a prospect or 2?

What in the Twins or Terry Ryans past indicte this is how they operate?

Originally Posted by LoganJones

You think the Twin Cities is some sort of magic place where market factors behave differently than everywhere else?

No, I think your methodology is extremely flawed. Making single-year attendance comparisons between the Twins and Nationals (or the White Sox, whose ballpark is 20 years older) without context is meaningless. If you’d mentioned that Washington drew 400K more fans in 2012 (when they won 98 games) than 2011 (when they won 80), that might have been meaningful.

The example of the mid-90s Twins, brought up by another poster, is a good one. In 1995 when the Twins won 56 games they barely drew a million fans. In 2005 when they won 83 they drew over 2 million. Fans – both hardcore and casual – are more interested in the team when they’re winning, and that effect magnifies over extended winning/losing periods. That’s why a third straight 90-loss season would be dangerous, IMO.

Originally Posted by Willihammer

Or they use the cash to buy more prospects, by partially or totally buying out the remaining years of either Willingham or Mauer's contracts.

So your saying if we trade Justin in july , we send his salary with him to acquire either more prospects or better prospect, or
if we trade Josh we pay his contract? in both cases the money is already accounted for , so saving an extra 30 million to buy players in mid season is untrue... the players salary is already accounted for...

Say the Red Sox are interested again, and just as a pot sweetener, or to help them avoid payroll tax issues maybe, the Twins throw in 23m cash to buyout a year of Mauer's contract in a trade for some of the pitching prospects they took from the Dodgers. Instead of trading a 6/138 player they're trading a more "team friendly" 6/115 player while lifting their own 2013 payroll back to the 100m range.

I firmly believe the plan was three-fold: 1) shed payroll 2) affix blame for poor results--ineffective starting pitching caused by an over-reliance on high-priced injury-prone veterans 3) make public announcements to remedy situation, but recall prime directive and utilize existing philosophy of bargain-priced innings-eaters signed to short-term contracts. Ergo, more of the same. The team is in full-rebuild mode and requires a return to relying on young players who are: more athletic, have less wear-and-tear on the body in order to be less injury prone, and have lower salaries. All of this to be accomplished while convincing the fan base that the team can actally contend for post-season play.

Recall St.Peter's response of payroll between $80 and $85 million. All previous mention of payroll was vague except we were to be assured that "it won't be a problem". Now we can surmise this was the plan. Also recall lack of offers to other FA pitchers in January--that would have exceeded budget.
Recall Ryan's response to "demand on the new rotation": "Health". Blame was affixed to injured veterans which required utilization of over-matched replacements.
Signed FA were of the bargain-priced veterans only--reliance on quanity vs. quality.