Miller: Twins Ticket Sales "Muted"

The Twins history on this is classical they are going to build this team from within like they did in 90's and weather it makes good busines sense or not. The Twins after the 1991 world series drew 3 million people but with aging team retrirements and injuries they were down to poor team being filled in with low cost replacement player but they had 1.5 million draw until they turned team around in 2000's. I betting they are going to have same thing happen again your 2.1 million probably will be
pretty close if they have the year everyone thinks there going to have. It could be even worse than 2.1 million because alot of the tickest may be sold but know one showing up for the games. If things are bad this year next years tickets sales are even going to be worse people will go on lark if ticks are cheap and are not going invest in tickests until this team is prooven to turning things around. I would just love to hear how baseball operations explain this to business side of twins when revenues are falling for puttting a poor team out their with money left in the budget to improved this team for the coming year. Terry Ryan philosphy of not spending on free agents and just be patience of building from within has to be supported by ownership on least amount risk to the organiztion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willihammer

Am I the only one that thinks these figures seem high?

---

They seem high to me as well. I'm sure the All Star game has had a positive influence. But I'd also discount the figures somewhat simply based on the fact that the information is coming from Dave St. Peter. You know that he is always going to spin, spin, spin.

Has anybody heard the (50% of revenue is for payroll) line this year??
It will probably be brought out again next year when needed.

Declining ticket sales? What do people normally spend their entertainment dollars on? Is it bargain-priced performers--say at the small venues around town? To be sure some do, but the bulk of the money goes to productions with recognizable stars. Movies, music, theature, and definately sports. Presently configured the Twins are clearly lacking in "star" quality. It is unreasonable to expect Mauer to fill Target Field all by himself. Declining tickets sales should be expected--but it also illustrates the out-moded thinking of the Twins. Broadcasting revenues is where the big money resides. The Yankees (and now the Dodgers) have been maligned for "overspending" by the sour-grapes crowd. But Steinbrenner rebuilt a decrepit franchise into a financial powerhouse by spending, spending, and media attention. Consumer product companies spend enormous sums to "build their brand"--but the Twins cut budget. Budget cutting might have made sense when they were winning because the success would build and retain the fan base--but with the team clearly in a "decline phase" it is foolish. There is little to induce excitement for the fanbase and the "ho-hum" results of this off-season only excerbate the problem. Quality players won't retard franchise growth but rather assist said growth. If "someone is in the way" (makes me laugh right now!) that person can be moved easily enough. That problem has been solved by other franchises, so the Twins can just use a known solution. That excuse of ("blocking young players") is simply smoke and mirrors to lamely try to justify their myopic strategy of slash-and-burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Highabove

Has anybody heard the (50% of revenue is for payroll) line this year??
It will probably be brought out again next year when needed.

---

I don't know if they have said it explicitly but all the comments of St. Peter and Ryan suggest they are well below budget (as in payroll is not at 50% of projected revenues). I don't think they are trying to hide it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

Maybe not on Opening Day, but if they bring in better pitchers, there's a better chance that the fans haven't been completely turned off by the additions' poor performance by early summer.

---

Fair point, but I am still skeptical that the moves that have been talked about would be clearly better pitchers. I know people disagree with this. It would have been nice to bring in another representative arm that could start the year in the rotation but for a variety of reasons the Twins failed to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

Fair point, but I am still skeptical that the moves that have been talked about would be clearly better pitchers. I know people disagree with this. It would have been nice to bring in another representative arm that could start the year in the rotation but for a variety of reasons the Twins failed to do so.

---

All I know is that I live in Iowa, and in previous years, if I would choose on a whim to come up to a game, I would check pitching matchups and try to pick the best pitcher to come see. In Liriano's dominant year, I tried to get tickets to see him pitch. Am I a little over the top compared to others? Probably, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that others, if given between game A and game B, would choose to see the better pitcher (or the non getaway day lineup).

Fast forward to this year. Yada Yada Yada. Maybe Gibson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edavis0308

All I know is that I live in Iowa, and in previous years, if I would choose on a whim to come up to a game, I would check pitching matchups and try to pick the best pitcher to come see. In Liriano's dominant year, I tried to get tickets to see him pitch. Am I a little over the top compared to others? Probably, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that others, if given between game A and game B, would choose to see the better pitcher (or the non getaway day lineup).

Fast forward to this year. Yada Yada Yada. Maybe Gibson.

---

I did the same thing with Liriano and Santana. I don't think Saunders or Marcum would inspire a similar following had they signed.

What do the Twins expect? They signed 2 of the 3 worst FA pitchers available. No one knows why the Twins signed these guys but everyone is pretty sure they don't want to watch Pelfrey or Correia pitch. There was only 3 FA pitchers that they could have signed that wouldn't have been an improvement over the kids they had pitching last season and the Twins signed 2 of them because they're cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

I did the same thing with Liriano and Santana. I don't think Saunders or Marcum would inspire a similar following had they signed.

---

Well, no, you are correct. However, I also wouldnt go out of my way to make sure I wasnt going to their games like I will with Correia & AAA filler callups. That's worth something too.

'"I don't think there's any question the Tigers will be favored on paper," Twins general manager Terry Ryan said. "But the Royals have done quite a bit, the Indians have done quite a bit, the White Sox were competitive for about five and a half months last year. This division has improved, and there's a lot of optimism in a few towns here, I know that."

Notice the team Ryan DIDN'T mention?

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

Probably as long as people think any of those moves would make much of a difference in attendance this year.

I agree with you that they made their bed, but only in the sense that they have sucked the past two years and the organization is in pretty bad shape as far as young talent in the majors is concerned. That is what keeps people away, not signing Correia instead of Saunders or Marcum.

---

Better players generally help teams win more games. Teams that win more games generally stay in contention longer. Staying in contention longer generally increases fan attendance.

With a few lucky breaks and a couple more good players, the Twins would have an outside shot at contention in 2013.

Except they didn't find a couple more good players, which means that they have to roll sixes ten times straight to contend this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

They did bring in three new starters and a couple of bullpen arms. I think they are trying to get better while also balancing against avoiding bad contracts and not blocking young players.

I understand people don't like the Correia signing - I don't either! But to take a decrease in season tickets sales and to suggest the reason is because of some pet signing they didn't do is absurd.

---

Two years to Correia.

One year to Marcum.

One year to Saunders.

These aren't complaints about "pet signings". There were over a dozen guys on the market better than Correia. The Twins didn't get a single one of them and then gave Correia an extra year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

They did bring in three new starters and a couple of bullpen arms. I think they are trying to get better while also balancing against avoiding bad contracts and not blocking young players.

I understand people don't like the Correia signing - I don't either! But to take a decrease in season tickets sales and to suggest the reason is because of some pet signing they didn't do is absurd.

---

I'll tell you what's "absurd." The idea that "not blocking young players" is a reason the Twins didn't sign major league pitchers this offseason is "absurd." First off, who would be blocked? Secondly, since when is it bad to have too many good players? What possible damage could be done to the Twins if they had too many quality players? What's the worst that could happen? Rochester would have quality starting pitching, dominating AAA, just waiting for the chance to shine in the big leagues? Waiting for an injury or trade to open up a spot in Minneapolis? Sheesh. This whole "blocking players" line is one of the most poorly thought out excuses imaginable. We should be so lucky as to have good players "blocked."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAFChief

I'll tell you what's "absurd." The idea that "not blocking young players" is a reason the Twins didn't sign major league pitchers this offseason is "absurd." First off, who would be blocked? Secondly, since when is it bad to have too many good players? What possible damage could be done to the Twins if they had too many quality players? What's the worst that could happen? Rochester would have quality starting pitching, dominating AAA, just waiting for the chance to shine in the big leagues? Waiting for an injury or trade to open up a spot in Minneapolis? Sheesh. This whole "blocking players" line is one of the most poorly thought out excuses imaginable. We should be so lucky as to have good players "blocked."

---

Now now, Chief. If the Twins picked up too many starters, here are a few of the players who might be blocked.

1. Kyle Gibson
2. Liam Hendriks
3. Kyle Gibson throwing left-handed
4. Drew Butera
5. ???
6. Profit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Now now, Chief. If the Twins picked up too many starters, here are a few of the players who might be blocked.

1. Kyle Gibson
2. Liam Hendriks
3. Kyle Gibson throwing left-handed
4. Drew Butera
5. ???
6. Profit?

---

Dont forget Scott Elar-whatshisface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAFChief

I'll tell you what's "absurd." The idea that "not blocking young players" is a reason the Twins didn't sign major league pitchers this offseason is "absurd." First off, who would be blocked? Secondly, since when is it bad to have too many good players? What possible damage could be done to the Twins if they had too many quality players? What's the worst that could happen? Rochester would have quality starting pitching, dominating AAA, just waiting for the chance to shine in the big leagues? Waiting for an injury or trade to open up a spot in Minneapolis? Sheesh. This whole "blocking players" line is one of the most poorly thought out excuses imaginable. We should be so lucky as to have good players "blocked."

---

Like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Now now, Chief. If the Twins picked up too many starters, here are a few of the players who might be blocked.

1. Kyle Gibson
2. Liam Hendriks
3. Kyle Gibson throwing left-handed
4. Drew Butera
5. ???
6. Profit?

---

Like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edavis0308

Dont forget Scott Elar-whatshisface.

---

Like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAFChief

I'll tell you what's "absurd." The idea that "not blocking young players" is a reason the Twins didn't sign major league pitchers this offseason is "absurd." First off, who would be blocked? Secondly, since when is it bad to have too many good players? What possible damage could be done to the Twins if they had too many quality players? What's the worst that could happen? Rochester would have quality starting pitching, dominating AAA, just waiting for the chance to shine in the big leagues? Waiting for an injury or trade to open up a spot in Minneapolis? Sheesh. This whole "blocking players" line is one of the most poorly thought out excuses imaginable. We should be so lucky as to have good players "blocked."

---

Nice rant but I have never suggested they don't sign another starting pitcher. Ever. In fact my previous post said they had failed in this endeavor.

There are more positions than starting pitcher were the Twins actually have young guys worthy of getting a shot (especially Plouffe, Parmelee, Dozier, Hicks, Arcia)

Acgually I want to edit my statement slightly. When the Twins missed on Saunders I think I wrote that he would have blocked Gibson and that might have been undesirable. I would walk back that posting to the point that I would be in favor of another representative starter in camp right now.

I would still be skeptical that an extra starter in camp would lead to a higher ticket demand right now.

Personally wont spend any $$ to the Twins for tickets (have to on concessions) as i will buy tix off the streets(as will many) so they wont make additional income off of that
This thought will cost Twins hundreds of thousands in tix sales from disgruntled fans who want to see a better attempt from mgt