Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Morosi: Boras in mid-season form

  1. #21
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer 70charger's Avatar
    Posts
    931
    Like
    72
    Liked 56 Times in 26 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnydakota View Post
    also there are many who could help you out with the links to this info like john , seth ,goblin or brock...
    there pretty sharp guys , me i just read this or that , click on a link then click on another then another and not positive where sb nation twinkie town rumors whisphers fever hard ball espn1500 theres a couple houndred out there
    What???????????????
    Don't feed the trolls.

  2. #22
    Of course, as usual Scott Boras says something self service and a bit ridiculous. Question, this $25 million teams are seeing next year, how is this free money? doesn't this in part replace other TV deals at least some of the teams are seeing revenue from now?

  3. #23
    Speediest Moderator All-Star snepp's Avatar
    Posts
    3,614
    Like
    825
    Liked 599 Times in 229 Posts
    It's $25 million more per team, per year, than the previous national media deals it's replacing. So yes, it's free money.
    "Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
    - Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

  4. #24
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,308
    Like
    1,399
    Liked 1,063 Times in 476 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by snepp View Post
    It's $25 million more per team, per year, than the previous national media deals it's replacing. So yes, it's free money.
    I'm still wondering, BTW, why the Twins can only spend half of that money on payroll. Nobody seems to have an answer.

  5. #25
    Speediest Moderator All-Star snepp's Avatar
    Posts
    3,614
    Like
    825
    Liked 599 Times in 229 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    I'm still wondering, BTW, why the Twins can only spend half of that money on payroll. Nobody seems to have an answer.
    $12 million in additional accounting fees?

    "Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
    - Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

  6. #26
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    1,893
    Like
    423
    Liked 347 Times in 197 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by snepp View Post
    It's $25 million more per team, per year, than the previous national media deals it's replacing. So yes, it's free money.
    I'm still wondering, BTW, why the Twins can only spend half of that money on payroll. Nobody seems to have an answer.
    I wonder about that as well -- although I'd leave out the "only" part. I don't want to get into an argument about revenues and the Twins operating costs at Target Field (it does seem to me that they may be somewhat higher than at the Dome).

    But my question is this: should the team always be locked into a relatively narrow margin on percentage spent on player salaries (e.g. 50% -52% as I think I've seen at times) or should the range be larger (e.g. 43%-60%)? It would seem to me that a rebuilding team would have lower salary costs than a "mature" team and that you'd want to allow for that -- so that when you have a truly competitive team and want/need to add some finishing touches, there wouldn't be financial constraints on doing so.

    Maybe with the larger revenue stream at TF, the Twins would be willing to forego some profit and do that anyway if they ever get a competitive team again. But maybe they should plan for that eventuality but harboring some funds when the team is less competitive. I've thought about this argment for several years as we've discussed the costs of "buying an ace" (and people repeatedly saying that the Twins can't afford it). Is the Twins business model (as they've explained it in public) too rigid?

    I know that no one wants to talk about lower payrolls but if, for example, the Twins bring up a number of minor league players over the next few years that save them money, should they be spending all the savings while the young core of players is still raw? Or should they be saving that money until those players are mature and the use of the $$$ might make a bigger impact? (oh, if they do that, they'd better make it clear that's what they are doing -- not just making a bigger profit for now).
    Last edited by JB_Iowa; 11-08-2012 at 08:44 AM.

  7. #27
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,920
    Like
    467
    Liked 602 Times in 324 Posts
    Hmmmmm, why would Jim Pohlad want to keep $12.5m? Hmmm, I wonder why?

    The Twins model is to peg payroll at a percentage of projected revenue, that's it, look no further. It's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of won't.
    This whole thing is pretty basic business fundamentals, it's not tied to profit, it's the other way around.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer 70charger's Avatar
    Posts
    931
    Like
    72
    Liked 56 Times in 26 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JB_Iowa View Post
    I know that no one wants to talk about lower payrolls but if, for example, the Twins bring up a number of minor league players over the next few years that save them money, should they be spending all the savings while the young core of players is still raw? Or should they be saving that money until those players are mature and the use of the $$$ might make a bigger impact? (oh, if they do that, they'd better make it clear that's what they are doing -- not just making a bigger profit for now).
    You're absolutely right about this. Of course, none of the cynics here would give the GM or the ownership the benefit of the doubt if they tried it, but that's neither here nor there.

    Sometimes you've got to go all in to win. Counterintuitively, sometimes, you've got to spend to less with your good players if they're not ready for the final push to the summit.

  9. #29
    Speediest Moderator All-Star snepp's Avatar
    Posts
    3,614
    Like
    825
    Liked 599 Times in 229 Posts
    I'm pretty sure that Ryan has been on record in the past stating that they can't/won't carry budget savings forward.
    "Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
    - Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

  10. #30
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,920
    Like
    467
    Liked 602 Times in 324 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by snepp View Post
    I'm pretty sure that Ryan has been on record in the past stating that they can't/won't carry budget savings forward.
    Most sound businesses don't, certainly not when it comes to payroll.

  11. #31
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    1,893
    Like
    423
    Liked 347 Times in 197 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by snepp View Post
    I'm pretty sure that Ryan has been on record in the past stating that they can't/won't carry budget savings forward.
    I'm pretty sure he has said that as well. The point of my post was to question whether -- in baseball (or other sports) -- that is the wisest course of action.

    I'm not talking about back-loading contracts or mortgaging the future to make more acquisitions now. I'm talking about taking the savings you should be able to generate when you are bringing in a young core of players and putting that money aside for the future -- either to retain them or to sign additional talent to go with them.

    What is so magical -- OR so fiscally sound -- about spending up to your "allocated payroll ceiling" now. Or is it just that they want to distribute it all as profits?

    Baseball is a business but ownership of baseball teams SHOULD have another goal besides making a profit -- that should be to win a championship. And maybe that requires being a little more creative with your financing than just saying we're going to allocate 52% of expected revenues to payroll.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.