Ownership and the value of a winning culture

[DaveW]

This was touched upon briefly in a now dead thread, but the question was brought up:

 

I'm curious...would you be satisfied if we had five, ten GM's instead of one (and of course Bill Smith's short tenure, making it two) over the years, but the exact same record? Or worse?

Fair question no doubt, I think "Satisfied" is the wrong word personally.

 

Now, I am not saying the Pohlad's don't want to win, or are trying not to win, but I don't think its a stretch to suggest that maybe winning isn't and hasn't been the Pohlad's number one objective...well...ever.

 

I would be happy if the Twins had an owner who valued winning at the top of their agenda.

 

I brought up the Vikings as a comparison, Ziggy Wilf should be credited with trying to make the Vikings into a winner, he holds his coaches, GM's accountable for failures and is somewhat quick to pull the trigger on needed changes to right the ship. Now while it is a bit silly to call the Vikings a winning organization, it should be noted that in the last 20 years they have actually had a good amount of overall success, they have made the NFC championship game 3 times, and in two of those should have made the super bowl if it weren't for some all time classic Minnesota Viking chokes. In addition, the Vikings have made bold moves time and time again to make themselves competitive, have they won any super bowls, or even made a super bowl? Will they ever win a super bowl? Nope (it is our fate as Vikings fans) but they have been an entertaining team to watch and it is good to know that Wilf is committed to trying to bring a super bowl to Minnesota someday.

 

With the Pohlads, nothing ever changes, they have basically said that the GM has the role until he doesn't want it anymore. That is sort of the opposite of building a winning culture as it shows a lack of accountability IMO.

 

So the question is:

Would you rather have an owner like Ziggy Wilf, or like Jim Pohlad?

 

[Old Twins Cap]

In terms of the Pohlads, one has to understand that owning the Twins is just one of many things that occupy their attention over the course of an average day.  And likely, because it is somewhat self-contained, in a league with other teams, the Twins are not a demanding or complex operation compared to other business or personal interests that they are involved with.

 

As such, particularly if they are not sports-crazy or even validated by their peers for their inner drive to make the Twins successful, there just is not any "push" for the Pohlads to try harder.

 

Thus, a "winning culture" is not really driving their decision-making.  They want credibility, they want a well-managed organization, they want to stay within accepted parameters of financial commitment, they want to be good corporate contributors to this region -- they want and ask for many things, but it would be a stretch to say they are single-minded about a winning culture.

 

That may be a down side to having a diversified "billionaire" family own your city's baseball franchise -- it's just another nice card in their hand.  Someone like Ilitch in Detroit, for whatever reason, is an example of an owner that wants to win championships and will go all in to do that -- even wandering off the financial reservation at times to try to get it done.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It's not just the ownership to me -- I get the impression from everyone in the organization that we don't really mind losing or falling short of big objectives, as long as we do it "our way" with "our guys."  Yearly first round playoff disappointments didn't really make a dent in our approach; it takes an epically bad rotation, bullpen, or 4 season record just to make any changes -- that's not coming from ownership, I think that's the whole organization working in their comfort zone, but missing a lot of opportunities.

 

I like that we're not changing the guard every couple years, that can be brutal to watch (Gophers, T-Wolves, etc.), but the "Twins Way" doesn't seem appropriate for a highly competitive field either. I think there is a middle ground here.

 

- We don't have to fire the GM or manager every couple years, but we should be able to regularly get some new blood in the mix, especially when our GM retired and might do so again (and our second in command has iffy baseball instincts)

 

- We don't have to bid on elite free agents (although every once and a while probably wouldn't hurt), but we should be able to be more proactive in the market rather than reactive

 

- We don't always have to be late to implement a strategy or exploit a market

 

I like our familiar faces like the local hardware store, but Major League Baseball is a global commercial enterprise, not my local town ball team.  A loyal group of experts in this field should be able to experiment, innovate, grow, and be aggressive, together, in pursuit of common goals in a competitive field, more than the Twins have attempted to do.

 

[Dr. Evil]

They care about winning to the extent that it fits neatly within a nice sound business model. Just enough hope to keep the gates busy but not enough to put winning first.

[Don Walcott]

Attendance has dropped by over 1 million since 2010.  Yet even this losing team continues to make profit for the owners.  If the owners spent the money necessary to try to win (like the Tigers), it's possible that they could earn $50 million per year more just from selling tickets.  The TV and internet money is getting better every year, and the team is worth $900 million, probably soon to be $1 billion.  The owners are very comfortable whether the team wins or loses. 

 

What I don't understand is with this kind of money, why don't they at least take a real shot at winning right now, when the team is getting better?  Considering how much profit can be gained by being good, isn't that a risk worth taking?

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't know if there's that much more profit to be had, but it's an interesting question.  They've got a good revenue floor in the new stadium, and the Twins are the only ticket around in town, and on TV, in this area for a good portion of the year.  A serious push for the World Series, or even a 2015 Blue Jays type run, could put the Twins in a pretty good bargaining position to extract more from FSN and local ticket buyers.

[gunnarthor]

But only the Giants, Red Sox and Yankees have won more World Series since the Pohlads took over.  So they must be the 4th best owners.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That may be a down side to having a diversified "billionaire" family own your city's baseball franchise -- it's just another nice card in their hand.  Someone like Ilitch in Detroit, for whatever reason, is an example of an owner that wants to win championships and will go all in to do that -- even wandering off the financial reservation at times to try to get it done.

Well, Illitch realizes he can't take it with him. It would have been kinda fun to see ol' Carl take the same approach but the guy made his fortune by being a cut throat. No reason we should have expected that to change.

 

I'm hoping the Pohlad children take a different approach when the time is right. I have no reason to think they will but it'd be a pleasant surprise.

[DaveW]

 

Well, Illitch realizes he can't take it with him. It would have been kinda fun to see ol' Carl take the same approach but the guy made his fortune by being a cut throat. No reason we should have expected that to change.

 

I'm hoping the Pohlad children take a different approach when the time is right. I have no reason to think they will but it'd be a pleasant surprise.

Money is only one area, if they don't want to spend more money that's fine, but if that is the case it would be nice if they actually held people in the organization accountable for any failures of the team etc

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't know if there's that much more profit to be had, but it's an interesting question.  They've got a good revenue floor in the new stadium, and the Twins are the only ticket around in town, and on TV, in this area for a good portion of the year.  A serious push for the World Series, or even a 2015 Blue Jays type run, could put the Twins in a pretty good bargaining position to extract more from FSN and local ticket buyers.

 

Does anyone have access to their cable deal?  All I could find is that it's worth 29M a year, but how long they are locked in for is a mystery.  

 

To contrast that with Arizona (a similar market size), the D-backs new deal guarantees them about 80-90M annually.  That's an enormous difference that I think people need to take into consideration.  Every team that has recently signed one of these cable deals has immediately pumped it into payroll and big FA splashes.  (On the flip side, the Twins signing the 29M deal is their own fault too)

 

But I'm not sure they can renegotiate anything with FSN, that's probably something in the contract that we aren't privy to.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Does anyone have access to their cable deal?  All I could find is that it's worth 29M a year, but how long they are locked in for is a mystery.

I think it's among the questions submitted to Parker to ask Dave St Peter, so we shall see!

 

Hopefully it wasn't for a very long term, or had some kind of renegotiate/opt-out provision.  For all the Twins quiet, conservative nature, they were sure aggressive about their stadium and media deals, so it would be unexpected if they locked themselves into a bad TV deal here.

[Seth Stohs]

I don't believe firing is the answer. Obviously there are occasions. It happened with Gardy after 4 losing seasons.

 

But in general, I believe continuity is almost always better than frequent changes. I don't think "accountability" has to be in the form of firing. 

 

I believe players should get whatever they can, otherwise the money goes to the owners.

 

I believe that if you're going to own something, you shouldn't have to lose money. 

 

I looked last week... The Twins were 18th last year in payroll and 21st in revenues.

 

Their payroll/revenue was about 48.85% (which was 13th highest)... (revenues came from a Forbes study, payrolls can be found all over online). 

 

Detroit was at 68%

White Sox were at 51%

Royals and Twins were both at 49%

Cleveland was at under 42%

 

Scott Boras, of course, wants it to be at like 58% (or some number like that he mentioned at the Winter Meetings). Players Association leader Tony Clark said that it's getting closer to 50% which is a good place for it to be.

[Mike Sixel]

Here is a list of people saying the Pohlad family should lose money on the Twins:

 

 

 

 

It also seems a huge percent of people here believe no one should ever be fired from their job. That is no way to run a business. Maybe I am not understanding the argument.....

 

 

[Platoon]

I have always heard the accepted PR % should be in the 51% range. So they are in the ballpark! Pun intended. I don't mind that they don't spend the kind of money Price got. But I think they are slow to react to roster issues, have a tendency to play favorites with veterans, and in general distrust youth. I don't know how this years roster will end up looking, but at the current time, it doesn't appear any serious effort is being made to turn it into a cohesive unit.

[DaveW]

 

I don't believe firing is the answer. Obviously there are occasions. It happened with Gardy after 4 losing seasons.

 

But in general, I believe continuity is almost always better than frequent changes. I don't think "accountability" has to be in the form of firing. 

 

I believe players should get whatever they can, otherwise the money goes to the owners.

 

I believe that if you're going to own something, you shouldn't have to lose money. 

 

I looked last week... The Twins were 18th last year in payroll and 21st in revenues.

 

Their payroll/revenue was about 48.85% (which was 13th highest)... (revenues came from a Forbes study, payrolls can be found all over online). 

 

Detroit was at 68%

White Sox were at 51%

Royals and Twins were both at 49%

Cleveland was at under 42%

 

Scott Boras, of course, wants it to be at like 58% (or some number like that he mentioned at the Winter Meetings). Players Association leader Tony Clark said that it's getting closer to 50% which is a good place for it to be.

It's not all about firing, it's about accountability, when you say "our GM is our GM until he says he isn't any more" you are basically saying "Hey, as long as you don't waste our money or embarass us with a scandal, you can write your own check!" Especially for a GM who hasn't won titles before. I can almost get that if you are talking about Theo Epstein or Sabean (or a coach like Belicheck), but Terry Ryan or nearly every other GM? Nope!

 

The Twins don't fire ANYONE for the most part, while I don't think firing everyone every few years is a good idea, I think at some point new blood is good for any team or any organization in general. The Twins FO has had a real lack of new blood/outside blood for a long time IMO.

 

Lastly, again payroll is just ONE component, I'm not saying the Twins need to spend $150 million a year or even 130 million a year! The Twins at any point during their playoff runs in the past or even last year could have traded for a half season rental, even if that player had a large salary it wouldn't push them that much higher over the 50% "threshold". For instance Cueto would have cost like 3.5 million at the deadline in salary. (Not saying the Twins needed to trade for him, but you get the point) At some point during the Twins "run" they could have brought in a Cliff Lee (or anyone else really) without having to pay a ton of money out of pocket (due to 1/3rd of a season salary and lack of long term commitment)

[Monkeypaws]

I'm a sap for old-school values, but I think loyalty is an admirable quality, and I believe it can compensate for a lot of flashier qualities if accompanied by a modicum of wisdom. 

[Hrbowski]

Do I have to choose between Wilf and Pohlad?

[formerly33]

While Dave has a point, and I definitely would appreciate having an owner who really cared for the team, I don't think the difference it would make is significant.

 

Suppose JP did go through GMs at a much faster rate. Would it be that much different than TR going through mediocre RPs? I doubt one GM would take off from another GM's work right away, and if they did, likely the previous GM set them up pretty good and didn't need to be fired after all.

 

No doubt if this was the case, TD would be full of threads titled "Another mediocre GM," "Jim Pohlad's foolish gamble," "Pohlad reacts again," and, finally, "Ownership and the value of a winning culture."

[DaveW]

 

While Dave has a point, and I definitely would appreciate having an owner who really cared for the team, I don't think the difference it would make is significant.

 

Suppose JP did go through GMs at a much faster rate. Would it be that much different than TR going through mediocre RPs? I doubt one GM would take off from another GM's work right away, and if they did, likely the previous GM set them up pretty good and didn't need to be fired after all.

 

No doubt if this was the case, TD would be full of threads titled "Another mediocre GM," "Jim Pohlad's foolish gamble," "Pohlad reacts again," and, finally, "Ownership and the value of a winning culture."

I'm not saying they need to go through GM's every few years, I actually think loyalty and patience are VERY GOOD things in sports, guys like Pete Caroll and Bill Belicheck were both kicked to the curb early, once a team gave them a real chance they succeeded. (Heck one team actually learned their lesson in that example)

 

But the Pohlads have taken Loyalty way past the point of what is "nice to see", it's almost some weird form of nepotism that exists. Even if someone doesn't agree with a change being needed in the GM role.

 

I think most can agree that the Twins lack success, of pitchers who can throw strike outs etc etc are a cause for change somewhere, however no real change has been made  in the org over the past 20 years other than Bill Smith getting out, Gardy fired and a couple guys to be hired in the "advanced stats" department.

 

So while, I don't want a new GM/coach every 3-4 years, I do have to ask you, wouldn't it have been nice for the Twins to attempt to go outside the organization when they replaced Ryan the first time, rather then a "loyal" employee who had no real background in talent evaluation/scouting or anything of the like?

[formerly33]

I'm not saying they need to go through GM's every few years, I actually think loyalty and patience are VERY GOOD things in sports, guys like Pete Caroll and Bill Belicheck were both kicked to the curb early, once a team gave them a real chance they succeeded. (Heck one team actually learned their lesson in that example)

 

But the Pohlads have taken Loyalty way past the point of what is "nice to see", it's almost some weird form of nepotism that exists. Even if someone doesn't agree with a change being needed in the GM role.

 

I think most can agree that the Twins lack success, of pitchers who can throw strike outs etc etc are a cause for change somewhere, however no real change has been made  in the org over the past 20 years other than Bill Smith getting out, Gardy fired and a couple guys to be hired in the "advanced stats" department.

 

So while, I don't want a new GM/coach every 3-4 years, I do have to ask you, wouldn't it have been nice for the Twins to attempt to go outside the organization when they replaced Ryan the first time, rather then a "loyal" employee who had no real background in talent evaluation/scouting or anything of the like?

Sure...it'd've been nice to not have to think about the Bill Smith years. I'll concede to that. And if we'd gotten someone better, maybe we wouldn't have all these entertaining Terry Ryan threads on TD to this day. But still, I can't bring myself to hate TR the way some (or most) people do. Sure, he's frustrating at times...many times...all the time...but believe me, every GM would and will have their bad moments and ongoing idiosyncrasies. Sometimes we feel like we need a new face, and sometimes that's a good thing. But frequently we simply find ourselves looking for a new face for the sake of this new face rather than for the actual changes that will (yet won't) happen.

 

I wouldn't exactly call myself a Ryan apologist. It's just that my question is this: would a new GM improve things? And, if not, why bother?

 

Please, please don't answer with a cliché "Why NOT?!?" I already know that's a reason. But to me, it's not good enough to justify firing Ryan.

[DaveW]

 

Sure...it'd've been nice to not have to think about the Bill Smith years. I'll concede to that. And if we'd gotten someone better, maybe we wouldn't have all these entertaining Terry Ryan threads on TD to this day. But still, I can't bring myself to hate TR the way some (or most) people do. Sure, he's frustrating at times...many times...all the time...but believe me, every GM would and will have their bad moments and ongoing idiosyncrasies. Sometimes we feel like we need a new face, and sometimes that's a good thing. But frequently we simply find ourselves looking for a new face for the sake of this new face rather than for the actual changes that will (yet won't) happen.
 
I wouldn't exactly call myself a Ryan apologist. It's just that my question is this: would a new GM improve things? And, if not, why bother?
 
Please, please don't answer with a cliché "Why NOT?!?" I already know that's a reason. But to me, it's not good enough to justify firing Ryan.

Ryan has had ample time to be a GM (17 seasons) and has yet to make it to a world series, much less win won, and hasn't made an ALCS other than once.

 

Couple that with the inaction we often see in the trade market and the overall lack of good FA signings overall and yes, I would think that a new GM would improve things, or at least present the very real possibility of improving things.

 

Also nobody "hates" TR, can we knock it off with the rhetoric? I was TR's biggest supporter for the first 14 years of his run (both before and after the retirement) it's the last three that make me think that it is in fact time for a change (but doesn't diminish the very nice run he had several years ago for a few years in a row)

[DaveW]

 

 

 

 if you were such a fan of his before and after the retirement, I would suggest giving him a few more years to clean up someone else's mess before jumping to any conclusions that he's done. Try looking at him as if he were a completely new GM, acquired from outside the organization and everything else you might find desirable. If he/she had made the EXACT same moves, don't you think you'd still give them more leeway?

I'm not even sure what your first paragraph has to do with anything, so gonna focus on this one.

 

The thing is, it wasn't someone else's mess completely, a lot of it was his mess that he left Bill Smith with to begin with. Also his moves over the last 3 years makes it clear he hasn't changed a bit, continuing to hand out contracts to the Pelfreys of the world is the equiovlent of when he extended Blackburn for no real reason.

 

Comparing him to a "new GM out of nowhere" is irrelevant, but even if it was a new GM out of where I would have them on a very short leash going into this season, and would be upset if they still managed to fail to address a HUGE weakness that is easily fixed (bullpen), and this doesn't even get into how they have managed Hicks over the last couple years, how they moved May to the pen, how they brought up prospects like Sano a little too late, let the bullpen get to the point of disaster before finally addressing it  at the last minute of trade deadline etc.

 

[formerly33]

 

I'm not even sure what your first paragraph has to do with anything, so gonna focus on this one.

 

The thing is, it wasn't someone else's mess completely, a lot of it was his mess that he left Bill Smith with to begin with. Also his moves over the last 3 years makes it clear he hasn't changed a bit, continuing to hand out contracts to the Pelfreys of the world is the equivalent of when he extended Blackburn for no real reason.

Comparing him to a "new GM out of nowhere" is irrelevant, but even if it was I would have them on a very short leash going into this season, and would be upset if they still managed to fail to address a HUGE weakness that is easily fixed (bullpen), and this doesn't even get into how they have managed Hicks over the last couple years, how they moved May to the pen, how they brought up prospects like Sano a little too late, let the bullpen get to the point of disaster before finally addressing it at the last minute of trade deadline etc.

Okay, I guess I can quite easily believe that you'd be hard on a new GM. You've been the same with Molly.

 

I guess I've strayed from the original topic, but, since it's your thread, it's probably fine. You seem to enjoy a good discussion. But I guess I never answered the question you posted at the beginning of the thread: "Would you rather have an owner like Zygi Wilf or Jim Pohlad?"

 

Um...er...I don't know. Pros and cons, I'd say. I personally don't care about ownership that much. But the point is, we both know each other's stances now, and obviously we're not going to convert the other, so let's just agree to disagree, right?

[DaveW]

 

"Would you rather have an owner like Zygi Wilf or Jim Pohlad?"

 

Um...er...I don't know. Pros and cons, I'd say. I personally don't care about ownership that much.

I'm curious to hear what the pros and cons would be? (again I'm not a huge Wilf guy anyways)

 

As far as Molly goes, I think Gardy was the unfair fall guy in that whole situation, if Gardy went, Ryan should have went as well. It's not Gardy's fault he had to deal with a crappy rotation and crappy lineup. Time will tell in regards to Molly, but by every single measure he got lucky last year to have a 75 win team via runs scored/runs given up, win 83 games. Can he be a great manager? of course! But I don't think manager was ever the issue with this club, it was Front office and above.

[wickedslider]

The fact that Ryan has always stated that ownership never refused to spend more money on players puts the onus on him. Do I believe him? Not really, but that's all I have to go on. I read an article that stated the Twin's formula of spending a certain % of their revenues on salaries, is no longer within the league norms, but generally trails that of consistently successful teams. Yes there are exceptions now and then. Face it, we were fortunate to play in a division in which at least 3 teams were always terrible.

The fact that he failed to do much to ever make our team of the 2000's better via the trade deadline, tells me volumes about whether winning the WS is the goal of this team. Yeah, he signed Stewart, and went out and got Capps. One of those moves worked to some degree, while the other (capps) was debatable as Rauch's stats have shown.

We've had exactly one real "ace" since 1991, in Santana. Even the 2010 team had holes in the rotation, with only 2 guys having ERA's under 4.00 and the best of those was still 3.62. Nos. 3-5 were around 4.5, 4.5, and 5.5. Not much better than last season. Their everyday lineup carried them. Strikeout pitchers are the most expensive to acquire. Whether out of fear of not wanting to pay them eventually, or "pitch to contact" is a real philosophy they followed, is up for debate. I think it was out of fear of eventually having to pay them as evidenced by the fact that they let Santana go.

The Pohlads surely have done extensive research on their fans. Present company excluded, but many Minnesotan's for better or worse, are by and large happy to be competitive. Thus the Pohlads know that by fielding a competitive team, they are able to draw fans. Having a little insight to other people's market research on Minnesotans, along with 47 out of my 55 total years of rabid fandom in this state, tells me I'm probably on the right track.

The fact is that the Twin's haven't gone all in since 1991, which is the last time they went out and signed a top free agent in Jack Morris. They had a great nucleus then just as they had in 2010. Tapani from then would be our ace now with a 2.99 ERA. Scott Erickson our #3 had a 3.18 ERA. Do you see anyway the Twins put together that kind of staff today, even in this "pitcher's" era? McPhail vs. Ryan. Same owner, but different goals.

[HitInAPinch]

Pohlad's vs. the Wilf's.   Far different types of people:

 

The Pohlad brothers inherited the banking business from their father.  Bankers, by their very nature, are conservative in all things, especially money,

 

The Wilf's; parents were Holocaust survivors from Poland.  Migrated to US in early 1950's.  The father Joseph and uncle Harry began purchasing apartment buildings and renting units.  Then building homes, became real estate developer, formed a corporation, etc.  Get the pattern here?  Always building.

 

Does it surprise anyone that the Wilf's are more aggressive that the Pohlad's?

 

 

[bird]

 

Well, Illitch realizes he can't take it with him. It would have been kinda fun to see ol' Carl take the same approach but the guy made his fortune by being a cut throat. No reason we should have expected that to change.

 

I'm hoping the Pohlad children take a different approach when the time is right. I have no reason to think they will but it'd be a pleasant surprise.

 

Carl's boys are all different than he was. People who work in management at the various Pohlad Companies have mostly positive things to say about the culture within the organization. They say they are held to very high standards, are held accountable, are rewarded for excellence. Their businesses are generally well-run and successful.

 

Loyalty is valued within the corporate "family". Despite appearances though, I believe Ryan and everyone else has to answer for their performance. I think they disagree with those who think Ryan's performance is change-worthy. 

 

I think Old Twins Cap described the organization's approach nicely. They want to win another WS or two, just not as badly as some of us do. But I also think spycake's criticisms have at least some merit.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think we really know what the Pohlads believe or want. I would like the team to be more aggressive when they think they are contenders. If they really believe they are contenders this year, then, imo, they aren't doing enough to win it all. That was my issue with Ryan last time, and it remains my issue this time so far. There is not evidence he's willing to push his chips in.

 

Now, maybe, he doesn't think this year is the year......but next year's FA class is supposed to be one of the worst ever, so good luck getting FAs that are great next year, given that there won't be many to choose from (therefore increasing their cost).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't think we really know what the Pohlads believe or want. I would like the team to be more aggressive when they think they are contenders. If they really believe they are contenders this year, then, imo, they aren't doing enough to win it all. That was my issue with Ryan last time, and it remains my issue this time so far. There is not evidence he's willing to push his chips in.

 

Now, maybe, he doesn't think this year is the year......but next year's FA class is supposed to be one of the worst ever, so good luck getting FAs that are great next year, given that there won't be many to choose from (therefore increasing their cost).

I don't think it's the right time to push the chips into the middle of the table. This team, while winning 83 games last season, was extremely lucky in reaching that mark.

 

But that doesn't mean there isn't a huge swath of middle ground between "standing pat" and "pushing the chips into the middle of the table" that shouldn't be explored.

 

Overall, I'm somewhat happy with this offseason. Park was a good get. Murphy is underwhelming but has some upside.

 

To me, the success/failure of this offseason comes down to the bullpen. If Ryan doesn't pick up at least one above average arm, it'll be tough to swallow.

 

At this point in the team's rebuild cycle, I don't need the team to go all in... But I do expect them to fill holes with competent players. Ryan has done that, to an extent... But more needs to be done.

[Platoon]

The Pohlads almost certainly hold Ryan accountable. And they likely have a set of criteria they use to analyze his performance. The question is where does wins/losses sit on that list. If Ryan is judged on the P/L then I would imagine he is quite well regarded. Many of his moves are of the low risk, low reward type. Most banks live on that philosophy. Keeping seats in the seats is the priority. The Hunter deal was like that. To us the 10M seemed excessive, to them it was the cost of selling tickets to a dissatisfied customer base after four really bad years, and a new stadium bloom that had worn off. Instant excitement before a pitch was thrown. It did nothing for the future of the franchise, but sold tickets. I believe TR firs perfectly into the Pohlads corporate structure. He could run a bank, auto dealership, or the baseball team with the same reliable efficiency. And I don't think after 20 years of either being the guy, or hovering over the guy, anything is going to change in operating theory. If they become a consistent winner it will be in spite of Ryan, not because of Ryan.