3 True Lies From the Twins Offseason

[h2oface]

Some owners of professional sports teams in the major leagues with comparable wealth of the Pohlad family like to spend, and aren't that concerned with their profits. If the team they own, which is not how they made their fortune, breaks even, or even loses some money now and then, they don't care. Well, they care, but they don't own the team to get richer, necessarily, but to have fun with their life and wealth. They bought the team to try to win it all, and they will spend to do it. If they win, then they will make more money, and they will like that as well. Market Smarket. We  don't have that kind of owner. Profit is king. That will not change for the Pohlads, it seems, even as the younger family members take control. The biggest lie came with the new stadium and getting the money from the City back more than a decade ago. Not tanking the payroll for the money share still applies. That lie is mostly forgotten with time, and ongoing. The spend strategy didn't work so well for the Mets, though.

[Mark G]

I am not sure I would call any of them lies, I think I would label it more like spin.  

The Twins FO giving us spin instead of just leveling with us........I wish you all could see my shocked face.  😵

[Jocko87]

Maybe, it's actually lie #4. Twins press/blogger community is a group of fair arbitors, holding the team to account. Reality-its a group of fan boys scarred by a life time fandom of bad team management including penny pinching.  

There are adults in charge now, and I don't blame anyone for not recognizing it.  Several of us on this forum, with significant real life experience in relevant areas have been trying to help everyone through this all offseason but the continuous editorial decisions leading to 4-5 articles like this per week are maddening.  

At some point, do some journalism. Bring me some concrete information that Aaron Nola was ready to come to Minnesota, if only ownership would have been comfortable with one additional million dollars.  I'll be happy to talk cheap owners then but spoiler, Nola never even heard of Minnesota. 

Bring a list of players they or we actually wanted, that wanted to be here, that they just wouldn't cut the check.  I'll wait.

In the meantime, understand that a one year TV deal changes nothing.  It might actually make next year worse if nothing gets settled in the meantime.  I promise you, there are puckered butts in the Twins offices that they didn't get something done. Whatever TV money they get this year is being saved because it will get worse before it gets better at this point.  

It's unfortunate that the blogger community needs the clicks from transactions to drive their engagement. It sets a perverse set of incentives for rational opinions.  Many times I feel they would like a bad transaction to talk about rather than quiet.  Better for business.

I just renewed my caretaker and am well aware I'm supporting something I hate right now.  For every article talking about a potential top 5 offense and defense we get 10 about the cheap liars that are to stupid to beat the bankruptcy court.  Let's get it together, stories out of spring training are readily available.  The team we have is in action. 

[JD-TWINS]

2 hours ago, Drtwins said:

The lie that is most disheartening imo is #2, the Twins must cut payroll. I only think it's a partial lie though as they knew the TV deal would be worse than 2023. The issue is they were going to end up with some type of TV deal, so to say they had to cut enough to make up for no TV never made sense. I do understand the argument that the Twins have a lot of good young talent so the extra money might not be needed. 

I believe the Twins were hopeful that numbers 1 and 3 are/would be true. Of course they don't want blackouts and the GM isn't going to intentionally make trades to make the team worse. Even if you believe the Polanco trade might make the team worse this year it will hopefully make the team improved in future years.

I love the optimism here, but to think every Twins player is going to be better than last year is ridiculous. You are basically saying Lopez, Ryan, and Ober are all going to have career years? And the guy with glass legs is going to get back to his 2017 form. There will likely be just as many players that pull a Miranda or Gordon as there will that have career years like Ober, Lopez, and Jeffers did last year. 

Ober’s first full year in the Show is the peak of his career?? Lopez getting a new pitch (sweeper) under control - getting in way better physical shape - gaining 1.5 mph on his fastball from the end of ‘22 and he’s peaked as well??? Jeffers played maybe 50% of the games in sum last year - he’ll be blended into a better line-up top to bottom in ‘24 and will have the experience of 400 more AB’s in the Show and the confidence that comes with the highest catcher OPS in ‘23…..he too has peaked????

Buxton - Correa - Vazquez can’t perform any more poorly in my opinion - not exactly “optimistic”, just pragmatic.

……………………………

#2 Addressing the original post…..don’t understand how the Twins restrictive spending in ‘24 will cause problems with arbitration guys in ‘25?

#3 How can anyone argue that the team’s roster is worse in ‘24 than in ‘23? They have Chris Paddack replacing Kenta Maeda ……can’t be worse than a draw. 3 other starters that are 27-28-29 that were all starters in ‘23 as well. One has progressed enough after 2 playoff games with a .71 ERA that many see him as a Top 5 Cy Young candidate in the AL. The Pen has been characterized as the 2nd best in the game & #1 in the AL.

Varland/DeSclafani/Festa/SWR can pitch 200 plus innings and have a record in their starts comparable or better than Gray. Team was 15-18 in his starts in ‘23. (not saying Gray sucks - just reporting reality to the value the team derived in his starts)

Royce Lewis - Eddie Julien/Kyle Farmer - Kirilloff/Santana all as starters from the jump in ‘24. Wallner in LF from the jump in ‘24. Buxton able to start 35-75 games in CF after zero in ‘23. Vazquez in better shape & Jeffers coming off best Catcher OPS in ‘23.

Kepler coming back from an elite 2nd half is an aside because he was & has been in the roster for years…….still more upbeat than when entering ‘23.

Castro on the 26 man from the jump & he has a year under his belt where he started the 4th most games of anyone on the team - will play 3 positions this year at a minimum - he had a 106 OPS+ and stole 33 bases in ‘23.

I know…….the thinking is blue sky & everyone is going to regress ………have seen that here on numerous posts……..it’s not all roses but they have a good club!!

[Major League Ready]

27 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Some owners of professional sports teams in the major leagues with comparable wealth of the Pohlad family like to spend, and aren't that concerned with their profits. If the team they own, which is not how they made their fortune, breaks even, or even loses some money now and then, they don't care. Well, they care, but they don't own the team to get richer, necessarily, but to have fun with their life and wealth. They bought the team to try to win it all, and they will spend to do it. If they win, then they will make more money, and they will like that as well. Market Smarket. We  don't have that kind of owner. Profit is king. That will not change for the Pohlads, it seems, even as the younger family members take control. The biggest lie came with the new stadium and getting the money from the City back more than a decade ago. Not tanking the payroll for the money share still applies. That lie is mostly forgotten with time, and ongoing. The spend strategy didn't work so well for the Mets, though.

I am curious who they are.  Give us examples that are not a one year anomaly.   Show us other teams spending consistently spending a larger portion of their revenue on payroll.  It would be great to see some supporting documentation when you make a statement as if it's fact.  The estimates that I have seen over the years always has the twins in the bottom 1/3 or even 1/4 in terms of net profit.  Which teams are operating at break even on even a semi-regular basis and which teams are operating at a loss?   I have spent quite a bit of time researching this and have never seen any indication of what you claim.

[sweetmusicviola16]

It continues to amaze me at how many are willing to defend Twins ownership. This owner can well afford the same payroll as last season. More than. He can afford the arb increases next season. There were legitimate FA's available which would have legitimately improved this team, still actually are a couple. But Pohlad's are simply greedy for the all mighty dollar. I'm not accusing the FO of lying, but corporate greed is obvious.

[Brandon]

I think the all in fans are screaming for happened last season.  The budget probably needed to go down to around the 140 million range.  The potential loss of tv revenue would push payroll to 125 million.  The Twins are at 123.5 and trying to add a backup OF and another depth starter.  That would push us to the 130 million mark and we have budget room for a starting pitcher pickup at the deadline and an extra top 100 prospect too.  So the Twins spent in line with where they should be and we have the most depth and deepest pen in the league.  The only step back is less than a run per game every 5th day.  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

7 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I needed to look up true lie. It seems like it would have better to simply lie.

Would they have sold more tickets without telling us that the budget would be cut? Lie about the budget and sell more tickets.

Would they have not signed Farmer or Santana if they didn’t think they were trying to improve the team? Adding short side platoon players or old 5th starters don’t move the needle towards improvement. Really lie and say you couldn’t get any players to sign and go with the inexpensive players.

 

Agreed, how I think of it is… If the FO/Ownership had framed it as “we believe the core is in place, and we’re going to supplement it with complementary pieces” it would have been true, given the impression of lower spending, without pegging the payroll to income. Pegging it to income made it a lie when they signed the Tv deal but still didn’t spend it.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

I think the all in fans are screaming for happened last season.  The budget probably needed to go down to around the 140 million range.  The potential loss of tv revenue would push payroll to 125 million.  The Twins are at 123.5 and trying to add a backup OF and another depth starter.  That would push us to the 130 million mark and we have budget room for a starting pitcher pickup at the deadline and an extra top 100 prospect too.  So the Twins spent in line with where they should be and we have the most depth and deepest pen in the league.  The only step back is less than a run per game every 5th day.  

I’m super excited about this team, and I think the complementary bullpen pieces brought in by the FO were good moves to solidify a very good top end of the pitching staff. The Twins may never again field as good of a team as appear poised to field for 2024, and that they didn’t push their chips in to make the two big moves that would transition them from post season contenders to World Series favorites is a horrible shame reminiscent of 2009 and 2010.

they hid behind a bs excuse about a TV contract that they knew they were getting something. They didn’t know about Amazon, but they knew they were getting something from the MLB, or some TV contract, and they knew 2025 was going to net them some amount in the MLB grand scheme.

im not pissed off about the money, I’m pissed off about the ownership’s plan to be conservative!

[USAFChief]

5 hours ago, miller761 said:

Payroll had to go down this year because it is going to increase by at least 20-25 million next year. Good business plans always are somewhat proactive when it comes to costs.

I guess practices could have changed, but the Twins have repeatedly stated budgets are year-to-year.

[Brandon]

21 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

I’m super excited about this team, and I think the complementary bullpen pieces brought in by the FO were good moves to solidify a very good top end of the pitching staff. The Twins may never again field as good of a team as appear poised to field for 2024, and that they didn’t push their chips in to make the two big moves that would transition them from post season contenders to World Series favorites is a horrible shame reminiscent of 2009 and 2010.

they hid behind a bs excuse about a TV contract that they knew they were getting something. They didn’t know about Amazon, but they knew they were getting something from the MLB, or some TV contract, and they knew 2025 was going to net them some amount in the MLB grand scheme.

im not pissed off about the money, I’m pissed off about the ownership’s plan to be conservative!

I’m just waiting for the trade deadline to see what happens.  Then I will be mad or not for the season overall.  

[jkcarew]

They were forthcoming with the news on payroll decline because they knew any stop-gap one-year TV deal would bring in way less money  than the previous deal had on an annual basis.

And they were correct. Many millions less. The narrative/insinuation that they “ended up getting a deal, but are pocketing the money” is ludicrous. They knew they would end up with SOME type of deal (and apparently, they were overconfident that it would include a solve for blackouts.)

Let’s wait to see what they do or don’t do in the next few weeks and at the deadline.

[DocBauer]

I also object to the term "lie". I guess it's mitigated somewhat in the opening text and the term "true lie", which I've never heard before. There are a lot of ways of saying there was spin, misleading initial information, any number of ways it could have been stated without using the word "lie" which indicates clear deception. And I don't see any of that. 

I have my opinions on ownership, which i will share, but first, some direct comments.

1] Twins ownership was in a very aquward place this offseason. I believe bad timing and MLB, share in the TV issue, as does Amazon to a degree. There are teams already under the MLB umbrella for broadcasts this year, which began last season when Bally simply stopped payments due and dropped out. There are other organizations that will see their deals drop next year, for varying reasons, or very soon. The Twins, I'm quite certain, were of the belief they were going to be under the MLB umbrella as well, and definitely looking at a loss of income, at least in the short term. But the blackout restrictions would have been removed. That was the positive for 2024 and the future. And so it was reported as such. With the future of what and how, and how much this new umbrella was going to pay out...as many as 15-18 teams in 2025 from what I've read and heard...the sudden changes/surprises that took place in the BK court flipped everything. Suddenly, the Twins had a chance to earn approximately 85% of their lost $55M, which is about $45-46M, versus an unknown amount. They took the $ for 1yr and the asanine blackouts were back in place for one more year. 

The vast extent of those blackouts remains completely asanine and illogical.

2] And this is also very much part of #1. Without any kind of guarantee of $ from MLB...certainly a major drop from 2023...a payroll drop would appear to be in order from a business standpoint. (More on that later). It's pretty easy to say that the way things played out that NOW the Twins have more $ than they expected, so they should go out and spend. But my question is, spend on who at this point?

When Amazon came in as a limited partner for Bally...for now...it changed the entire complexity of the situation, but I'd argue too late to do much good for the Twins. There was something... I can't find now...that was either legal or the judge's mandate, that basically gave Bally not only the right to negotiate new 1yr deals, but IIRC, it was basically a mandate that at least some of the teams involved HAD to sit down and negotiate in good faith. I'm not sure if that included the Twins as their deal had actually expired, but I do recall it affected other teams that Bally was pulling out of deals for, but weren't on expiring deals. Just a complete and utter mess! And again, some of this is bad timing, some blame belongs with MLB who wasn't looking far enough ahead, and Amazon for helping set up this mess by buying in all of a sudden.

IF these surprise BK events had taken place earlier, I ask again, with increased $ coming in that wasn't expected...and a lot of inexpensive talent on hand, more coming, and payroll cuts that came naturally from roster loses...who might the Twins have signed with the extra $ had it come earlier?

I would have been very interested in being a player for RHOF Gurriel to be a corner OF and part of the rotating DH. His signing MIGHT have lead to Kepler being involved in a deal. OR, a future replacement for Kepler in 2025. But NO REASON they couldn't have kept all 3 for 2024 and have even more options and an even deeper team/lineup.

IMO, Hoskins at 1B/DH was an option...no Santana...even on a short term deal. But probably not if Gurriel was signed.

The Twins don't sign 5-7yr deals for SP, especially those at 30yo plus. But they MIGHT have been in on Eduardo Rodriguez, at 31yo, for 3 or 4 years, which is what he signed for.

On a lower level, they might have signed a Strohman or Wacha on a short deal instead of trading for Desclafini. They could have then kept Polanco and Kepler, OR, in these events, moved either or both for different help, OR, a larger deal with Seattle for a young arm and simply NOT signed any FA rotation arm and just worked out a bigger deal with Seattle since they had already added Gurriel.

These are all some great opportunities to shuffle and add to the roster from offense to the starting staff, and whatever other pieces might be brought back in various deals. But none of it matters when you are looking at something like...at LEAST for 1yr...an anticipated drop in income of $30-35M. The Twins didn't lie about anything. In fact, they were very forthcoming, which they got blasted for, with Falvey being a fall guy that he didn't deserve to be.

3] I have to LOL at this. The FO is NOT ownership! Falvey and Levine have pushed the payroll to maintain a MLB AVG/MEAN while they've been in charge. To say they haven't been trying to improve the team is laughable! They, so far, have been unable to pull another rabbit out of the proverbial hat and make another Odorizzi, Gray, or Lopez trade that largely doesn't affect the system or 26 man roster to any dearthly degree. But they took a small gamble on Santana adding to the margins as a veteran presence who can help Kirilloff at 1B, PH, and MAYBE surprise if he suddenly learns how to hit RHP again. They provided an interesting #5 SP who doesn't excite me, but if truly 100% health wise, was good/great in 2021 and good for 2 months in 2023 before an elbow issue ended up shutting him down for the remainder of the season. So far, they've kept ALL of their prospects, not just the top 5-6, added a couple, and added a lot of depth and potential to the pen.

With tough constraints handed to them, the FO actually have tried to add and improve, knowing there are various forms of internal improvement that could/should take place.

So any actual target at the FO is laughable.

WHAT THE FO/OWNERSHIP SHOULD HAVE DONE:

THIS is where I have a problem with OWNERSHIP, maybe for the first time in a decade or so. When you look at a couple mistakes, some unbelievable 1st half offensive struggles, and a strong 2nd half to the season, and wrap it all up and deal with injuries and promotions and everything else, the 2023 Twins could have easily been a 90 win team. That was my prediction before the season, the 2nd half Twins were on pace to slightly exceed that, and I'll stand by my prediction. They won the ALC, won the series against the Jays, and IMO SHOULD have at least done better against the Astros. Youth vs experience and BTDT maybe??

What ownership SHOULD HAVE DONE is have Falvey stating the obvious about their loss of income, but instead of stating a cut, they were hoping to maintain payroll as much as they could depending on how things worked out.

Major League Ready had an earlier post you can agree with or not. But even if his figures aren't exactly right, what he produces is a truth, I believe. Unless you believe that total income for the Twins organization is FAR LESS than $300-ishM, his proposed model makes sense. And it's something I've spoken of previously. Owning a sports franchise NEVER means you should operate at a loss. That's just silly business sense. But when you are a BILLIONAIRE ownership... and your franchise could sell for $2B tomorrow...and your professional sports team is probably well out of your top 10 earnings per year at, oh let's say $30M for argument sake, if you had to earn only $20M for a year or two to invest, but maybe continue to develop your bottom line with positive results, isn't that worth something?

Ownership SHOULD have guessed/hoped for a better $ resolution and just told the FO to expect a neutral, or small cut and go for it. No advance in payroll, if that's their choice. Hope and expect for something better. And then ownership gets lucky and they only lose about $15M, which is $8M loss to the roster. 

The total loss of income is negligible for a billion dollar ownership who seems to suddenly see the Twins as income, which is ridiculous, or "just another business" which is equally ridiculous as improvement in your product leads to greater overall future value. 

WHAT OWNERSHIP/FO CAN DO:

WAKE UP. You don't have to be the Dodgers or Yankees to realize that in any business investment leads to returns.

I like this team in so many ways. It's too late for the BK alternative options that could have taken place. But you do have more $ that you didn't think you would have. And once again, right or wrong, some options have been laid at the Twins table. 

Just like Correa 2yrs ago, and last year, there is a CHANCE Boras comes calling to the Twins.

Is Montgomery on a 3yr $60-70M deal with an opt out each year crazy? Puts the Twins on the hook if he stinks, gives them 2yrs if he rebounds, gives them 1yr if he's good. And at that point, the system kicks in.

The same might be said for Bellinger, but I still think the Cubs or Giants will grab him.

I think I'm out on Snell because I just don't trust a guy who's Cy Young only ever few years and a question mark every other season.

Maybe the $ savings helps with a mid season trade, but that will cost prospect value. Maybe we can absorb that and do better than we did in 2022.

I DON'T believe the Twins lied about anything. I DO believe ownership was very short sighted. I HOPE opportunity won't slide by.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

4 hours ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

It continues to amaze me at how many are willing to defend Twins ownership. This owner can well afford the same payroll as last season. More than. He can afford the arb increases next season. There were legitimate FA's available which would have legitimately improved this team, still actually are a couple. But Pohlad's are simply greedy for the all mighty dollar. I'm not accusing the FO of lying, but corporate greed is obvious.

So, does this mean that the Pohlad family just owns the Twins because they are fans?  They have a substantial capital investment in the Twins and it would seem likely that they would want it to turn a profit rather than subsidize our entertainment for decades.  Pumping money from other sources into the team is not good business for anyone.   If it’s about what they can afford to pay, that’s not realistic.  They can afford to triple all the salaries and pay the salaries of the rest of the Central division, but doing so would make turning a profit impossible.  Believe it or not, rich guys have a budget too.  Having good stewardship of the budget is one of the ways they got that way and stay that way.  We would all do that, I hope.  

I know the Pohlad family makes for an easy target, but those who are basing criticism all on their cheapness and greed obviously weren’t around during the Calvin Griffith ownership days.  Now there was cheap!

[UK Twin]

TBH for me it's not improve the roster now or bust. Our roster is good enough to win the AL Central so I'm fairly relaxed about what the FO do between now and the start of the season. It's the time leading up to the trade deadline that's important for me. There's going to plenty of impact players on expiring contracts who may well be available.  Last season's trade deadline was a damp squib for Twins fans but we were treated to the signing of Correa and trade and subsequent extension of Pablo Lopez in the off season. This time the FO may well need to be aggressive near the trade deadline to make our roster a play off worthy one. 

[old nurse]

14 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

I applaud you, Cody. I think the one when they said they weren't taking any prospects' deals on any of the salary dump players was that the deals needed to directly respond to our needs. I applauded the FO for making the correct stand but whenever they make the correct stand you can count on them to change it, Which they did about a week later. They traded Polanco for 2 unnecessary prospects & 2 older vets, 1- RP & 1- 5th SP, positions we had covered in-house & positions that we could easily add to. We definitely got worse & when the Kool-Aid wears off everybody will regret this trade.

When someone uses the term KoolAid, I think of one word. Disrespect for others. The Twins are entertainment. People can have opinions different than yours without being accused of mind altering subfatances 

[old nurse]

Nick Nelson wrote a piece on the Twins losing money in 2022. Payroll went up. Perhaps the true lie is the fans with the Twins being cheap. They spent to build a winner but the lie of if you build they will come did not hold true 

[Doctor Gast]

23 minutes ago, old nurse said:

When someone uses the term KoolAid, I think of one word. Disrespect for others. The Twins are entertainment. People can have opinions different than yours without being accused of mind altering subfatances 

Kool-Aid isn't a mind-altering substance, at least not in the way I meant it. People can use the term Kool-Aid for me I don't care.

[old nurse]

4 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

Kool-Aid isn't a mind-altering substance, at least not in the way I meant it.

Your words were “once the KoolAid wears off”.  What is to wea off it is not mind altering? 

[Doctor Gast]

20 minutes ago, old nurse said:

Your words were “once the KoolAid wears off”.  What is to wea off it is not mind altering? 

It's blindly accepting something (in this case hype) to be true without testing it but later realizing it's false when it's too late. Social media is full of people pushing their agenda. If I was in this situation I wish someone to challenge me. I am always open for logical debate.

[old nurse]

11 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

It's blindly accepting something (in this case hype) to be true without testing it but later realizing it's false when it's too late. Social media is full of people pushing their agenda. If I was in this situation I wish someone to challenge me. I am always open for logical debate.

Again, disrespect. Which people are blind as no one really knows wha the profits/losses ae 

[Doctor Gast]

8 minutes ago, old nurse said:

Again, disrespect. Which people are blind as no one really knows wha the profits/losses ae 

I'm sorry you felt disrespected that wasn't my intent. I just want to shake people up to actually look at everything & then make a rational conclusion. Many take everything that our FO says & never question it.

[Brandon]

8 hours ago, DocBauer said:

I also object to the term "lie". I guess it's mitigated somewhat in the opening text and the term "true lie", which I've never heard before. There are a lot of ways of saying there was spin, misleading initial information, any number of ways it could have been stated without using the word "lie" which indicates clear deception. And I don't see any of that. 

I have my opinions on ownership, which i will share, but first, some direct comments.

1] Twins ownership was in a very aquward place this offseason. I believe bad timing and MLB, share in the TV issue, as does Amazon to a degree. There are teams already under the MLB umbrella for broadcasts this year, which began last season when Bally simply stopped payments due and dropped out. There are other organizations that will see their deals drop next year, for varying reasons, or very soon. The Twins, I'm quite certain, were of the belief they were going to be under the MLB umbrella as well, and definitely looking at a loss of income, at least in the short term. But the blackout restrictions would have been removed. That was the positive for 2024 and the future. And so it was reported as such. With the future of what and how, and how much this new umbrella was going to pay out...as many as 15-18 teams in 2025 from what I've read and heard...the sudden changes/surprises that took place in the BK court flipped everything. Suddenly, the Twins had a chance to earn approximately 85% of their lost $55M, which is about $45-46M, versus an unknown amount. They took the $ for 1yr and the asanine blackouts were back in place for one more year. 

The vast extent of those blackouts remains completely asanine and illogical.

2] And this is also very much part of #1. Without any kind of guarantee of $ from MLB...certainly a major drop from 2023...a payroll drop would appear to be in order from a business standpoint. (More on that later). It's pretty easy to say that the way things played out that NOW the Twins have more $ than they expected, so they should go out and spend. But my question is, spend on who at this point?

When Amazon came in as a limited partner for Bally...for now...it changed the entire complexity of the situation, but I'd argue too late to do much good for the Twins. There was something... I can't find now...that was either legal or the judge's mandate, that basically gave Bally not only the right to negotiate new 1yr deals, but IIRC, it was basically a mandate that at least some of the teams involved HAD to sit down and negotiate in good faith. I'm not sure if that included the Twins as their deal had actually expired, but I do recall it affected other teams that Bally was pulling out of deals for, but weren't on expiring deals. Just a complete and utter mess! And again, some of this is bad timing, some blame belongs with MLB who wasn't looking far enough ahead, and Amazon for helping set up this mess by buying in all of a sudden.

IF these surprise BK events had taken place earlier, I ask again, with increased $ coming in that wasn't expected...and a lot of inexpensive talent on hand, more coming, and payroll cuts that came naturally from roster loses...who might the Twins have signed with the extra $ had it come earlier?

I would have been very interested in being a player for RHOF Gurriel to be a corner OF and part of the rotating DH. His signing MIGHT have lead to Kepler being involved in a deal. OR, a future replacement for Kepler in 2025. But NO REASON they couldn't have kept all 3 for 2024 and have even more options and an even deeper team/lineup.

IMO, Hoskins at 1B/DH was an option...no Santana...even on a short term deal. But probably not if Gurriel was signed.

The Twins don't sign 5-7yr deals for SP, especially those at 30yo plus. But they MIGHT have been in on Eduardo Rodriguez, at 31yo, for 3 or 4 years, which is what he signed for.

On a lower level, they might have signed a Strohman or Wacha on a short deal instead of trading for Desclafini. They could have then kept Polanco and Kepler, OR, in these events, moved either or both for different help, OR, a larger deal with Seattle for a young arm and simply NOT signed any FA rotation arm and just worked out a bigger deal with Seattle since they had already added Gurriel.

These are all some great opportunities to shuffle and add to the roster from offense to the starting staff, and whatever other pieces might be brought back in various deals. But none of it matters when you are looking at something like...at LEAST for 1yr...an anticipated drop in income of $30-35M. The Twins didn't lie about anything. In fact, they were very forthcoming, which they got blasted for, with Falvey being a fall guy that he didn't deserve to be.

3] I have to LOL at this. The FO is NOT ownership! Falvey and Levine have pushed the payroll to maintain a MLB AVG/MEAN while they've been in charge. To say they haven't been trying to improve the team is laughable! They, so far, have been unable to pull another rabbit out of the proverbial hat and make another Odorizzi, Gray, or Lopez trade that largely doesn't affect the system or 26 man roster to any dearthly degree. But they took a small gamble on Santana adding to the margins as a veteran presence who can help Kirilloff at 1B, PH, and MAYBE surprise if he suddenly learns how to hit RHP again. They provided an interesting #5 SP who doesn't excite me, but if truly 100% health wise, was good/great in 2021 and good for 2 months in 2023 before an elbow issue ended up shutting him down for the remainder of the season. So far, they've kept ALL of their prospects, not just the top 5-6, added a couple, and added a lot of depth and potential to the pen.

With tough constraints handed to them, the FO actually have tried to add and improve, knowing there are various forms of internal improvement that could/should take place.

So any actual target at the FO is laughable.

WHAT THE FO/OWNERSHIP SHOULD HAVE DONE:

THIS is where I have a problem with OWNERSHIP, maybe for the first time in a decade or so. When you look at a couple mistakes, some unbelievable 1st half offensive struggles, and a strong 2nd half to the season, and wrap it all up and deal with injuries and promotions and everything else, the 2023 Twins could have easily been a 90 win team. That was my prediction before the season, the 2nd half Twins were on pace to slightly exceed that, and I'll stand by my prediction. They won the ALC, won the series against the Jays, and IMO SHOULD have at least done better against the Astros. Youth vs experience and BTDT maybe??

What ownership SHOULD HAVE DONE is have Falvey stating the obvious about their loss of income, but instead of stating a cut, they were hoping to maintain payroll as much as they could depending on how things worked out.

Major League Ready had an earlier post you can agree with or not. But even if his figures aren't exactly right, what he produces is a truth, I believe. Unless you believe that total income for the Twins organization is FAR LESS than $300-ishM, his proposed model makes sense. And it's something I've spoken of previously. Owning a sports franchise NEVER means you should operate at a loss. That's just silly business sense. But when you are a BILLIONAIRE ownership... and your franchise could sell for $2B tomorrow...and your professional sports team is probably well out of your top 10 earnings per year at, oh let's say $30M for argument sake, if you had to earn only $20M for a year or two to invest, but maybe continue to develop your bottom line with positive results, isn't that worth something?

Ownership SHOULD have guessed/hoped for a better $ resolution and just told the FO to expect a neutral, or small cut and go for it. No advance in payroll, if that's their choice. Hope and expect for something better. And then ownership gets lucky and they only lose about $15M, which is $8M loss to the roster. 

The total loss of income is negligible for a billion dollar ownership who seems to suddenly see the Twins as income, which is ridiculous, or "just another business" which is equally ridiculous as improvement in your product leads to greater overall future value. 

WHAT OWNERSHIP/FO CAN DO:

WAKE UP. You don't have to be the Dodgers or Yankees to realize that in any business investment leads to returns.

I like this team in so many ways. It's too late for the BK alternative options that could have taken place. But you do have more $ that you didn't think you would have. And once again, right or wrong, some options have been laid at the Twins table. 

Just like Correa 2yrs ago, and last year, there is a CHANCE Boras comes calling to the Twins.

Is Montgomery on a 3yr $60-70M deal with an opt out each year crazy? Puts the Twins on the hook if he stinks, gives them 2yrs if he rebounds, gives them 1yr if he's good. And at that point, the system kicks in.

The same might be said for Bellinger, but I still think the Cubs or Giants will grab him.

I think I'm out on Snell because I just don't trust a guy who's Cy Young only ever few years and a question mark every other season.

Maybe the $ savings helps with a mid season trade, but that will cost prospect value. Maybe we can absorb that and do better than we did in 2022.

I DON'T believe the Twins lied about anything. I DO believe ownership was very short sighted. I HOPE opportunity won't slide by.

I think the author was referencing Arnold Schwarzenegger movie True Lies. 

[Major League Ready]

Does anyone believe Corey Provus meant to mislead fans?  Who are “the others in the organization” that made this claim?  Is Corey Provus a member of Twin’s management?  No.  He is a member of the media making a prediction he thought to be true.  Would we be calling him a liar if he had he said he was sure Kepler would be traded?  

What really throws me is that the writers here have consistently portrayed the reduction in TV revenue as the only reason for a payroll reduction while withholding the fact that the Twin’s revenue would also go down by $30M (BAM money).  I recognize the FO never specifically stated that BAM money contributed to a record payroll in 2023 but I bet these same writers would have recognized it if the BAM payment was this year.  At first, I thought writers and posters were aware of the BAM money but after bringing it up a half dozen times it would appear that the writers and posters who want to cling to this negative narrative are ignoring facts that get in the way which implies the intent to mislead. Ironically, the twins FO was criticized for being too transparent!

BTW, if anyone is willing to look at what happen in an objective way, they did not set the budget believing they would lose all of the TV revenue which was the way many portrayed this situation.  They were losing $30M in BAM for certain.  Had they anticipated no TV revenue they would have had an $85M reduction in revenue and they would have cut the budget far more than they did.

[HrbieFan]

19 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Sorry Cody - I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with much of it.

First, you make is sound like the Twins’ ownership and FO are nefarious, duplicitous actors.  That’s a pretty harsh take, even in this day and age where everything one reads is essentially a lie.  
 

The TV deal has been in flux for quite a while and the organization never held the right cards to be able to drive their preferred deal. 

The team has been very transparent about their payroll targets and a) as you point out, the roster costs are going up next year and b) this year is not done yet (perhaps there is some cash awaiting to be spent at the deadline).

You cannot categorically say this projected lineup is worse than last year’s at this time. A healthy Buxton on its own might make this team better.  There is no question our bullpen is significantly better and deeper. The jury is still out on how Paddock and DeSclafani will perform vs. Gray and Maeda, and Lopez, Ryan, Ober and Varland should all be better than where they were expected to be at this time last year.  Sure, we lost the oft injured fan favorite in Polanco, but Julien and Wallner are way better than Larnach and Miranda.  And let’s not forget how much better Jeffers is now. Last year’s season was saved by those three players.

Let’s just see how it goes before condemning the team’s leadership this off-season.  

 

And I'm sure the Twins would accept a $30 million donation from Cody to sign Snell. 

[Johnny Ringo]

18 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

Amen, @Nashvilletwin. 

All offseason, many have been honked off that the Twins stated last fall that the payroll was going down. As armchair accountants, many of us have claimed that it didn't need to, blah, blah, blah, without truly having an understanding of their finances and where they are going in years to come.

It may or may not have needed to go down. I don't know about that, but I generally trust people who have more information over those who have less. But if they were going to choose to have it go down, it makes total sense to name that to the public in advance. It's a truism of public relations that you want to be transparent when presenting bad news. 

Look at it another way, folks. If they hadn't announced that spending would be down, the natural assumption on TD is likely that it's going to increase. If it was $159M last year, folks here would be assuming that this year would be $165M or more. Can you imagine how freaked people would be at this point if they were expecting $165M and we ended up where we are now?

 

I love the town of Nashville and I love the take. I know The Southern is perceived to be a tourist trap but man the food and people watching are tremendous. If you haven't been to The Cobra, you must go. One night we saw an all-girl Beatles tribute band in there, the Femme Four. Fab indeed.

I am not sure if this article is written seriously or if it some American Fiction (the best movie of 2023) clickbait exercise. I thought Bonnes had the money rant turned up to an 11 but this really comes off the top rope. 

 Falvey shot straight early that the payroll was an issue this year.  There is a reason he did that. He is a straight shooter.

Here are facts. We can accept them or not:

Falvey doesn't set his budget. The Pohlads expect the Twins to be a financial stand-alone entity. They are not going to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher. The Twins have no certainty as to media revenues after this year which made this FA season tough as they shied away from multi-year player deals.

The article rips the blackouts. It's bad. It is a annoyance. But they took the Bally deal because it was the only viable deal. So would you NOT have them take that and have to slash expenses more? I want my cake. I want to eat it too. And I want you to pay for it.

I think people need to curb their finance and bankruptcy incredulity at the door. They act like they have access to the books. They don't. The stuff that gets said here is filled with (to put it generously) imperfect information and knowledge. 

I am going to the yard on February 27th for my first ST game of the year. My heart will be filled with spring and hope and baseball. Moral outrage? No thanks. You can have mine too.

 

  

[Reptevia]

This whole thing can simply be spun as: “We’re betting on our guys. The guys who have gotten us this far plus some soon to arrive young guys.”

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Reptevia said:

This whole thing can simply be spun as: “We’re betting on our guys. The guys who have gotten us this far plus some soon to arrive young guys.”

Had they said this .... The reaction here would have been they are liars.  They just are not willing to spend the money. They are not serious about winning.  They are greedy, etc. or the ever popular why can't they just be honest and say they are unwilling to spend what it takes to get top talent.  They were completely transparent and that was not acceptable for some reason.

[rv78]

This team pays 2 players (Correa and Buxton) a 3rd of their payroll. Add in the raises Correa and Pablo Lopez get in 2025 and those 3 will get more than half of the current payroll. Start adding players like Lewis, Jeffers, Duran, Ryan, Ober, Jax and you have a serious payroll situation coming. You could say they are in trouble. Add in guys like Wallner, Miranda and Julien and some big decisions need to be made about the future of this club. Yes, Kepler will likely be gone as well as Vazquez, two $10M contracts, but $20M doesn't cover the 9 young guys I listed very well and the big 3 will still be here taking the cream of the pie. With the way this club operates it is very likely that 4 or 5 of the 9 young players I listed will be traded or lost via free agency and the next core of players in the minors will need to step up. All of this means the FO will NOT be handing out any more Correa type contracts to any type of Free Agent until he is off the books and the FO had better start getting creative in dealing with the likes of Lewis, Jeffers, Duran, and do it soon, or they'll be too late.

[IndianaTwin]

7 minutes ago, rv78 said:

This team pays 2 players (Correa and Buxton) a 3rd of their payroll. Add in the raises Correa and Pablo Lopez get in 2025 and those 3 will get more than half of the current payroll. Start adding players like Lewis, Jeffers, Duran, Ryan, Ober, Jax and you have a serious payroll situation coming. You could say they are in trouble. Add in guys like Wallner, Miranda and Julien and some big decisions need to be made about the future of this club. Yes, Kepler will likely be gone as well as Vazquez, two $10M contracts, but $20M doesn't cover the 9 young guys I listed very well and the big 3 will still be here taking the cream of the pie. With the way this club operates it is very likely that 4 or 5 of the 9 young players I listed will be traded or lost via free agency and the next core of players in the minors will need to step up. All of this means the FO will NOT be handing out any more Correa type contracts to any type of Free Agent until he is off the books and the FO had better start getting creative in dealing with the likes of Lewis, Jeffers, Duran, and do it soon, or they'll be too late.

Vazquez is signed through 2025. If they do find a trade partner, there's a decent chance they have to kick in some cash. So either it's just Kepler's $10M that's gone or it's maybe $16M-$17M gone from Kepler and Vazquez.

Either way, Lopez himself uses up $13.5M of the savings, so they are already at close to a wash without dealing with the increases for young guys.