Dear Pohlads: Don't Do This

[Nashvilletwin]

1 hour ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

The billionaires would LOVE for you to believe they are losing money. There's a reason none of them open their books until they are forced to.

The Mets and the Padres are the only teams in recent memory that have been run without profitability as the top priority and that's because Steve Cohen couldn't spend all his money if he tried and Peter Seidler wanted to win one before he died. Those are extreme outlier cases in all the history we have of MLB team spending. 

The overall Twins franchise - inclusive of all entities - has supposedly been annually losing over $10MM on a cash basis for several years.   Please note the word “cash”. I use “supposedly” because I can’t prove it per se, but have a really good idea.  Regardless, no one on this site can prove it otherwise, so just for kick’s sake, open your mind a bit and assume it’s true.

I get it - it’s not your cash.  And yes, they are certainly making it up on increases in annual equity value. (As an aside, are we all so positive that equity values are rising as much as we all assume? Should a market like that in which the Twins operate have the same equity value growth opportunity and potential upside as others? - The answer to that is no - each of the markets is different, even though a rising or falling tide impacts all ships to some degree).  But cash is cash and you still have to fund the business.  

What is your suggestion? Borrow? Who knows what the current balance sheet looks like or existing leverage. Take cash from the other Pohlad entities?  Who knows how complicated that could be on so many different levels. Just write a check from their bank accounts and infuse cash? Is that the best use of their capital? What would you do given your wealth of business experience and acumen? 

Are the Twins a “community asset” that should be run for the benefit of the Twin Cities and/or state?  Many on this site would probably say yes, sadly and unrealistically. The Pohlads must be idiots the way they are running this team and franchise into the ground (which, of course, they are not doing).

Are the Pohlad’s perfect?  No.  Not even close.  Are the Twins actually a pretty well run, competitive organization that mostly does the right things in the right way?  Yeah, they are.

The owners bashing on this site is predictable, yet still nauseating. I understand it and expect it. The Pohlads don’t make all the right calls, but the deluded posters on this site wouldn’t either.

I really wish one of you would just take your own several billion dollars, buy the club and run it without a care in the world for the finances.  Then the world championships will stack up (yeah, right) and we all can complain about how the clown we paid $500MM over ten years can’t hit his way out of a paper bag,

[nicksaviking]

38 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The markets aren't the same either. The NFL is #1 in the Twin Cities market and the NBA/WNBA are gaining in popularity. The Cardinals have the St. Louis market basically to themselves with just NHL hockey in the offseason and a brand-new MLS expansion team during the season.

If the Twins are losing ground to the Timberwolves, losing market share in Iowa to St. Louis, KC and the Chicago teams, losing fans due to apathy and losing TV negotiations to a 3rd rate sports provider, that all falls under Dave St. Peter's prevue and it's long been my opinion that he needs to be replaced.

The 14th biggest market but as they'd have us believe, bottom ten in revenue? How many other businesses would keep the same CEO for two decades?

[AKTwinsFan]

They need to work with the rest of the BSN teams and start up their own broadcast network. That way they can invest in their own teams and not share profits with a 100 other teams on a bankrupt network.

[rationalfan]

2 hours ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

If you aren’t going to push some chips once in a while, are you even playing the game?

Better way to word it, if you aren’t going to go for it this year, when will you ever go for it?

1. The Twins have been pushing some chips more than once in a while in the last few years both at the trade deadline and the offseason.

2. The new format with 6+ (it has been 7 and even 8 in recent years) playoff teams for each league means that unless you're doing a tank/rebuild, you will be "in it" almost every year.  Does that make you obligated to trade away prospects to "go for it" each of those years?  The new format is interesting for small and mid-market teams - I don't think it's feasible to be buyers every year that they're pretty good.  Last year, Cleveland was a seller which helped seal the deal for the Twins.  THAT would tick me off (making my team worse for the stretch run).

As for the "10th richest owners" thing, yeah it feels good to be jealous of fans that have/have had an owner that acts like a fan (Steve Cohen, Mike Ilitch, George Steinbrenner III, etc.), but for most of us the best we can hope for is our team to be competitive financially such that if the team is run well it can win a fair amount of the time giving its fans hope most years.  I'd like to see the money invested in getting long-term contracts for good core players and then hope that those players don't get hurt or regress.  

[Mark G]

2 hours ago, arby58 said:

The X post indicates that the Twins are 16th in baseball in terms of percentage of revenue devoted to payroll - and just a fraction from 15th. That suggests 'mid-market' to me, and the various statistical gyrations to suggest they aren't meeting payroll expectations aren't all that impressive. Media market size, for example doesn't really matter other than what you can get in payment from media for broadcasting the team, and we've seen that $ eroding, not growing.

As that graph suggests, payroll doesn't necessarily translate into great results - witness the two teams at the top of the payroll as a percentage of revenue. Last year, the top three teams in terms of payroll all missed the play-offs. There are lots of other areas of investment that are also important, including the farm system. The Twins have pretty consistently ranked in the upper half (or better) for farm systems. They are turning out some pretty good young talent, and it appears more is on the way. 

Sure, a 'big splash' would be great (wait, wasn't that Correa?), but making the play-offs on a pretty consistent basis is a decent product, which is what the mid-market Twins have done of late.

"making the play-offs on a pretty consistent basis is a decent product, which is what the mid-market Twins have done of late".

I seem to remember Gardy doing just that; we made the playoffs quite often, but never went far.  

Being consistent and competitive is great, but it is still 2nd tier (better than the bottom feeders, yes), and once in a while it would gin up the base if we could go toe to toe with the 1st tier when the opportunity arises.  I don't want to be the Mets, for crying out loud, spending just to spend and never really getting anywhere, but there are windows, as we call them, that open every once in a while and this just might be ours.  If we don't try, we better win this October, because if we don't try AND don't win, the fan base will be less than forgiving.  That is when the vicious cycle begins, as Eric so eloquently said.  

[Cory Engelhardt]

1 minute ago, rationalfan said:

1. The Twins have been pushing some chips more than once in a while in the last few years both at the trade deadline and the offseason.

2. The new format with 6+ (it has been 7 and even 8 in recent years) playoff teams for each league means that unless you're doing a tank/rebuild, you will be "in it" almost every year.  Does that make you obligated to trade away prospects to "go for it" each of those years?  The new format is interesting for small and mid-market teams - I don't think it's feasible to be buyers every year that they're pretty good.  Last year, Cleveland was a seller which helped seal the deal for the Twins.  THAT would tick me off (making my team worse for the stretch run).

As for the "10th richest owners" thing, yeah it feels good to be jealous of fans that have/have had an owner that acts like a fan (Steve Cohen, Mike Ilitch, George Steinbrenner III, etc.), but for most of us the best we can hope for is our team to be competitive financially such that if the team is run well it can win a fair amount of the time giving its fans hope most years.  I'd like to see the money invested in getting long-term contracts for good core players and then hope that those players don't get hurt or regress.  

All of that is true. I more mean, right now, Buxton is healthy and playing well. Correa should be back and was playing really well. Our pitchers are generally healthy, and the lineup has a lot of guys who are going pretty good at the moment.

None of what I just listed is guaranteed to happen again specifically or individually. That's why I say it's important to add now because we can't guarantee the level of health for any given future year with what is our core in 2024.

[Mike Sixel]

I mean, what did they do last trade deadline when they had one of the best pitching staffs in baseball that makes anyone think they will add a significant piece this year? 

No established business that loses 100 million a year goes up in value every year. It just doesn't .

edit: I meant to type 10 million, but whatever.....

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, Nashvilletwin said:

The overall Twins franchise - inclusive of all entities - has supposedly been annually losing over $10MM on a cash basis for several years.   Please note the word “cash”. I use “supposedly” because I can’t prove it per se, but have a really good idea.  Regardless, no one on this site can prove it otherwise, so just for kick’s sake, open your mind a bit and assume it’s true.

I get it - it’s not your cash.  And yes, they are certainly making it up on increases in annual equity value. (As an aside, are we all so positive that equity values are rising as much as we all assume? Should a market like that in which the Twins operate have the same equity value growth opportunity and potential upside as others? - The answer to that is no - each of the markets is different, even though a rising or falling tide impacts all ships to some degree).  But cash is cash and you still have to fund the business.  

What is your suggestion? Borrow? Who knows what the current balance sheet looks like or existing leverage. Take cash from the other Pohlad entities?  Who knows how complicated that could be on so many different levels. Just write a check from their bank accounts and infuse cash? Is that the best use of their capital? What would you do given your wealth of business experience and acumen? 

Are the Twins a “community asset” that should be run for the benefit of the Twin Cities and/or state?  Many on this site would probably say yes, sadly and unrealistically. The Pohlads must be idiots the way they are running this team and franchise into the ground (which, of course, they are not doing).

Are the Pohlad’s perfect?  No.  Not even close.  Are the Twins actually a pretty well run, competitive organization that mostly does the right things in the right way?  Yeah, they are.

The owners bashing on this site is predictable, yet still nauseating. I understand it and expect it. The Pohlads don’t make all the right calls, but the deluded posters on this site wouldn’t either.

I really wish one of you would just take your own several billion dollars, buy the club and run it without a care in the world for the finances.  Then the world championships will stack up (yeah, right) and we all can complain about how the clown we paid $500MM over ten years can’t hit his way out of a paper bag,

Legitimate question, where are you seeing that the Twins have been losing over $10 mil in cash for several years?

[Brandon]

To answer some of the posts in this thread.  I’m not sure we need to trade for a starting pitcher.  I think we are fine heading into the playoffs.  The concern is more along the lines of having enough quality pitching to make it through the season.  Right now the Twins hold the 2nd spot of three in the Wild card standings.  Kansas City, Boston, Seattle/ Houston are all reasonably close to Minnesota in the standings.  It only takes 2 of them to go on a tear to Knock us out of the playoffs.  Tampa Bay is on the fringe of being a part of this too.  So do we need another starter to help fend off the challengers or can we do this internally with Festa and Mathews and. Varland and possibly Dobnak?  I’ll leave that up to Falvey to decide.  With the way our pen is shaping up for the playoffs if Varland will just make the switch we will be very competitive there if our offense shows up.

As far as the budget is concerned, I think the Twins pushed their chips in last year when they were able to repivot and sign Correa. I am not happy about the budget constraints this year but atleast it’s consistent with how the Twins operate.  No one should be too surprised by this.  Also while I don’t like the cuts, I am glad we knew it was coming to reset expectations upfront even if it hurt ticket sales.  They let everyone know the budget was being cut before you bought your season tickets.  That is integrity. I still don’t like it but I get to live with it as a fan of the team.  Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with. 
 

I imagine if the Twins were on pace to draw 200,000 more fans then last year instead of losing fans this year they might’ve given a small amount like 2-4 million to play with.  But with attendance dropping they probably think the risk of adding to payroll is not worth it.  

[spanman2]

3 hours ago, CRF said:

Very few ownership groups, in any sport, understand that in order to make money, and continue to make money, they have to spend it on their teams occasionally. That's what generates interest and brings fans to the stadiums, sells merch, etc. They have to show fans that they're willing to spend and upgrade the team.  That doesn't mean blow the luxury tax out of the water, but show that they want to win. No one believes billionaires crying poverty. It's a bad look.  

Well said...I don't think a realistic fan is saying lets have a payroll of $200,000 on a year to year basis.  However, there is NO reason it shouldn't be in the $160,000,000 range.  That is not asking too much of ownership.  WIN TWINS!

[Craig Arko]

If they (management) think this is a year they could actually go all the way, then they should support that. If they think the time is not yet ripe, they should acquire some more building blocks.

My Magic 8-ball is not providing much help here.

[SF Twins Fan]

The MLB has stated certain teams negatively affected by their TV deals can receive anywhere from $0 to $15 million if they spend it on team upgrades and I believe the Twins are one of those teams.  It seems like the Pohlad's don't even have to spend their own money to fund additions this trade deadline.  So, if the front office doesn't make a trade I will be very confused.  

[Trov]

2 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

The billionaires would LOVE for you to believe they are losing money. There's a reason none of them open their books until they are forced to.

The Mets and the Padres are the only teams in recent memory that have been run without profitability as the top priority and that's because Steve Cohen couldn't spend all his money if he tried and Peter Seidler wanted to win one before he died. Those are extreme outlier cases in all the history we have of MLB team spending. 

According to Atlanta Braves reported earning, they have to report as they are part of a publicly traded company, their company Braves Holdings, in 2023 they had an operating loss of 46 million. The company is more than just the team itself, but most of it is the team, other than some outside revenue from things near the park is my understanding.  So the one team that does open the books say they lost money when reporting to their stock holders. 

I am sure they are not alone in this loss as they have public investors to answer too, not just their own private funds.  So you can add Atlanta to the document loss to your list, and they were not seen as a super over spender reaching for dreams.  

[Trov]

1 hour ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

I 100% disagree with this take.

We are not just the fans, we are the customers.  We are the ones that "buy" the product.  Silence and apathy are ways to let ownership now how we feel, but screaming at them from the rooftops is also another way.  Sometimes businesses need to be told directly that they are alienating their customer base, otherwise they may not see the level of distress they are causing

So going to games, buying the merch, and watching TV, while you complain about the product is like going to a restaurant, paying full price for a meal, then yelling about how expensive it is they should lower the price, but then saying you will be back tomorrow to do this all over again.  Sure, the employees will get sick of you yelling, but the owner will just keep taking your money and not changing the price of the food.  Only if you walk in, say this food is too much bye, and have a whole lot more follow, will the owner say maybe I need to adjust my business plan because now I am losing money. 

I agree we are the customers, and the only way you get a business to change their ways is either affect their bottom dollar, or threaten to affect and have them believe you.  Sometimes there is not much they can do other than fold up shop because the customer is expecting too much, mainly because they do not know the business to know how viable their plan is. 

I love watching shows like bar rescue where dumb people buy a bar because they think it would be fun and want to run it the way they think a bar should run.  Then they lose a ton of money, call an expert for help and the expert says you do everything wrong to make money.  That is like the fans that complain about ownership.  I bet if any of the fans on here were given a billion dollars and to buy the Twins and run them as they see fit, they would be out of cash real quickly, or they would change their tune real quickly.  

[Mark G]

9 minutes ago, Brandon said:

To answer some of the posts in this thread.  I’m not sure we need to trade for a starting pitcher.  I think we are fine heading into the playoffs.  The concern is more along the lines of having enough quality pitching to make it through the season.  Right now the Twins hold the 2nd spot of three in the Wild card standings.  Kansas City, Boston, Seattle/ Houston are all reasonably close to Minnesota in the standings.  It only takes 2 of them to go on a tear to Knock us out of the playoffs.  Tampa Bay is on the fringe of being a part of this too.  So do we need another starter to help fend off the challengers or can we do this internally with Festa and Mathews and. Varland and possibly Dobnak?  I’ll leave that up to Falvey to decide.  With the way our pen is shaping up for the playoffs if Varland will just make the switch we will be very competitive there if our offense shows up.

As far as the budget is concerned, I think the Twins pushed their chips in last year when they were able to repivot and sign Correa. I am not happy about the budget constraints this year but atleast it’s consistent with how the Twins operate.  No one should be too surprised by this.  Also while I don’t like the cuts, I am glad we knew it was coming to reset expectations upfront even if it hurt ticket sales.  They let everyone know the budget was being cut before you bought your season tickets.  That is integrity. I still don’t like it but I get to live with it as a fan of the team.  Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with. 
 

I imagine if the Twins were on pace to draw 200,000 more fans then last year instead of losing fans this year they might’ve given a small amount like 2-4 million to play with.  But with attendance dropping they probably think the risk of adding to payroll is not worth it.  

 "Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with"

So did Ryan and Gardy, for as long as Falvine have been here, until the last 4 years when the bottom fell out.  We moved on to the new age, and have done.............well, about the same as before.  I'm sorry if this sound critical, because it is not meant to, but you have far more faith in this FO and field management than I, or a lot of others, do.  I have watched the team since the '65 world series, and I see the eras come and go.  We haven't been to the world series in, what, 33 years?  We have won one playoff series in what seems like a lifetime, and when we are in that window we stand pat?  As long as we have the mindset that we are a mid size market organization, we are going to be a middle of the pack organization; winning just often enough to keep an amount of interest needed to survive.  Most fans want more than that out of their teams, or why stay tuned?   

I am not going to pretend to tell the team who to trade for, or who to trade out; a lot of factors we don't see go into that beyond payroll.  But I do believe that if we look to the future too long, it passes us by, as it has done for longer than I care to remember.  Don't sacrifice the future sounds smart, and it usually is, but sometimes the window closes before the future arrives.  The window is open, but right now all I hear is crickets.........I sure would like to hear something else.  🙄

[Nashvilletwin]

23 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Legitimate question, where are you seeing that the Twins have been losing over $10 mil in cash for several years?

Thank you for asking.  As I mentioned, it’s not something I can prove via publicly available documentation. I do have a bit of insight, though, and I can only leave it at that.

This could be wrong, of course.  But let’s assume that it isn’t for a moment.  Would that change anyone’s thinking on how the Twins as a “business” are operated?

I understand my views on this topic are not popular.  However, if the Twins are in fact losing tens of millions on a cash basis annually, at least one could conjure up a modicum of understanding as to why the Twins’ owners/managers make some of the decisions they do.  

[rationalfan]

8 minutes ago, Nashvilletwin said:

What would you do given your wealth of business experience and acumen? 

I've thought about this often.  There are different scenarios based on what (how much wealth do I have and is the team my own or shared with me being in charge of team operations), how (inherited or grew a business myself), when (young, middle-aged, or old), and did I get the team when the value was lower or did I just recently buy the team for >$1B?

If I'm being realistic, if I was making that much/worth that much $, I'd like to think that I would try to make the community better as well as larger national and even world impact.  But, let's have a little fun with it and say that here I am, middle aged and worth several billion and so I buy the Twins.  I would look to own this team the remainder of my life, running it in a sustainable fashion that allows the team to be competitive but allow me to also help the community and maintain wealth such that I can keep it going for decades.  Losing tens of millions a year puts the sustainability in jeopardy - a decade from now my worth has decreased significantly and if a recession hits it may lower to the point of cash flow issues.  Sure, the franchise is growing in value, but that doesn't mean much if I'm not selling.  Also, there's that balance with what else I could do with that money - losing $1B over 10-20 years to win means a lot less investment in the community (and to avoid making this political, that can mean a balance between running good businesses that offer good jobs and charitable contributions and foundations).  If I get in the Ilitch (old) or Seidler (illness) situation where it looks like I'm not going to live much longer, then I could see perhaps spending a lot more in my final days (heck, my family is gonna be ridiculously rich anyways and if they're gonna be sour later that they inherited less than they could have, I ain't gonna be around to hear it).  

[nicksaviking]

14 minutes ago, Trov said:

According to Atlanta Braves reported earning, they have to report as they are part of a publicly traded company, their company Braves Holdings, in 2023 they had an operating loss of 46 million. The company is more than just the team itself, but most of it is the team, other than some outside revenue from things near the park is my understanding.  So the one team that does open the books say they lost money when reporting to their stock holders. 

It could be, but a bunch of that is tax return manipulation. How much of that is just paper loss? They got a new stadium so certainly most if not all of that 46M is depreciation and amortization. 

[bean5302]

First off, I think we can all agree that it won't make any difference if the Twins were not to do a single thing at the deadline if they were to win the World Series with what they've got. It's extremely far fetched in my opinion because our starters just do not line up well against playoff caliber rotations. It could happen, though. Royals in 2015 weren't juggernauts in the rotation. 

Second, I don't care if the Twins win the World Series and then go .500 for 2 years. For those folks who don't want to mortgage the future that they didn't even know they had 3 months ago, you have a very different philosophy than me. You use the old Pohlad philosophy. "Be competitive" is the goal. Base Goal, play .500 baseball. Elevated Goal make the playoffs. Reach Goal = Win the division. Hate it. So opposed to that line of thinking that I'm sometimes even personally annoyed when I see that opinion. I'd like to see the Twins try to win a World Series. Winning a World Series is worth more than every single prospect in the entire Twins' system combined, IMHO. The impact it has on the potential revenues and payrolls change the bracket the Twins can operate within. It changes everything.

Third, cash flow and value are not the same. If your house is growing in value but you're racking up credit card balances because the house payment is $1,000 too high, you're not talking about how well you're doing with the house. A steady company losing money who has a stock price going up isn't excited about their financials, either. Team valuations are largely irrelevant. Cash flow is what matters. Based on operating income, the Twins have lost money since 2019. 2019 profit. 2020 huge loss. 2021 break evenish. 2022 big loss. 2023 medium profit thanks entirely to the playoff run. 2024 appeared to be setup to break even EoY if the Twins didn't make the playoffs based on 2023's numbers to me. Dave St. Peter and the 7 new fans he's added to Twins baseball vs. the 2,000 he's chased off might have a better scoop on that.

Did we beat Wheeler? No. Did we beat Skubal? No. We beat their teams in their latest regular season series' though. That's playoff baseball vs. regular season baseball. Our #4 and #5 are better than their #4 and #5 and our #3 is a push so we wind up winning. It doesn't matter. We don't even get to that #4 guy because we're bounced in 3 straight loss games. Even with great efforts from our starters, we didn't score many runs against those ace pitchers. That's why you need to fight ace pitchers with ace pitchers. This is why the Twins will probably get smoked in the playoffs right now like EVERY SINGLE OTHER SEASON IN THE PAST 20 YEARS other than last year when we had the competitive 1-2 combo Gray and Lopez. Just like in 87 when we had Viola and Blyleven. Just like we had Tapani, Erickson and Morris. The top end rotation of World Series competitors is almost always stacked. There are rare exceptions, but 90% of the time, you need studs in the 1-2 rotation spots.

[Nashvilletwin]

8 minutes ago, rationalfan said:

I've thought about this often.  There are different scenarios based on what (how much wealth do I have and is the team my own or shared with me being in charge of team operations), how (inherited or grew a business myself), when (young, middle-aged, or old), and did I get the team when the value was lower or did I just recently buy the team for >$1B?

If I'm being realistic, if I was making that much/worth that much $, I'd like to think that I would try to make the community better as well as larger national and even world impact.  But, let's have a little fun with it and say that here I am, middle aged and worth several billion and so I buy the Twins.  I would look to own this team the remainder of my life, running it in a sustainable fashion that allows the team to be competitive but allow me to also help the community and maintain wealth such that I can keep it going for decades.  Losing tens of millions a year puts the sustainability in jeopardy - a decade from now my worth has decreased significantly and if a recession hits it may lower to the point of cash flow issues.  Sure, the franchise is growing in value, but that doesn't mean much if I'm not selling.  Also, there's that balance with what else I could do with that money - losing $1B over 10-20 years to win means a lot less investment in the community (and to avoid making this political, that can mean a balance between running good businesses that offer good jobs and charitable contributions and foundations).  If I get in the Ilitch (old) or Seidler (illness) situation where it looks like I'm not going to live much longer, then I could see perhaps spending a lot more in my final days (heck, my family is gonna be ridiculously rich anyways and if they're gonna be sour later that they inherited less than they could have, I ain't gonna be around to hear it).  

Great post.  Btw, your vision may actually not be that far off from how the team/franchise is currently run.  

[Trov]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The markets aren't the same either. The NFL is #1 in the Twin Cities market and the NBA/WNBA are gaining in popularity. The Cardinals have the St. Louis market basically to themselves with just NHL hockey in the offseason and a brand-new MLS expansion team during the season.

I agree, I hate when people point to "market size" and compare that as the only factor.  Like on here before so many posts about KC and SD market size being same or smaller than TC, now throw in St. Louis.  They neglect to then look at what other sports franchises are in the area.  How do they draw from the disposable income, and time of the sports consumer. 

As pointed out, here in TC there is NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS(growing in popularity) WNBA(also growing), where in SD they have baseball, that is it.  Yes, they had NHL but it got moved to LA.  KC has NFL and MLS to fight with, other than that no NHL or NBA.  St. Louis has NHL but no NBA or NFL.  They do sell a lot of XFL or whatever league they are now there, but that shows people will go see sports if they have the time and money, but if you have a lot too pick from you may have to pick 1 over the other, or spread it around.

That does lead to the argument that the Twins then need to spend more to fight to get the fans to come, but win will not equal attendance always, as Ray for years would fight for their division but have no fans come to games.

Point is, do not just look at media market to decide who should be spending what or if they can afford it.  You should also look at things like house hold incomes, versus the cost of living.  This gets into the disposable income fans may have.  It would be poor to assume each fan has a similar disposable income or time to spend for games in each market. 

[Nashvilletwin]

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

It could be, but a bunch of that is tax return manipulation. How much of that is just paper loss? They got a new stadium so certainly most if not all of that 46M is depreciation and amortization. 

Certainly tax laws are utilized to maximize objectives. However, let’s just say that, in fact, the Braves are losing cash on an annual basis and the Twins are as well.  Would that change anything in terms of how one views the way the team is run and the decisions made?

[Riverbrian]

13 minutes ago, rationalfan said:

If I get in the Ilitch (old) or Seidler (illness) situation where it looks like I'm not going to live much longer, then I could see perhaps spending a lot more in my final days (heck, my family is gonna be ridiculously rich anyways and if they're gonna be sour later that they inherited less than they could have, I ain't gonna be around to hear it)

Great post.

One problem with your final paragraph one foot in the grave approach is that Ilitch and Seidler certainly tried but were unable to purchase it. 

 

[Brandon]

16 minutes ago, Mark G said:

 "Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with"

So did Ryan and Gardy, for as long as Falvine have been here, until the last 4 years when the bottom fell out.  We moved on to the new age, and have done.............well, about the same as before.  I'm sorry if this sound critical, because it is not meant to, but you have far more faith in this FO and field management than I, or a lot of others, do.  I have watched the team since the '65 world series, and I see the eras come and go.  We haven't been to the world series in, what, 33 years?  We have won one playoff series in what seems like a lifetime, and when we are in that window we stand pat?  As long as we have the mindset that we are a mid size market organization, we are going to be a middle of the pack organization; winning just often enough to keep an amount of interest needed to survive.  Most fans want more than that out of their teams, or why stay tuned?   

I am not going to pretend to tell the team who to trade for, or who to trade out; a lot of factors we don't see go into that beyond payroll.  But I do believe that if we look to the future too long, it passes us by, as it has done for longer than I care to remember.  Don't sacrifice the future sounds smart, and it usually is, but sometimes the window closes before the future arrives.  The window is open, but right now all I hear is crickets.........I sure would like to hear something else.  🙄

I agree with you.  But we are a mid market team.  We are the smallest market with all major sports franchises.  Hockey, NBA, NFL and MBL.  Plus we have WNBA and we did have an independent baseball league and AAA team and college.  That’s what makes us a small to middle market team not the size of our market.  
but like I said I agree with you and I don’t like it but I also understand what they are doing too.  I think not giving a million or two is petty but it is what it is.  And it’s really frustrating.  

[Mike Sixel]

I made a typo above....but the point remains. Established businesses that lose money every year don't go up in value every year. They just don't. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

3 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

Snell threw 11 2/3 innings prior to May 22.

Since May 22 he’s thrown 36 innings.

He’s started 10 total games in 2024.

He makes $31M/year & has the flexibility to opt out of his current deal for ‘25 for a longer term deal…….nearly a certainty IF he’s healthy. If he’s not healthy a franchise is paying him $31M to rehab again.

He struck out 15 in his last outing and has a .104 BA against over last 4 starts. HIGH end stuff!!

This is his career, up & DOWN!

Does it make sense to pursue this guy - really make sense - not just a cool move?

I’d push Prospect chips in for Fairbanks from Tampa……some modified move for Tanner Scott as a rental……can’t see pursuing Snell as he might not throw another pitch after next week……waaay too much risk!

Agreed. Snell isn't the answer and this team can't/won't take the risk of another injury leaving them with a $31m player o the 60 day IL. 

There are some realistic targets out there that we should be willing to spend some real prospect capital on though. By that I mean that any prospect outside the top 6 should be available (top 6 are Lee, Jenkins, Rodriguez,  Festa, Keaschall, Mathews). I'd even be willing to trade two of the next 10 for the right player. The window is open this year - if we can catch Cleveland we should get the second seed. That means a bye and a likely matchup against the AL West winner in the ALDS, not Cleveland, the Yankees or Baltimore. We can beat Houston or Seattle and all of a sudden we're in the ALCS against whichever of those 3 teams survive the gauntlet (prob Baltimore). One good series and we're playing the WS. 

Get a real mid rotation starter - Tyler Anderson, Fedde, or maybe Kikuchi or Taillon. Get a quality reliever, hopefully LH but quality is more important - Fairbanks, Tanner Scott, Taylor Rogers, or at least the level of Erceg or Kopech.  Think about picking up Luis Rengifo from the Angels. Be willing to even give up a Larnach if you need to; he and Wallner are basically duplicative and there's likely only starting room for one next year. Trade Kepler for prospects if we need to free up payroll. That will be a sad day but he's gone after this year any way.   

The window is open. Take advantage. 

[nicksaviking]

13 minutes ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Certainly tax laws are utilized to maximize objectives. However, let’s just say that, in fact, the Braves are losing cash on an annual basis and the Twins are as well.  Would that change anything in terms of how one views the way the team is run and the decisions made?

Well it would certainly change the perception of the world's wealthiest men, who generally have a goal of making as much money as humanly possible, from being business savants to inept investors.

So color me skeptical I guess.

[bean5302]

10 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

Agreed. Snell isn't the answer and this team can't/won't take the risk of another injury leaving them with a $31m player o the 60 day IL...

$5MM this year then opt out. 
worst case scenario
$15MM in 2025
$15MM in 2027

Snell may not be the answer, but he's the highest probability at a low cost. IDGAF about mid rotation guys. We have plenty. They do. not. help. us. The Twins are making the playoffs regardless of whether or not they stand pat. A #4 starter doesn't do a thing for us because we don't ever see them in the playoffs. We get bounced before they pick up a baseball.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

34 minutes ago, Trov said:

So going to games, buying the merch, and watching TV, while you complain about the product is like going to a restaurant, paying full price for a meal, then yelling about how expensive it is they should lower the price, but then saying you will be back tomorrow to do this all over again.  Sure, the employees will get sick of you yelling, but the owner will just keep taking your money and not changing the price of the food.  Only if you walk in, say this food is too much bye, and have a whole lot more follow, will the owner say maybe I need to adjust my business plan because now I am losing money. 

I agree we are the customers, and the only way you get a business to change their ways is either affect their bottom dollar, or threaten to affect and have them believe you.  Sometimes there is not much they can do other than fold up shop because the customer is expecting too much, mainly because they do not know the business to know how viable their plan is. 

I love watching shows like bar rescue where dumb people buy a bar because they think it would be fun and want to run it the way they think a bar should run.  Then they lose a ton of money, call an expert for help and the expert says you do everything wrong to make money.  That is like the fans that complain about ownership.  I bet if any of the fans on here were given a billion dollars and to buy the Twins and run them as they see fit, they would be out of cash real quickly, or they would change their tune real quickly.  

You and I basically agree.  My point to the comment was basically that we can be fans of the Twins and complain about the product we are fans of.  Just because we are vocal about our opinions does not mean we should go root for someone else.

The bottom line is truly this:  Any owner that claims they are losing money year over year is 100% dishonest.  If they were truly losing money on their investment, they would be selling the team.  Cash flow may be an issue at times, but they are making money, either by cash flow or team valuation.  That is why Big 4 sports teams do not sell that often, and when they become available there is always someone there to buy them.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

16 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I made a typo above....but the point remains. Established businesses that lose money every year don't go up in value every year. They just don't. 

This.  100% this.