Sale of the Minnesota Twins Franchise Reportedly Trending Toward Completion

[nicksaviking]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

2 cities are going to get teams, they just aren't getting relocated teams. MLB has been very open about expansion. That's their plan. And they've been very vocal that they're doing it after Oakland and Tampa settle their stadium situations. Those situations looked settled, but now Tampa is a little up in the air. The owners don't want teams moving, they want billions of outside money poured into the league in the form of expansion fees. 

The only reasonable fear is probably if the league will be ready to expand again in 15+ years or if the owners will want to move the Twins sometime in the 2040s.

Yeah, that's what they want now, but it's super short sighted. 

Half the league is struggling with 21st Century TV and marketing situations, and now they're going to throw two more bottom tier markets into the mix? Yeah, great call MLB. Those new markets will be shiny and fresh for their local fans for 5-10 years than will be hanging out at the bottom of the food chain with the Pirates and Marlins.

But that's pro sports owners for you. Bleed as much cash out of it as you can now and don't worry about the future. 

[jmlease1]

16 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Thinking about this more, if we truly should expect new owners by opening day (I'm still skeptical), cutting back on payroll can't be a good sign. Why would the Pohlad's care if they're done writing checks come March? If payroll is being cut, wouldn't it be to appease the new owners?

To be clear, moving Vazquez or Paddack could be done for goals OTHER than trimming payroll, but if they are moved, we probably need to wait before we start hailing our new masters.

well, I don't think the Pohlads expected this to get done by Opening day, and I think you're right to still be skeptical that it will. I'm sure the payroll cuts were entirely about ensuring that the Pohlads didn't have to cash-flow anything into the franchise on their way out the door.

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Yeah, that's what they want now, but it's super short sighted. 

Half the league is struggling with 21st Century TV and marketing situations, and now they're going to throw two more bottom tier markets into the mix? Yeah, great call MLB. Those new markets will be shiny and fresh for their local fans for 5-10 years than will be hanging out at the bottom of the food chain with the Pirates and Marlins.

But that's pro sports owners for you. Bleed as much cash out of it as you can now and don't worry about the future. 

I hear Dave St Peter has some free time on his hands now. Maybe he can help with the transition.

[jmlease1]

16 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Thinking about this more, if we truly should expect new owners by opening day (I'm still skeptical), cutting back on payroll can't be a good sign. Why would the Pohlad's care if they're done writing checks come March? If payroll is being cut, wouldn't it be to appease the new owners?

To be clear, moving Vazquez or Paddack could be done for goals OTHER than trimming payroll, but if they are moved, we probably need to wait before we start hailing our new masters.

well, I don't think the Pohlads expected this to get done by Opening day, and I think you're right to still be skeptical that it will. I'm sure the payroll cuts were entirely about ensuring that the Pohlads didn't have to cash-flow anything into the franchise on their way out the door.

[nicksaviking]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I hear Dave St Peter has some free time on his hands now. Maybe he can help with the transition.

Sure, tell them what NOT to do......

[GNess]

Owners of pro teams do establish or at least influence budget parameters, the selection of front office personnel, the culture in terms of what are the real priorities etc.

Generally, owners are not just figure heads who are disengaged from the club. 

The Pohlad's approach has most definitely limited what actions the front office could take to build a true, consistent contender.  There is just no getting around that. 

 

 

[Doctor Gast]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

It is unusual for an MLB owner to actively involve themselves in roster decisions beyond approving major contracts or trades, and when owners do involve themselves more significantly like in choosing players, it's usually bad news. This is how big companies work. The Pohlads own the business and Jim served as the chairman of the board. Evaluating talent, and roster construction is not their area of expertise.

Choosing which players need to be traded or signed is the same thing as sweeping floors to the chairman of the board.

I'm not saying the Pohlads to be involved in the daily operations of the Twins. So stop blowing this up making it something that it isn't. Joe Pohlads stepping in & say go sign Buxton to an extension is no different than them calling up Falvey & say "What the heck, forget the salary dump". Pohlads owns the team they set direction on salary, they are the ones that set the budget. They have every right through changing of conditions to change direction of budget without permission from Falvey. Let me put it another way. Falvey, being the head of operations, can't just decide heck with the budget, I'm not dumping salary. That is the Pohlads decision if they want create some good public relations. How is that like sweeping floors? Get real.

[AceWrigley]

2 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

I double-checked my #s & read it wrong. I was only a billion off. :)

 

[SF Twins Fan]

Other than who the new owners will be, I'm most interested in what local leaders the Ishbia bothers have been meeting with?  Are they trying to bring in a few local players like Joe Mauer to be partial owners or are they meeting with city officials?

[Mark G]

3 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

New-ish stadium and a top 20 market in the country; MLB won't let them move any time soon.

They need to save the threat of relocation for teams that want a new stadium, and the Twins are now 28th in that line currently.

You are asking me to trust the group that allowed the A's to move to a minor league ball park in Sacramento until a stadium, if it is ever completed, will be in Las Vegas?  MLB will clearly "let" ball clubs go where ever the next big payday is.  I just worry about when that will be us if owners have no ties to MN.  I am not saying it WILL happen, I am saying it gives me pause that it MAY happen.  

[Brandon]

I was actually fine with the Pohlads as owners until this last season.  That was such a huge gut punch to tell the fans you are hoping to push towards a 180 million payroll and then get pushed back 25million.  I was happy with the Twins having a responsible 150-160 million payroll that allows them to sign a deal or two at market prices and bargain bin a few deals and home grown the rest.  

The Pohlads botched their TV deal and fan morale so badly last year.  This is now the best outcome. 
 

I hope with new owners they can work out regional TV deals and get more fans from all over Twins Territory so attendance hits 2.8 million and payroll goes up to the 170-180 million range next year.  Or at least the 150-160 million.  If we get new owners we have to support them initially anyways to give them a chance.  

[NYCTK]

8 minutes ago, Mark G said:

You are asking me to trust the group that allowed the A's to move to a minor league ball park in Sacramento until a stadium, if it is ever completed, will be in Las Vegas?  MLB will clearly "let" ball clubs go where ever the next big payday is.  I just worry about when that will be us if owners have no ties to MN.  I am not saying it WILL happen, I am saying it gives me pause that it MAY happen.  

There's no economic reason. There's no incentive. 

This fear is 100% unwarranted. 

[nicksaviking]

25 minutes ago, Mark G said:

You are asking me to trust the group that allowed the A's to move to a minor league ball park in Sacramento until a stadium, if it is ever completed, will be in Las Vegas?  MLB will clearly "let" ball clubs go where ever the next big payday is.  I just worry about when that will be us if owners have no ties to MN.  I am not saying it WILL happen, I am saying it gives me pause that it MAY happen.  

The Coliseum was the worst stadium in professional sports. If they'd have built a new stadium any time in the past 40 years, the A's would still be in Oakland.

Not defending billionaires getting free billion dollar stadiums, just pointing out why the A's moved and why the Twins won't. The only teams that leave are the ones that demand a new stadium. The Twins are nearly last in line to do that right now.

[Schmoeman5]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

While having new ownership come in before the offseason, or at the beginning, to allow for some spending and splashes would've been preferable, getting them in by, or around, opening day sets up pretty decent as well. Sets up a pretty natural top to bottom assessment period for whoever the new owners are (Ishbia brothers or anyone else). From Falvey down through the roster and entire coaching staff and minor leagues. 

Miranda, Larnach, Wallner, Lewis, Buxton, Correa, Lopez, Ryan, Ober, all of them. There are questions from health to talent to consistency to contracts already handed out to arbitration raises all over the major league roster. 

Falvey has updated the organization in terms of technology and processes to match the modern game. I don't know how anyone could argue with that. But we all have our own personal thoughts and opinions on how he's done on drafting, trades, team building strategies, coaching/manager hires, in-game strategies tied to all those things, etc. The new owners are going to have their opinions on these things, too. Then there's Zoll and all the others in both the baseball and business departments that report to Falvey.

That trickles down to thoughts on Rocco and his staff and all the minor league staff. What are the owner's thoughts going to be on all them, starting at the top? 

While I would've preferred the new owners at the start of the offseason (or 20 seasons ago) getting them in here at the start of the season can be nice and give them some time to assess things before the trade deadline and next offseason. Because if they have different plans and are going to move on from Falvey then I don't want Falvey to be the one running the trade deadline. So this is great news and I'm crossing my fingers things turn out this way and we have new people at the very top by, or around, opening day and 2025 can be a top to bottom assessment of the entire Twins organization so we can start a whole new era in 2026.

It's just a question. But if the new owners were to decide to move on from Falvey, why wouldn't you want him at the helm still at the trade deadline? Curious by that statement. The sale might be moving along quickly. But the hiring process of replacing any of Zoll, Falvey, and or Baldelli would need to happen before spring training wouldn't it?

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm sure billionaires are good at keeping things quiet when it benefits them. And of course good about leaking stuff when that benefits them as well.

Really, I think we were in the dark and they've been readying for this sale for an entire year. I'd bet good money that the 'right-sizing' payroll freeze last offseason was a reaction to the Pohlad's decision to sell, we just didn't know about it then.

Definitely, but usually these things start to leak somehow.  It's just crazy to me how we get reports about how advanced the process is with so little information beyond that.

[ashbury]

52 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

The Coliseum was the worst stadium in professional sports.

There are indoor stadiums I would rank lower.  And for whatever the faults, the surroundings at O.co or whatever it was called at the end did not detract from my enjoyment of Bailey Ober's masterpiece last summer.  It helped that I could afford seats directly behind home plate.  Affording them was helped by their costing only $35.  I don't know of a MLB park with consistently better weather to watch a game in - a trait they instantly lose in muggy Sacramento and eventually in convection-oven-like Vegas.  Mount Davis never bugged me in the slightest, and that seems to be the biggest knock against the venue.

/ I hope this doesn't turn into a threadjack. Just didn't want to let the opinion go un-dissented.

[chpettit19]

28 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

It's just a question. But if the new owners were to decide to move on from Falvey, why wouldn't you want him at the helm still at the trade deadline? Curious by that statement. The sale might be moving along quickly. But the hiring process of replacing any of Zoll, Falvey, and or Baldelli would need to happen before spring training wouldn't it?

It wouldn't be the end of the world or anything, but if they decided they didn't want Falvey anymore it's because they either didn't think he was good at his job or they didn't agree with his team building strategies. So, at the deadline they'd either have to let somebody they essentially think is incapable make trades anyway or let somebody they think is capable make trades that don't fit the type of team building strategies they want to follow. If they're only bringing in rentals and not trading any "real" prospects then who really cares as he's not hurting future years. But if you think he's incapable he shouldn't be in charge of future years and if you're going to be changing your strategies, he shouldn't be allowed to change the makeup of future teams.

Nothing earth shattering, but just a preference. I don't mind Falvey. Don't think he's nearly as bad as some do, even though I absolutely despise some of the strategies they follow. You're never going to agree with anybody on 100% of things, that's an unrealistic idea. I just prefer to not have a lame duck person making moves that effect future teams. It's not that I think he'd do anything nefarious, just something I prefer.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

2 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

Nashville, Charlotte, or Portland aren't unreasonable alternatives and have floated out there before. But it's still very unlikely.

Why limit your list to just U.S. cities? 

I have made jokes in the recent past about franchises rotating around to various cities in the United States (future ideas for new teams: Las Vegas A's, Oakland Devil Rays, Tampa Bay Twins, Minnesota A's, etc.) and how that just would not make sense, big picture. 

But lately I am keeping a more open mind about things.

I think we have to recognize that there are essentially no ironclad rules anymore, no binding leases, no normal ways of doing things, and anything is wide open to possibility. Particularly think about how MLB seems to want to emulate the NFL; and that league will move a franchise in a heartbeat. I agree with you it is unlikely, and also I commend you for leaving the open possibility that we might turn out to be wrong about this. 

 

[BK432]

5 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

If this is true, and a sale of the team is relatively close, I will be willing to give the team a small mulligan for this offseason and possibly this entire season. This transition is the main reason why this team is stuck in the mud, unwilling to raise payroll or seek a complete rebuild.

Fan friendly or not, a sale means the Twins can actually move forward. 

I might word this differently, but I agree with the sentiment. I would say a very deserved anger has built up even amongst the most level-headed fans, an anger toward an ownership group that has refused to invest in what has been a winning product.

That anger will melt away if a sale is made to an ownership group that seems, at least on its face, that it will operate very differently. Even if it won't impact 2025 in a meaningful way, I'll at least be able to enjoy the season a heck of a lot more.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Definitely, but usually these things start to leak somehow.  It's just crazy to me how we get reports about how advanced the process is with so little information beyond that.

I will credit the Twins for being able to play everything close to the vest. Not just with this but with trades and free agents too. Some leaks, but not like other teams.

Though, perhaps our lack of bloodhound media types also plays into that equation.

[NYCTK]

2 hours ago, Brandon said:

 If we get new owners we have to support them initially anyways to give them a chance.  

I get what you're saying but this specific wording makes me laugh. I think the multi billionaires will be OK without any of our money. 

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

There are indoor stadiums I would rank lower.  And for whatever the faults, the surroundings at O.co or whatever it was called at the end did not detract from my enjoyment of Bailey Ober's masterpiece last summer.  It helped that I could afford seats directly behind home plate.  Affording them was helped by their costing only $35.  I don't know of a MLB park with consistently better weather to watch a game in - a trait they instantly lose in muggy Sacramento and eventually in convection-oven-like Vegas.  Mount Davis never bugged me in the slightest, and that seems to be the biggest knock against the venue.

/ I hope this doesn't turn into a threadjack. Just didn't want to let the opinion go un-dissented.

Never got to that one, but wish I had. I have heard nice reports about the atmosphere of the area. I would amend my statement from 'the worst stadium' to 'the most dated stadium (without major upgrades)'.

[AceWrigley]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

The Coliseum was the worst stadium in professional sports. If they'd have built a new stadium any time in the past 40 years, the A's would still be in Oakland.

Not defending billionaires getting free billion dollar stadiums, just pointing out why the A's moved and why the Twins won't. The only teams that leave are the ones that demand a new stadium. The Twins are nearly last in line to do that right now.

Yeah, having raw sewage entering the dugouts on occasion is probably a good indicator that you need a new home.

[NYCTK]

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Though, perhaps our lack of bloodhound media types also plays into that equation.

I'd say this is the reason. There's no real public interest so there's not much in terms of reporters inquiring. 

[Schmoeman5]

Just now, chpettit19 said:

It wouldn't be the end of the world or anything, but if they decided they didn't want Falvey anymore it's because they either didn't think he was good at his job or they didn't agree with his team building strategies. So, at the deadline they'd either have to let somebody they essentially think is incapable make trades anyway or let somebody they think is capable make trades that don't fit the type of team building strategies they want to follow. If they're only bringing in rentals and not trading any "real" prospects then who really cares as he's not hurting future years. But if you think he's incapable he shouldn't be in charge of future years and if you're going to be changing your strategies, he shouldn't be allowed to change the makeup of future teams.

Nothing earth shattering, but just a preference. I don't mind Falvey. Don't think he's nearly as bad as some do, even though I absolutely despise some of the strategies they follow. You're never going to agree with anybody on 100% of things, that's an unrealistic idea. I just prefer to not have a lame duck person making moves that effect future teams. It's not that I think he'd do anything nefarious, just something I prefer.

Yeah. My take was more like. Why not Falvey? Make a few key moves that helped the Twins while padding his resume.  But if he is indeed going to be a lame duck I see your point. 

[old nurse]

5 hours ago, ashbury said:

Limbo's never good.  That which ye do, do quickly.

Limbo, that is the thing were if the bar is set to low you fall on your butt 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I will credit the Twins for being able to play everything close to the vest. Not just with this but with trades and free agents too. Some leaks, but not like other teams.

Though, perhaps our lack of bloodhound media types also plays into that equation.

The latter is where my conclusion lies.

[Fatbat]

7 hours ago, Mark G said:

I can't help but be a little apprehensive about out of town buyers swooping in and picking up the franchise.  What guarantee do we have that they will keep the team here?  Not saying it will happen in my lifetime, but it does give me pause.  I was hoping for some home town folks to come to the ball (pun intended).

I, for one, will stay tuned to this channel.

Moving a pro sports franchise in the future is going to be extremely difficult.  Their arent many unsaturated markets and stadiums cant get bigger, just better. We have the stadium so all ownership has to do is put a great product on the field and they will make a profit. The I Brothers like to diversify markets in their businesses so what better way than for them to buy a franchise half way across the country.  Just this single move makes them hometowners’ if they want to expand their banking business.  We should be excited for fresh ownership!!

[Major League Ready]

5 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

If they invested that $44M in a bunch of poor businesses they would have lost money. I never said the Pohlads do the negotiations, but don't you think they have a say in their own business?

The Pohlads don't sweep the stadium floors or do the plumbing work or coach the team in the dugout, either.

How absurd!

Bean5302 went through the trouble of illustrating the rate or return and then compared it to other investments.  The fact that he used the S&P 500 is a very fair an unbiased comparison given anyone could buy an S&P 500 fund.    All of the moaning around her about the Pohlad's outrageous return is put in perspective.  So, Bean did provide a lesson in finance even if you don't want to learn.   He actually overstated the return because the $44M is not the only capital investment they made in the team.  They put $185M in Target Field and probably made some other investments along the way.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

1 hour ago, AceWrigley said:

Yeah, having raw sewage entering the dugouts on occasion is probably a good indicator that you need a new home.

Hey!  The A’s were bad but not THAT bad!  😂