With Ishbia Out of Picture, Sale of Minnesota Twins Has Bogged Down

[TheLeviathan]

21 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Your term, not mine and I said nothing to indicate as such.

My position requires accepting the knowledge that almost nobody outside a select few know anything that's accurate. It's just not a thing for the source to be close enough to the decision maker without being a decision maker. And decision makers don't talk. Falvey and St Peter are not good sources on this deal, please trust me on that.

It would also explain every other odd thing we've heard.

The only people who know their sources are the reporters.  I have never claimed the sources are Falvey or St. Peter or anyone else.  For all we know, Hayes talked to Joe Pohlad himself.  And before you start to say that there's no way Joe would be dumb enough to say anything to the media: I present you 10 years of media malfeasance and "right sizing".

I don't know who is saying what or why.  But I do know journalists don't rush to publish gossip in The Athletic.  They aren't going to publish something on feels and vibes.  The man is a credible reporter which means he has sourced the information and believes it to be accurate.  It may not be the whole picture, but it's almost certainly not complete nonsense either.

This ownership group has earned skepticism.  I see no reason to believe this situation is any different.

[purplesoldier4u]

I stand by my offer of $200 million, take it or leave it.

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The only people who know their sources are the reporters.  I have never claimed the sources are Falvey or St. Peter or anyone else.  For all we know, Hayes talked to Joe Pohlad himself.  And before you start to say that there's no way Joe would be dumb enough to say anything to the media: I present you 10 years of media malfeasance and "right sizing".

I don't know who is saying what or why.  But I do know journalists don't rush to publish gossip in The Athletic.  They aren't going to publish something on feels and vibes.  The man is a credible reporter which means he has sourced the information and believes it to be accurate.  It may not be the whole picture, but it's almost certainly not complete nonsense either.

This ownership group has earned skepticism.  I see no reason to believe this situation is any different.

I don’t disagree on Joe, but I don’t think Joe is driving this bus.  But if the source isn’t a Pohlad, it isn’t hardly worth the effort.

Here is another cross check the reporting should have done prior to publication.  If we are to believe the numbers presented, which I take as barely directionally correct as Forbes or any other estimates of MLB values, does the $425m debt number even make sense?

It might be perfectly accurate, but I need an explanation how MLB allowed them to be nearly double the CBA debt limits, using the commonly estimated 19m EBTIDA for 2023.  Or, in true Minnesota style, work the numbers backwards and get to a 53m earnings number and complain about not signing Pete Alonso.

Or, most likely, these are all guesses.  But good basic questions these reporters should be asking. 

The real revelation is that if we are to believe the $425m number, what was it before two years of austerity? It certainly wasn’t “right-sized”.  Closer to insolvent. 

[TheLeviathan]

19 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I don’t disagree on Joe, but I don’t think Joe is driving this bus.  But if the source isn’t a Pohlad, it isn’t hardly worth the effort.

Here is another cross check the reporting should have done prior to publication.  If we are to believe the numbers presented, which I take as barely directionally correct as Forbes or any other estimates of MLB values, does the $425m debt number even make sense?

It might be perfectly accurate, but I need an explanation how MLB allowed them to be nearly double the CBA debt limits, using the commonly estimated 19m EBTIDA for 2023.  Or, in true Minnesota style, work the numbers backwards and get to a 53m earnings number and complain about not signing Pete Alonso.

Or, most likely, these are all guesses.  But good basic questions these reporters should be asking. 

The real revelation is that if we are to believe the $425m number, what was it before two years of austerity? It certainly wasn’t “right-sized”.  Closer to insolvent. 

This is based, imo, on the misplaced assumption that debt is driven by baseball operations and not the absolute bath they took on commercial real estate.

[KirbyDome89]

9 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

It's the red herring in the story.  There is no chance its being discussed seriously in any active negotiation.  Joe may want that, but Joe has no standing to get it.  His people may have floated it but he's obviously the Pohlad that doesn't want to sell.  It ain't his deal.

It's not completely unprecedented with the Mark Cuban example, but Joe ain't Mark Cuban and as it turns out, Mark Cuban ain't still actually the point guy.  It's a non-story.

So what does attendance do after a sale?  It's just shy of two million lately so does it go to 3? 2.5? Just on the sale of the team?  No chance.

The new Gleeman and the Geek just dropped so I'm preparing myself to sit through another hour of ranting about how poorly the team is ran and if by golly if they would just invest we might have something here.  (woof, worse than I thought.  The guy that can't open a savings account explaining debt servicing is rough)

Meanwhile, what these leaks confirm is that they already did all that.  Took on heavy debt, made the biggest splash in free agency in team history (twice), signed the biggest contract in team history, traded for and signed a top flight pitcher to the largest pitcher extension in team history, won a division title and a playoff series with a promising young core.

And guess what?  Attendance did jack diddly squat.  Why would they do it again?

I hear a lot of folks talking about voting with their wallets but the Pohlads have years of actual data about how the wallets react to what they do or don't do.  Even winning two World Series in four years doesn't generate a sustained bump in attendance.

It's true there is a ton of competition for summer nights activities in Minnesota, but not much evidence Minnesota fans are moved by much of anything on field or team related for going to the games.

I have a strong suspicious that they could have offseasons like 22 and 23 every year and attendance wouldn't meaningfully change.  Certainly not enough to cover the costs incurred to keep Twins Daily happy.

Where were they investing within the franchise to incur that type of debt? It wasn't payroll, if that's the implication here. 

The fan apathy timeline you laid out is some heavy revisionist history. The team was awful in 2021, they collapsed and missed the postseason again in 2022 and fans were treated to DSP scolding them for not showing up. They weren't a good club for most of 2023, they did nothing at that tread deadline, but still made the postseason due to young players lifting them up for the last 4-6 weeks and the rest of the division being a historic dumpster fire. Ownership followed up the first postseason Ws in 2 decades by immediately announcing a payroll reduction (time to "right size") then they took the quick cash and hopped right back into bed with Bally and deflected any/all blame when their broadcasts were pulled. They did nothing at the trade deadline (again) and collapsed (again) to finish 2024. Why should fans invest in this team? That's the question you should be asking. 

[Kummel]

Doesn't sound like they're actually interested in selling the team.  

[dxpavelka]

22 hours ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Pro sports teams don't come up for sale very often. Hard to know if anyone's 'jumping at the opportunity' to buy an MLB team because the opportunities are few and far between.

 

Not really that difficult to know.  The results speak for themselves.

[dxpavelka]

20 hours ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

The high debt shouldn't be a big surprise if we think about it. The team didn't fire staff or cut back on minor league services during Covid-19, a time when there was no gate or concession revenue. They don't draw very well and there  seems to be an aversion by some to going into Downtown Minneapolis. The bottom fell out of their TV revenue last year. Put all that together with the fact that while the payroll hasn't increased and is small compared to the coastal teams, it is and has been the highest in the Division and you get a team that has probably been operating in the red for the last couple of years, at least.  Hence, the need to take on debt. It could be worse, the Twins could do what Pittsburg, St. Louis, Cleveland, Tampa, Miami, etc. have done and drastically cut payroll to match revenue. 

Baseball is a tough operating business to make money on without high attendance and significant TV revenue. It's particularly tough in a mid-market city where you can't charge $150 - $200 for a decent seat at the game while drawing 3.5 million fans or more, and you don't get even a $50 million for your TV rights, much less the $100 million plus certain teams get.  To make matters worse, there isn't real estate opportunity in the surrounding land like there was for the Wilfs when buying the Vikings, and there is no TV white night on the horizon to open up the money taps and make everything better. 

Look, I am no fan of the Pohlads and can't wait until they sell the team. I do think they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The value in owning a mid-market sports franchise (other than the NFL) is the value appreciation you realize when you sell. They missed the great selling window 4-5 years ago and are now selling a good but not great team with poor attendance and no TV revenue to speak of into a very uncertain market surrounded by a very uncertain economic situation overall. The most logical buyer is a guy like Steve Cohen of the Mets who is incredibly wealthy, doesn't care if he makes money on an operating level, loves baseball, and is driven by ego and competitiveness to win. There aren't very many of those guys out there and I don't think any of them live in Minnesota. I think a sale will only happen if one of those guys gets interested or the Pohlads drop the price. I'm afraid that neither of those things will happen any time soon.   

 

Funny how those who criticize them for cutting payroll recently were pretty much silent when they didn't do so during Covid.

[Jocko87]

9 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

This is based, imo, on the misplaced assumption that debt is driven by baseball operations and not the absolute bath they took on commercial real estate.

Regardless, the CBA limits how much debt they can carry. No idea why it's a misplaced assumption that a baseball operation that didn't layoff anyone while not getting revenue happened to accumulate debt.

It would be the obvious answer for exceptions to the debt limit though. MLB wouldn't be likely to approve outside debt over the limit. If they are over the limit.

I don't think the money is mixed at all.

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Regardless, the CBA limits how much debt they can carry. No idea why it's a misplaced assumption that a baseball operation that didn't layoff anyone while not getting revenue happened to accumulate debt.

It would be the obvious answer for exceptions to the debt limit though. MLB wouldn't be likely to approve outside debt over the limit. If they are over the limit.

I don't think the money is mixed at all.

Forbes reported that around a third or the league is over that limit all the time and aren't aware of MLB intervening very often.  

Again, simplest explanations and not conspiracies: perhaps the current generation of Pohlads lack the same business acumen of their predecessors.  Unless the team was buying golden chairs and diamond pencil sharpeners for their front office staff, you can't account for 450M in three years in any rational way other than that money not being related to baseball operations.

[Jocko87]

8 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Where were they investing within the franchise to incur that type of debt? It wasn't payroll, if that's the implication here. 

It wasn't payroll? When they didn't do layoffs and have revenue? It's almost as if they have to spend money on things other than free agents.

Nevermind they signed Correa twice and Lopez in that time frame.

This should answer all the chuckle heads saying they can just borrow on the value to buy players. That's what they did.

[Jocko87]

14 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Forbes reported that around a third or the league is over that limit all the time and aren't aware of MLB intervening very often.  

Again, simplest explanations and not conspiracies: perhaps the current generation of Pohlads lack the same business acumen of their predecessors.  Unless the team was buying golden chairs and diamond pencil sharpeners for their front office staff, you can't account for 450M in three years in any rational way other than that money not being related to baseball operations.

MLB baseball teams are routinely bouncing around the debt limit but you can't see a route for their debt to be baseball related after a couple no revenue seasons and large signings? 

It's also mostly since 2020, which is 5 years rather than 3, and some before that.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

MLB baseball teams are routinely bouncing around the debt limit but you can't see a route for their debt to be baseball related after a couple no revenue seasons and large signings? 

It's also mostly since 2020, which is 5 years rather than 3, and some before that.

4 seasons, one of which had dramatically reduced obligations due to a shortened season.  If all 425M is baseball related: then the Pohlads are so cartoonishly stupid that I feel even more strongly they are screwing up this sale.

No reasonable levels of expenses, with their pfofits, could account for that.

[Linus]

Ive said all along that I believe the Pohlads intend to sell the team.  The trick is that they have a price in mind and we don’t know what that is or if it reasonable.  For that reason who knows when a sale will go through. 

[KirbyDome89]

6 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

It wasn't payroll? When they didn't do layoffs and have revenue? It's almost as if they have to spend money on things other than free agents.

Nevermind they signed Correa twice and Lopez in that time frame.

This should answer all the chuckle heads saying they can just borrow on the value to buy players. That's what they did.

Lopez cost $14M the last two seasons combined. They're not borrowing on value; their spending, relative to the league, has remained consistently in the high teens/low 20s. The idea that signing Carlos Correa has plunged this franchise into half a billion dollars worth of debt is laughable. 

So again, what are these "things other than FAs," that incurred such a large debt on the baseball side? Do the Twins have the most expensive ops setup in professional sports? Is the cost of pregame meal prep out of control? Is this a bank bailout situation where all of management is giving themselves crazy bonuses while lighting the franchise on fire? 

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Lopez cost $14M the last two seasons combined. They're not borrowing on value; their spending, relative to the league, has remained consistently in the high teens/low 20s. The idea that signing Carlos Correa has plunged this franchise into half a billion dollars worth of debt is laughable. 

So again, what are these "things other than FAs," that incurred such a large debt on the baseball side? Do the Twins have the most expensive ops setup in professional sports? Is the cost of pregame meal prep out of control? Is this a bank bailout situation where all of management is giving themselves crazy bonuses while lighting the franchise on fire? 

By golly, $14m here, $33m there, pretty soon this will add up to real money!

It's a heck of a lot more than the $750k they would normally have spent when there was no money.

One thing is very clear to me and that is they thought they could spend their way through it and have discovered they cannot.  I think they were betting on a post covid bounce and the fans didn't show.

[jkcarew]

On 3/25/2025 at 4:27 PM, TheLeviathan said:

…I was skeptical and hoped the beat writers would do more digging…

That hope died quite a few years ago for me. Too many “journalists” chasing “stories”…lowers the bar for all. Result…mass willingness to spout whatever narrative ensures the access they need for validation of the latest post/story/take. Which makes 99% of the information coming out…NOT valid.

[jkcarew]

On 3/26/2025 at 9:59 AM, Jocko87 said:

MLB baseball teams are routinely bouncing around the debt limit but you can't see a route for their debt to be baseball related after a couple no revenue seasons and large signings? 

There were no “no revenue” seasons. They still got almost all of their TV money over that period…which, at the time, was the most lucrative they’ve ever had.

[KirbyDome89]

17 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

By golly, $14m here, $33m there, pretty soon this will add up to real money!

It's a heck of a lot more than the $750k they would normally have spent when there was no money.

One thing is very clear to me and that is they thought they could spend their way through it and have discovered they cannot.  I think they were betting on a post covid bounce and the fans didn't show.

All that real money and no real accounting. 

We'll disagree that 2020 was some sort of charity season gifted via ownership, and we'll most certainly disagree that this franchise has been operating on a deficit year over year. 

Idk how spending at a level identical to pre-Covid seasons is "spending your way through," but ok. They should've bet on being a competitive, or at least interesting, team to watch. You don't get to alienate fans and then blame them for not jumping all over themselves to consume your s**** product. 

[TheLeviathan]

I know this article is a bit old now, but Gleeman had some good information over at The Athletic.

Basically....from what Forbes can estimate, there is no way the team has $425 million in debt unless it was accrued almost entirely in the span from 2020-2022 or it simply isn't baseball debt.

I know which one my money is on.