The Danger of Losing the Next Generation for the Minnesota Twins

[Karbo]

I will never understand what prompted the team to announce, right after a playoff run, that they were cutting payroll by 30 mil. I don't think the Pohlads care about the future of the Twins or MLB. All they care about is max profit!

[BillyBallLives]

3 hours ago, Road trip said:

I'd add a lack of competitive balance in the league as a significant problem.  In the NFL and NBA, every city knows that even if their team is bad this year, they might just turn it around and be a contender in a year or two

Road Trip...you nailed it.

Mark it on your calendars now...Dec 1st 2026 @ 11:59 pm...MLBPA contract expires. 

Going to see another billionaire vs millionaire warfare. Greed may finally kill this great game. 

 

[Vanimal46]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I think they missed on Gen Z already. Their only hope is to market heavily to Millennials to get them and their kids to the ballpark.

And they’ve done a bad job of that too. I had a conversation about this with my friend group at happy hour recently. Mid 30s, married, young kids. The only way they would attend a Twins game is if their work provided free tickets. 

[notoriousgod71]

As a kid I never missed a game if I could help it even between 1993-2000. Those were terrible teams but I got more enjoyment out of them than any team in the last 14 years.

 

Baseball is just ... Boring. Work the count, walk, strike out, do nothing in between. Oh, look, a other non descript reliever coming in only to be shuttled down to AAA if he throws more than 20 pitches.

My most memorable games are the games where I could watch Verlander, Clemens, Pedro, Johan, even magical 2010 ubaldo vs Liriano.

Now, even if a good pitcher happens to be scheduled I know I'll see them for 80 pitches and then back to the relievers no one cares about.

 

None of the players are relatable. There are no 1993 Phillies or 2002 twins to get excited about.

 

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

Baseball needs to negotiate a salary cap during their next deal with the players.  Nobody wants to see another team like the Dodgers sign all the expensive F/A's.  It gives us the feeling that we have little to no chance to win a WS.  The field needs to be leveled like FB and BB.

I also agree that they gotta attract the youth.  The team should help support youth baseball both financially and by sending Twins and Saints players to some youth games to increase interest in the team and baseball in general.  They could walk the stands and shake hands with players at the end of the game and sign autographs.  Write this into their contracts if you must.

It also would be nice if they could shift from 100% regional to national.  I remember watching the game of the week on NBC with TWIB notes (only older folks will know that they are) when I was a kid.

I noticed last night watching MLB that they had a 4 split screen with a game in each window.  They were swapping between telecasts kinda like the Red Zone in FB.  This can help us fans get to know other team's players better than just occasionally when we play them.

My guess is there is no way a salary cap is accepted without a prolonged strike.  The players would fight it furiously.  People will argue that a floor will make up for it.  Well, a floor has to be set at a level where the team with the lowest revenue can still survive.  It would not even come close to making up for the salary loss to players if the cap was set low enough to facilitate anything resembling parity.

[ziggy]

I attend a couple of games per year, with my wife and a couple of grandkids.

We sit in lower deck seats, about $100 each after fees, buy food and something from the pro shop (whatever it is called), a hat or tee shirt. At the end of the day if I get out of there for less than $700 it's a cheap day. That's a weeks wages for me.

As a fan I like to see 100% effort, stretching a single into a double etc, the hustle plays and the overachievers. Rocco's 'tomorrow's another day' post game conferences are not inspiring me to attend more games. Players jogging to first base is not inspiring me to attend more games. Disengaged owners are not inspiring me to attend more games. The grandkids now a days have short attention spans, a 3 hour game is beyond boring to them. 

I agree they need to market to and inspire kids to attend or the team will go away soon.

[BillyBallLives]

2 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

The only way they would attend a Twins game is if their work provided free tickets.

...and included FREE PARKING!!!

[Mark G]

14 hours ago, Whitey333 said:

Very nice article.  Well done.  I agree.  I've been a long time and loyal Twins fan for over 60 years. I've seen plenty of games at the old Met in Bloomington and a ton at the Dome.  I've seen plenty at beautiful Target Field as well.  I remember very fondly as a kid going to games.  I always cherished those memories.  The past few years have been difficult for me asba Twins fan.  Yes 2023 was fun.  But we haven't made the playoffs 3 of the past 4 years even though Falvey and the Twins tell us they are in a winning window.  They play boring and undisciplined baseball.  They are void of the basic fundamentals.  They are 19-42 in their last 61 games dating back to last years collapse.  No one in the organization seems to take responsibility for this terrible brand of baseball and the continued losing.  The Twins, from ownership on down don't seem to care.

I am pretty close to that 60 year point myself.  The old Met stadium was one of my favorite places on earth to be; 2nd deck, just to the right or left of home plate, 1st 10 rows.  We would buy tickets when they went on single game sale and go as a group.

One of the things that helped attendance wise as well, were scheduled double headers on Sunday afternoons.  They not only drew better crowds, but sold a lot more concessions as the day went along.  You would see most, if not all the players at one time or another as some of the guys played one game or the other.  There is no such experience today, the players refuse to do it.  The days of Ernie Banks looking out at the field and saying "it's a good day to play two", or Cal Ripkin Jr saying "like hell I am sitting out of the 2nd game" are long gone, and baseball is the worse for it.  

In my mind the game began to die when the players themselves forgot that it is a game.  A game they get paid to play, but only because folks like us are willing to pay to watch (and dream).  Maybe an autographed ball for everyone once in a while; balls are a dime a dozen, and the players can spare the time for the people who pay to see them.  Until they show us they truly want us back we aren't coming back, at least not very often.  We (the fans) got them to here; it is in their court now.  

[TwinsDr2021]

12 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

My guess is there is no way a salary cap is accepted without a prolonged strike.  The players would fight it furiously.  People will argue that a floor will make up for it.  Well, a floor has to be set at a level where the team with the lowest revenue can still survive.  It would not even come close to making up for the salary loss to players if the cap was set low enough to facilitate anything resembling parity.

I would think the players won't want it either, can they go with a cap and guaranteed contracts?

[LambchoP]

I don't think ownership cares at all at this point. They've got one foot out the door just hoping to find a buyer that will cover their debt and make them "enough" of a profit on the sale of the team. I say it can't happen soon enough!

[bean5302]

Competitive Balance. The Twins build teams to maybe make the playoffs, not to compete in them. It's a Derek Falvey issue, not a league-wide issue when it comes to building a roster to potentially win a World Series. The Dodgers truly are running away with things right now, but Houston was similar just a couple years ago. There are plenty of smaller/mid market teams who've been to the World Series in the past decade. Royals, Rays, Guardians, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, etc. The turnover in the post-season, even before the expansion of playoffs was better in MLB than any other of the big 4 leagues.

I tend to agree a salary cap and salary floor would be good for competition, but the MLBPA will die on that hill, and owners have more to lose than the elite MLB players (who the MLBPA represents first) so I just do not see the cap happening.

I really do think the conversation is about the Twins in specific. Some other teams are likely having similar issues, but it's not an MLB-wide emergency. The Pohlads have massively miscalculated.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Competitive Balance. The Twins build teams to maybe make the playoffs, not to compete in them. It's a Derek Falvey issue, not a league-wide issue when it comes to building a roster to potentially win a World Series. The Dodgers truly are running away with things right now, but Houston was similar just a couple years ago. There are plenty of smaller/mid market teams who've been to the World Series in the past decade. Royals, Rays, Guardians, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, etc. The turnover in the post-season, even before the expansion of playoffs was better in MLB than any other of the big 4 leagues.

I tend to agree a salary cap and salary floor would be good for competition, but the MLBPA will die on that hill, and owners have more to lose than the elite MLB players (who the MLBPA represents first) so I just do not see the cap happening.

I really do think the conversation is about the Twins in specific. Some other teams are likely having similar issues, but it's not an MLB-wide emergency. The Pohlads have massively miscalculated.

Recent history strongly suggests that it is definitely a league wide when the measuring stick is winning a world series.  Only one modest revenue team has won the World Series since the White Sox did it 20 years ago.  Of course that would be the Royals in 2015.  Once ever 10 years would suggest it's a macro not a micro issue.

[bean5302]

49 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Recent history strongly suggests that it is definitely a league wide when the measuring stick is winning a world series.  Only one modest revenue team has won the World Series since the White Sox did it 20 years ago.  Of course that would be the Royals in 2015.  Once ever 10 years would suggest it's a macro not a micro issue.

Wildcard Series, Division Series, Championship Series and World Series appearances all suggest it's competitive, but yes, if you focus on the last handful of World Series winners only, and you decide arbitrarily what small-medium-large market actually is, you can form the anti-competitive opinion easily.

[NYCTK]

On 4/22/2025 at 4:50 PM, Craig Arko said:

Good chance that the work stoppage/possible lost season of 2027 will be the final nail for MLB. 

Nah, this fear is way overblown. The United States government illegally detaining/deporting latinos is a way bigger threat to the league than a labor agreement. 

[NYCTK]

22 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

My guess is there is no way a salary cap is accepted without a prolonged strike.  The players would fight it furiously.  People will argue that a floor will make up for it.  Well, a floor has to be set at a level where the team with the lowest revenue can still survive.  It would not even come close to making up for the salary loss to players if the cap was set low enough to facilitate anything resembling parity.

Teams aren't getting a salary cap without giving up half of their 6 years of control. If you're going to artificially suppress player salaries in free agency, why would the players be ok with 6 years of salary suppression leading into it? 

[Major League Ready]

23 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Teams aren't getting a salary cap without giving up half of their 6 years of control. If you're going to artificially suppress player salaries in free agency, why would the players be ok with 6 years of salary suppression leading into it? 

There is no easy answer.  This situation has evolved over decades and there really isn't a solution that would create parity while being fair to both owners and players.  The is an enormous revenue disparity.  Any significant artificial manipulation at this point would enormously devalue large market teams and benefit small market teams.  Competitors / business owners don't agree to this sort of devaluation without a legal fight.  IDK how the owners govern this but I would imagine there is a mechanism in place.   I think the league and the owners simply accept this reality now because the current model has grown revenue for all teams.  

[Teflon]

Baseball attendance is weird. In the 1960s and 1970s when the NFL hadn't become the juggernaut it is today, an average game attendance of 17,000 would still have been considered good in the Major Leagues. The Twins averaged 17,477 in 1962 which was 2nd in the American League. The Twins averaged 11,910 in 1971 which was still 5th in the American League. Baseball was the National Pastime, but people didn't pack the ballparks. 

Somewhere in the 1980s, baseball attendance started increasing even with the NFL now occupying the top spot in people's minds. When the Twins drew 15,499 in 1986, consistent with attendance figures mentioned earlier - this was now next to last in the American League. Considering the ballpark construction frenzy wouldn't start for another half decade, something else about this era was driving more people to the ballparks. Perhaps the ticket price relative to household income had hit a sweet spot. Perhaps the amount of locally free over-the-air broadcast games was becoming optimal, perhaps the upcoming generation of players like Ken Griffey Jr. were capturing imaginations again. I don't know, but attendance was rising. 

Then, spread out over the next 20 years, nearly all MLB teams built new ballparks, enjoying a 3 or 4 year novelty phase period in which fans flocked to them. 

To me, this has seemed like a bubble period... albeit a very long bubble. I never thought it was sustainable for the majority of MLB teams after the honeymoon phase of their ballparks. Without the novelty of new ballparks, with the loss of free broadcasts, with the ballpark experience no longer a cheap entertainment option for the average fan, with the prevalence of internet doom-saying discouraging more fans from attending when the team is losing, I'm not surprised if attendances revert back to what they once used to be,

[NYCTK]

24 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

There is no easy answer.  This situation has evolved over decades and there really isn't that would create parity while being fair to both owners and players.  The is an enormous revenue disparity.  Any significant artificial manipulation at this point would enormously devalue large market teams and benefit small market teams.  Competitors / business owners don't agree to this sort of devaluation without a legal fight.  IDK how the owners govern this but I would imagine there is a mechanism in place.   I think the league and the owners simply accept this reality now because the current model has grown revenue for all teams.  

I think we're also under selling just how much some of the smaller markets troubles come down to incompetence.

Minnesota. Pittsburgh. These are not well run organizations. There are comparable markets that are earning good money and fielding competitive teams, and not due to luck or miracles. 

This idea that mlb is an unfair environment in which no one can compete with the Dodgers just isn't reality. Though I do agree that it has gotten worse and further revenue sharing, at a minimum, is needed. 

[Major League Ready]

25 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I think we're also under selling just how much some of the smaller markets troubles come down to incompetence.

Minnesota. Pittsburgh. These are not well run organizations. There are comparable markets that are earning good money and fielding competitive teams, and not due to luck or miracles. 

This idea that mlb is an unfair environment in which no one can compete with the Dodgers just isn't reality. Though I do agree that it has gotten worse and further revenue sharing, at a minimum, is needed. 

Maybe.  There are 4 modest revenue markets that have done better than the Twins.  Cleveland / Tampa / Oakland and Milwaukee.  Most people here advocate rather strongly against the practices of these teams.  These teams are the least likely to spend.  They never sign expensive free agents and Cleveland / Tampa trade established players for prospects frequently.

[NYCTK]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Maybe.  There are 4 modest revenue markets that have done better than the Twins.  Cleveland / Tampa / Oakland and Milwaukee.  Most people here advocate rather strongly against the practices of these teams.  These teams are the least likely to spend.  They never sign expensive free agents and Cleveland / Tampa trade established players for prospects frequently.

Don't forget San Diego. The Padres are arguably the best team in the league. It's a very comparable market as well. 

[JD-TWINS]

On 4/22/2025 at 2:25 PM, Road trip said:

All correct.

I'd add a lack of competitive balance in the league as a significant problem.  In the NFL and NBA, every city knows that even if their team is bad this year, they might just turn it around and be a contender in a year or two (See the Pistons this year for the NBA, or the Commanders for the NFL).  For MLB franchises, does anyone who follows the Reds, Pirates, Marlins, A's, Rockies, etc really think they have a chance to make a playoff run in the next couple of years?  The number of franchises mired in almost hopeless situations due to the league's financial imbalances is leading to substantial fan apathy in many regions.  

Reds could make playoffs this year or next - 3 good starters & 6-7 decent everyday players. I get your point though. Pretty sure the Reds have as good a shot as the Twins in ‘25 - right? ……..Pittsburgh chooses not to spend and continually trade their future away…..hard to feel bad for that franchise.

The Top of the stack of teams is where the problem lies……..Dodgers - Mets - Yankees are all spending at 2 plus the rate of Twins. This going unchecked into the future can create such an imbalance that young fans won’t ever be drawn to the game with competition as the core attraction.

[dcswede]

On 4/22/2025 at 3:03 PM, TheLeviathan said:

I work with kids that are basically straight out of the age group from The Sandlot.  Prime baseball age.  In a state where you can play baseball year round.  (Arizona)  And I'll repeat what I've been saying here for a decade: MLB has a crisis on their hands.  Kids don't care.  More kids would know the Savannah Bananas logo than their local team.  They'd likely be able to name more players on the Bananas than their local team.

Kids are not invested in MLB.  There are some diehards, sure....but I think MLB's average fan (60, white, male) would be pretty shocked by how irrelevant baseball is for kids.

While I don't disagree with anything you say, I'm sad to say that I think the problem of the Twins and baseball losing/having lost the next generation(s) of fans is even more fundamental: kids don't play baseball for fun anymore. Neighborhood pickup games are non-existent. You can have youth leagues all you want, but unless kids are making time and choosing to play ball of their own volition, they're unlikely to develop a strong connection to the game that will translate to wanting to watch major leaguers do it. 

[Major League Ready]

15 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Don't forget San Diego. The Padres are arguably the best team in the league. It's a very comparable market as well. 

We differ in opinion on this one.  The Padres have won a couple of wild card series but they have won a total of one divisional series since 1998. They have had two 90-win seasons in the past 20 years.  The Twins have had 3.  Only the Marlins and Royals have had fewer 90-win seasons.  The Padres win percentage of that 20 years is .482, the Twins .493.

The Padres recent run was a product of being one of the worst teams in MLB for several years.  They did manage to build the best farm system in the league a few years ago after that extended run of futility.  (13 seasons missing the playoffs) They now have very little talent in their Milb system.  MLB rates them 25th.  Baseball America 26th, and Fangraphs 29th.

The Padres have an aging team with contract that’s are going to be a real problem for several years.  The Padres pushed all of their chips in after many years of being very bad and their outlook in terms of sustainability looks very bad.  They have been good not great recently and they are very poorly positioned long-term given the poor farm system and bad contracts.  I would not consider this an example of managerial excellence.  

[NYCTK]

44 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The Padres recent run was a product of being one of the worst teams in MLB for several years.

I don't agree at all. For example, Jackson Merrill was the 27th selection in the draft. Their turnaround is more so because their owner decided he was wealthy and didn't care to use the franchise as an investment tool. And you can argue this revelation is because he was sick and is sadly no longer with us, but he's now revered in San Diego, in stark contrast to the Pohlads. 

48 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The Padres have an aging team with contract that’s are going to be a real problem for several years.  The Padres pushed all of their chips in after many years of being very bad and their outlook in terms of sustainability looks very bad.  

I can assure you no objective baseball fan would prefer to cheer for the Twins over the Padres. And this idea you're suggesting, as if they're in a last year of a window is just not reality. The Padres only have one bad contract on their books. Their future looks much brighter than the Twins if we're being honest. 

And part of the reason for that is the team went for it, and fans rewarded them and are throwing money at the organization. 

52 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

They have been good not great recently

They are one of 3 teams you can say are great, today. 

53 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

they are very poorly positioned long-term

This is just a foolish thing to say about a team with Jackson Merrill (22) and Fernando Tatis (26). Teams would kill for a core like that to build around. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

I don't agree at all. For example, Jackson Merrill was the 27th selection in the draft. Their turnaround is more so because their owner decided he was wealthy and didn't care to use the franchise as an investment tool. And you can argue this revelation is because he was sick and is sadly no longer with us, but he's now revered in San Diego, in stark contrast to the Pohlads. 

I can assure you no objective baseball fan would prefer to cheer for the Twins over the Padres. And this idea you're suggesting, as if they're in a last year of a window is just not reality. The Padres only have one bad contract on their books. Their future looks much brighter than the Twins if we're being honest. 

And part of the reason for that is the team went for it, and fans rewarded them and are throwing money at the organization. 

They are one of 3 teams you can say are great, today. 

This is just a foolish thing to say about a team with Jackson Merrill (22) and Fernando Tatis (26). Teams would kill for a core like that to build around. 

I didn't give an opinion on their track record.  I gave 100% factual data.  Those facts speak for themselves in terms of how the team has performed over the past 20 years.  

They have Machado on the books for 7 years from age 34 at 40M as the result of back loading the contract.  That's selling out the future for the present.  Darvish is well past his prime, on the IL now, and on the books for 3 more years after this year.  The Buxton and Correa contracts are miles better than these two contracts.

Boegarts was good his first year and very mediocre last year.  He is getting old for a SS and he will have to hit much better to be valuable at 3B/2B.   He is on the books for this year and 8 more.  They did not get much out of Musgrove last year and he is on the IL now,  Cronenworth and Arraez are both free agents that I seriously doubt they can afford to resign with the increase due to Machado.

They are great at the moment.  Maybe they will have one great year but they certainly have not been a great franchise.  They absolutely sucked and got a bunch of top draft choices for several years. They get some credit for getting Tatis for nothing but that was as much luck as it was brilliance.

[NYCTK]

57 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I didn't give an opinion on their track record.  I gave 100% factual data.  Those facts speak for themselves in terms of how the team has performed over the past 20 years.  

They have Machado on the books for 7 years from age 34 at 40M as the result of back loading the contract.  That's selling out the future for the present.  Darvish is well past his prime, on the IL now, and on the books for 3 more years after this year.  The Buxton and Correa contracts are miles better than these two contracts.

Boegarts was good his first year and very mediocre last year.  He is getting old for a SS and he will have to hit much better to be valuable at 3B/2B.   He is on the books for this year and 8 more.  They did not get much out of Musgrove last year and he is on the IL now,  Cronenworth and Arraez are both free agents that I seriously doubt they can afford to resign with the increase due to Machado.

They are great at the moment.  Maybe they will have one great year but they certainly have not been a great franchise.  They absolutely sucked and got a bunch of top draft choices for several years. They get some credit for getting Tatis for nothing but that was as much luck as it was brilliance.

They've also been an average of 87 win team over the last 5 seasons (including this season's pace). 

I don't think any of the fans selling out their home games are concerned with their payroll obligations in three season while they're looking like the best team in the league right now. 

I repeat, no objective baseball fan would prefer to cheer for the Twins over the Padres in this moment. To point to them as some poorly managed franchise is just asinine. 

Edit: I'll add, Boegarts is the one contract I was referring to that is just plain bad. The Machado contract can become bad in time, but for now it's fine. But the Musgrove, Darvish, and Cronenworth contracts are all fine. Nothing prohibitive. The Darvish one might even look great in one more year.