The Pohlads May Still Be Planning to Sell the Twins

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Bruce Kluckhohn-Imagn Images

A year ago, Twins fans were given reason to believe that the endless cycle of Pohlad family ownership might finally be nearing its conclusion. Instead, the supposed light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be nothing more than a painted brick wall—in the form of two minority ownership groups whose buy-ins were used to help cover the family’s reported $400 million in debt. Rather than accepting what was rumored to be at least one serious, competitive bid for the franchise, the Pohlads chose to maintain their majority stake in the team. The decision kept control firmly in the same hands that have long frustrated fans, even as outside interest in full ownership appeared both real and aggressive.

Last weekend, Charlie Walters reported what many around Twins Territory have been wondering for months: the Pohlad family still plans to sell the Minnesota Twins. After exploring the market over the past year, they were unable to find the valuation they wanted. The expectation now is that they will bring the team back to market next offseason when conditions may be more favorable.

The challenge is that Major League Baseball’s labor agreement is set to expire on Dec. 1, 2026. Commissioner Rob Manfred has already made it clear that owners intend to make their strongest push yet for a hard salary cap, along with expanded revenue sharing. The possibility of a lockout looms large, creating significant uncertainty for any prospective buyer.

“The Pohlads are expected to wait until baseball’s labor agreement is settled after next season, then hope to get the price they want," Walters wrote. "But a lockout seems likely, because baseball’s owners are hell-bent on getting a salary cap.”

The Lockout Question
The last round of CBA negotiations in 2022 provided a preview of what can happen when owners and players clash. From the Twins' perspective, that dispute delayed free agency, leading to the team signing Carlos Correa to a short-term deal that evolved into an unusual courtship and ultimately resulted in a long-term contract. That deal didn’t work out in the team’s favor in the long term, but he did help Minnesota end its two-decade playoff losing streak. 

This time around, the negotiations are expected to be even more contentious. The owners are determined to establish a salary cap, while the MLBPA is just as determined to resist. If neither side relents, regular-season games in 2027 could be lost. That type of instability is a significant concern for anyone considering a multi-billion-dollar purchase.

Minority Partners in Position
Reports earlier this summer suggested that the new minority investors in the Twins do not have a built-in path to majority ownership. However, Walters indicated that these partners may hold a right of first refusal if the Pohlads decide to sell. The investors are believed to have spent around $200 million each to join the ownership group, potentially with the understanding that they could match any future outside offer.

That arrangement does not guarantee a smooth sale. A right of first refusal only provides an opportunity to match the price, and if franchise values rise once the labor issues are resolved, the cost could be higher than these partners anticipated.

The same labor battle that complicates a sale might also make the Twins a more valuable franchise in the long run. If owners succeed in implementing a salary cap and stronger revenue sharing, small- and mid-market clubs would become more profitable and more attractive investments. The Pohlads may be betting on that outcome before finalizing their exit.

What It Means for Twins Fans
For now, the Twins continue to operate under Pohlad ownership, and the front office remains focused on roster construction and development. The long-term picture, however, is unsettled. The family has owned the team since 1984, but the possibility of a sale feels more real than it has at any point in the last 40 years.

Whether the Pohlads choose to sell next year or wait until the labor dispute concludes will shape the franchise's future. Until then, Twins fans are left to watch both the standings and the business side of baseball with equal curiosity.

---

Will the Pohlads attempt to sell the team after a new CBA is in place? Leave a comment and start the discussion. 

View full article

[Cory Engelhardt]

As much as the non-sale news has been hard to digest (some other colorful language could also be used) this makes a ton of sense for why they didn't sell right now. If there is a long work stoppage, even putting the 2027 season at risk, I can see why waiting for that to be cleared up before new owner(s) want in.

[In My La Z boy]

2 minutes ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

As much as the non-sale news has been hard to digest (some other colorful language could also be used) this makes a ton of sense for why they didn't sell right now. If there is a long work stoppage, even putting the 2027 season at risk, I can see why waiting for that to be cleared up before new owner(s) want in.

Agreed but, Pohlad's could have sold for less than what they were holding out for. If the new minority owners bought 20% for $400M, that is a $2B total team valuation. I think the Pohlad's could have sold for $1.7B but they didn't want to. 

[David HK]

Oh, were it only true.

The sooner that rotten family is gone, the better.

[Cory Engelhardt]

10 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

Agreed but, Pohlad's could have sold for less than what they were holding out for. If the new minority owners bought 20% for $400M, that is a $2B total team valuation. I think the Pohlad's could have sold for $1.7B but they didn't want to. 

To be a fly on the wall

[Woof Bronzer]

Charley Walters was one of the many guys in local media who uncritically printed Pohlad propaganda around how "a sale is imminent" and "there are interested buyers".  Once it came out that the Twins were not selling and a sale was never imminent, I would have hoped that these "journalists" would have a moment of self reflection and realize that they were just being used by the Pohlads to generate fake interest in the club to try to drive up the price, and that maybe - just maybe - they should stop printing whatever the Pohlads feed them. 

It appears that self-reflection did not happen.  

I refuse to believe a single word attached to the Pohlads.  And I really, really wish we had a media willing to challenge them, rather than just carry their water in exchange for "access".  

[TheLeviathan]

I would bet the "For Sale" sign goes up shortly after the expansion fees get divied up.

[Lunger]

Charley Walters is not a guy I would get my 'Twins News' from.  

[CRF]

I won't believe it until the new owner(s), whomever they might possibly be, sign the purchase agreement. 

[The Great Hambino]

Oh, so this time they mean it, for realsies?  Did he pinky swear?  Cross his heart and hope to die?

[David HK]

16 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I refuse to believe a single word attached to the Pohlads.  And I really, really wish we had a media willing to challenge them, rather than just carry their water in exchange for "access".  

Spot on.   I, too refuse to believe a single word attached to the pohlads, especially if it comes FROM the pohlads.

[Nashvilletwin]

Walters is late to the game.  I called this the day after the trade deadline.  Completely obvious and the right decision. 

[Woof Bronzer]

29 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

Agreed but, Pohlad's could have sold for less than what they were holding out for. If the new minority owners bought 20% for $400M, that is a $2B total team valuation. I think the Pohlad's could have sold for $1.7B but they didn't want to. 

This is almost certainly untrue.  The $400m has nothing to do with an ownership stake.  (Note that the Pohlads have never used the phrase "minority owner" but rather "limited partner".  This is intentional.)  The $400m is conveniently the amount of the debt.  The Pohlads found some hedge funds or private equity to pay off the debt for a certain ROI.  The 20% thing is just the Pohlads again trying to artificially pump up the value of the franchise.  They did this through the media throughout the "sale" process by feeding things like "buyers are interested" and "a sale is imminent".   

Stop believing Pohlad propaganda folks.  

[Eris]

There are several issues that affected the sale. 1). Pohlad’s want buyers to cover franchise value plus debt. I think the inclusion of debt was a dealbreaker. Essentially, the Pohlad’s wanted 20% more than the estimated value for the franchise. 2). Not discussed much, because of high interest rates, financing is almost 2x more expensive than just several years ago. This is similar to buying a house in the current interest rate environment.

[Woof Bronzer]

10 minutes ago, Lunger said:

Charley Walters is not a guy I would get my 'Twins News' from.  

You mean the guy who once opined that the Twins were a possible landing spot for prime-career Alex Rodriguez isn't credible?  Knock me over with a feather!

[jmlease1]

I'll believe it when I see it. Not getting taken for a ride by these crappy owners again.

I mean, it's logical. Of course, if the owners get what they want after locking the players out and change the financial landscape for the Twins long-term where they can easily generate net revenue every year...why would they sell? 3rd Generation Joe can keep playing with the fancy toy and the rest of the family keeps cashing checks. If they've solved their liquidity problem, they might just keep the appreciating asset.

I'm certainly not going to trust Shill Shooter's "reporting".

[LambchoP]

So tired of the back and forth will they won't they. Either sell the team and give us long suffering fans some relief, or keep the team and actually admit we are going to be going through a multi year rebuild with an eye on competing for real in 2027-28

[SF Twins Fan]

40 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Charley Walters was one of the many guys in local media who uncritically printed Pohlad propaganda around how "a sale is imminent" and "there are interested buyers".  Once it came out that the Twins were not selling and a sale was never imminent, I would have hoped that these "journalists" would have a moment of self reflection and realize that they were just being used by the Pohlads to generate fake interest in the club to try to drive up the price, and that maybe - just maybe - they should stop printing whatever the Pohlads feed them. 

It appears that self-reflection did not happen.  

I refuse to believe a single word attached to the Pohlads.  And I really, really wish we had a media willing to challenge them, rather than just carry their water in exchange for "access".  

There have been a few articles that Manfred and prospective buyers were completely caught off guard by the Pohlad's decision to not sell full ownership.  It sounds like the prospective buyers were lining up financing when the Pohlad's decided to only sell a portion of the team.

They very well could be gearing up to sell once the new CBA is in place, but from the beginning it was rumored the Joe Pohlad wanted to be part of the new ownership group or at least run things.  I'd be surprised if they're actually going to sell the team at this point.  They were able to sell a small portion of the team for a strong price, payoff all or most of their debt, and still retain control of the team.  By clearing their profits and reducing payroll, they should be able to make even more profit than they have been.

[terrydactyls]

49 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

And I really, really wish we had a media willing to challenge them, rather than just carry their water in exchange for "access".  

You mean like the national news media?  The new motto of journalism schools across the nation must be "Never ask a follow-up question and never verify the facts that are presented".

[Danchat]

[LA Vikes Fan]

I don't have any more information than what I read but I will say that this article makes some sense on two levels. The franchise would be worth more if there was cost certainty through a hard salary cap and revenue enhancement through increased TV revenue and more revenue sharing. What doesn't ring true is the idea that the 2 new "limited partners" don't have a defined path to ownership. A right of first refusal is the next best thing when there's disagreement on value, though. That's a method used when the two parties want to buy and sell but just can't agree on valuation. It wouldn't shock me if here the Pohlads wanted an effective 2.1B valuation (1.7B plus 400M of debt assumption) and the buyers were 100-300M below that number. The Pohlads get a defined amount of time to find another buyer willing to pay more and the buyers have a right to match. If the Pohlads can't find anyone within a defined time, the buyers initial offer becomes the sale price, sometimes at a slight discount to convince the buyers to stay in the game. The key is that the time within which to find a new buyer is defined, not open ended. It would make some sense that the end date is tied to the negotiations for a new CBA since that could really effect  the valuation. 

We also shouldn't discount the impact of interest rates. This is a financed deal.  I don't want to get into politics, so I'll just say that the future path of interest rates is at best unclear. We don't know where the economy or the Fed is going and the possibilities range from recession to expansion to stagflation with one able to use the economic indicators to construct any plausible scenario in between. There is a high amount of non-economic pressure that could influence interest rate policy in either direction. The legal issues are beyond complex and could also impact what happens. It frankly might be a better deal for a buyer to pay more in a year or 18 moths but finance the price at a 1-2% lower interest rate.  It's all just math leading to a number on a page. 

[Woof Bronzer]

14 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

You mean like the national news media?  The new motto of journalism schools across the nation must be "Never ask a follow-up question and never verify the facts that are presented".

Don't get me started...

[nicksaviking]

The fact that there's going to be a stoppage with the next CBA is on the Pohalds. The salary cap AND FLOOR along with revenue sharing should have been dealt with decades ago. The Pohalds are the third longest tenured ownership group in the sport behind the Steinbrenner's and Jerry Reinsdorf. As a seniority owner, the Twins should have been the franchise pushing back against the big market clubs disproportionately denying interest in the mid and smaller market teams. What the Rooneys and Steelers where to the NFL, the Pohlads and Twins should have been to the MLB. 

But they weren't. They have always been passive owners going along with what the big market owners told them to do.

[NYCTK]

24 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

As a seniority owner, the Twins should have been the franchise pushing back against the big market clubs disproportionately denying interest in the mid and smaller market teams.

What do you mean by this? 

Thanks to the ownership groups, teams like the Pirates and Twins don't have to put in any effort to make money with their investment. They get a nice $200 million check at the start of the season just by existing.

26 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

The salary cap AND FLOOR along with revenue sharing should have been dealt with decades ago.

It was dealt with. It was proposed by the owners and the players told them to go **** themselves. If they propose it again, they'll get the same answer. 

[AKTwinsFan]

Still waiting on the ownership groups names and details. 

[nicksaviking]

8 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

What do you mean by this? 

Thanks to the ownership groups, teams like the Pirates and Twins don't have to put in any effort to make money with their investment. They get a nice $200 million check at the start of the season just by existing.

It was dealt with. It was proposed by the owners and the players told them to go **** themselves. If they propose it again, they'll get the same answer. 

Yeah the Twins and Pirates are passive teams, doing what the big clubs want. They would have made way more than make 200M if they would have forced the big market teams to do full revenue sharing in the 1980s or 1990s like the other pro leagues did.

The players always tell the owners no. The owners ALWAYS get what they want. As evidenced by the salary caps and floors in the other three leagues. 

[NYCTK]

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Yeah the Twins and Pirates are passive teams, doing what the big clubs want. They would have made way more than make 200M if they would have forced the big market teams to do full revenue sharing in the 1980s or 1990s like the other pro leagues did.

The players always tell the owners no. The owners ALWAYS get what they want. As evidenced by the salary caps and floors in the other three leagues. 

They're terrible businesspeople. This is known. 

But there will not be a salary cap. And fans cheering for a salary cap are massive weirdos, indirectly cheering for the Pohlads. 

[nicksaviking]

14 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

They're terrible businesspeople. This is known. 

But there will not be a salary cap. And fans cheering for a salary cap are massive weirdos, indirectly cheering for the Pohlads. 

No, we're cheering for parity so a mid or small market team may have a chance to win a championship more than once every three decades. This sport will die if they can't get middle America to follow baseball again, and they aren't going to follow if their team has no hope of winning.

Billionaires indirectly benefit from everything this country does. There's no need to intentionally kill this one thing that WE like just to spite them.

[NYCTK]

Just now, nicksaviking said:

No, we're cheering for parity so a mid or small market team may have a chance to win a championship more than once every three decades.

The Milwaukee Brewers are the best team in baseball right now after winning 90+ games the two seasons prior. What did they spend on payroll this year? There have been 19 different teams in the World Series the last two decades. The exact same as the kings of parity the NFL. 

You're cheering for the Owners to be able to limit how much they have to spend on payroll, and somehow unaware that you're spreading the owners propaganda for them. 

Your frustration is not with the lack of a salary cap. Your frustration is with ****** owners that will not become good owners when they're told other teams aren't able to spend as much money in certain ways. 

This is no less ridiculous in thinking than cheering for tax cuts for the billionaires so that it can trickle down to you. 

[TheLeviathan]

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

No, we're cheering for parity so a mid or small market team may have a chance to win a championship more than once every three decades. This sport will die if they can't get middle America to follow baseball again, and they aren't going to follow if their team has no hope of winning.

Billionaires indirectly benefit from everything this country does. There's no need to intentionally kill this one thing that WE like just to spite them.

I agree with this and I'm heavily on the side of "pay players more"....however, there is no denying that the cap/floor/revenue sharing issue has blame on both sides of this debate.  The owners want some portions of those things for the wrong reasons and the players want none of those things for the wrong reasons.  

And we the fans suffer.  (Except Dodgers fans)