Are the Minnesota Twins the Least Relevant Team in Baseball?

[Greggory Masterson]

Image courtesy of © Bruce Kluckhohn-Imagn Images

At the onset, I want to make myself clear; I love my favorite baseball team, and I’m not being malicious or trying to rub the organization’s nose in it. I had the thought a few weeks ago, and I’ve been turning it over in my head.

If you consider how involved each team is in the modern baseball landscape, their history as a franchise, and how prominent they are in the culture, I think that the Twins are the least relevant team in baseball.

Please understand, I don’t mean the worst team in baseball, or the worst organization in baseball history. I mean: If you were to start talking about baseball with a stranger, how long would the conversation go before the Minnesota Twins were mentioned? The Colorado Rockies are more notable than the Twins right now, for instance, because their losing ways are so extreme. You could probably throw the West Sacramento Athletics, Chicago White Sox, and Pittsburgh Pirates into that pile, as well—they’re so bad that they’re relevant. There's relocation intrigue in one place, and the specter of a wasted generational megastar in another.

On the flip side, obviously, there are a ton of teams who are clearly more relevant to baseball than the Twins, based on historical success, their market size, or any other unsubtle reasons. The Braves and Cubs, America’s national cable teams, fall under that category. So do the historically entrenched Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Yankees, and Philadelphia Phillies. Some combination of market size, history, and recent success also exclude the Houston Astros, New York Mets, St. Louis Cardinals, and San Francisco Giants.

There are some less successful teams and prominent teams that are also, nonetheless, more central to the conversation than the Twins. For instance, despite their recent struggles, the Detroit Tigers and Baltimore Orioles (even if these aren’t the original Orioles) carry a certain legacy as the current iterations of original American League teams.

The Texas Rangers, without their recent World Series, may be in a similar relevancy class as the Twins, but it’s hard to ignore a Commissioner’s Trophy awarded in the past five years. Dallas-Ft. Worth is also an enormous market, even if it doesn't always feel like one in the baseball world. Likewise, their opponents in that series (the Arizona Diamondbacks) were vaulted a bit more into the spotlight. They’re also helped by their success in the recent past—and an iconic look. In the modern game, the attachment of spring training to Arizona also makes the growing Phoenix area play up as a baseball market. When baseball things happen there, they leave a heavier footprint in the national conversation than the sheer market size might imply.

It’s not just about how good or bad the team is when we’re talking about relevance. The iconography of the Diamondbacks franchise, especially in their 1990s teal and purple, has staying power. The Milwaukee Brewers’ iconic ball-and-glove logo, the Florida Marlins’ teal caps, the Athletics’ Kelly greens, the Padres’ brown, the Royals’ baby blue. There are certain logos, insignias, and color schemes that lock into fans’ heads—and even the general population’s.

The Twins do not have that type of staying power. The Twins’ 'TC' and 'M' are not fashion statements, like the classic Yankees or Mets 'NY', Dodgers 'LA' (formerly, 'B', or even the White Sox 'SOX' or the Pirates 'P'. This isn't because the logos aren't good, exactly. Maybe the problem is having gotten caught in between, and now using two different cap and cornerstone logos so evenly. Either way, the brand is diminished. With the exception of City Connect uniforms, all of the teams listed above wear the same logo on their cap every night. 

So, what do the Twins bring to the table? I think we’ve spent enough time on high fashion, but I hope that what I’m trying to say about cultural consciousness is getting through. They have been successful in the worst division in baseball over the last quarter-century. They won two World Series in 1987 and 1991. They have a handful of Hall of Famers wearing their caps—Harmon Killebrew, Tony Oliva, Rod Carew, Bert Blyleven, Kirby Puckett, Jim Kaat and Joe Mauer. With the exception of Carew, though, it’s a group that doesn’t get brought up often. They had a few stars in their recent past—Byron Buxton, Carlos Correa, Mauer, Justin Morneau, and Johan Santana likely being the most prominent. But you know who the most famous Minnesota Twin of the 21st century is, for most of the world's baseball fans? David Ortiz.

They haven’t been great recently, but they haven’t been comically bad, either—at least since the 2011-2016 run that placed them at the bottom of the American League. They have existed for a while in a middle ground that doesn’t command much attention. Even their 0-18 playoff losing streak isn’t a talker anymore, now that it's over. The Mariners and Pirates can tell you how quickly the extra notes in national columns and the buzz from other fan bases die down, once you go from an active streak of historical playoff absence or anguish to a merely recent one.

I’ll speedrun the teams I feel are in contention for the most irrelevant team in baseball, and why I think they’re more relevant than the Twins. The San Diego Padres are one of the most exciting teams in baseball right now. The Cincinnati Reds are the “first” professional baseball team, they have an iconic look, they had a great Big Red Machine run, and they once employed Ken Griffey Jr. They also currently employ Elly De La Cruz, an objectively worse version of Buxton but a much more famous player, which is illustrative. The Washington Nationals play baseball in the nation’s capital, but they’re probably close to the Twins in relevance, if you ignore their recent World Series and their Expos history. They have a chance to tumble into the cellar in this regard, but it hasn't happened yet.

The Angels are on the Twins’ level of recent success, but they recently employed the best two players in baseball (and still have one of them, a surefire, utterly fascinating future Hall of Famer), making them a national punchline, and they even had a more popular children’s movie than Little Big League. (We all know Little Big League is a better movie, but we're matching up Luke Edwards and Timothy Busfield against Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover, here.) They also play in a huge market and are a semi-serious threat to sign a big free agent every winter.

I like to think of the Milwaukee Brewers as a sister team to the Twins, matching their lack of historic success and star power (Robin Yount, Paul Molitor, and Ryan Braun stack up pretty evenly with Killebrew, Puckett, and Mauer), but they’re much more successful right now and boast an iconic logo. They're going to draw over 2.5 million fans to the park this year, not counting some October sellouts.

The Miami Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays also live in the Twins’ domain. However, their newness (and some bold fashion choices in the short history of each) plays in their favor. The Marlins have been so bad that they’re relevant—and have still won two World Series more recently than Minnesota. Tampa Bay has current events (their ballpark being damaged), recent success, and narratives about analytics attached to them. There are a lot of similarities between the Blue Jays and Twins, but it’s probably a little egocentric to pretend that an entire country’s only team is less relevant than one of the medium-market US-based teams, and they certainly have more star power, with Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Even if half of Canada rejected the Jays as merely Toronto's or Ontario's team, that's a big-market behemoth. And they, too, have two World Series wins more recent than the Twins'.

Within the division, Cleveland and Kansas City seem to be the best contenders for least relevant team in baseball. However, Cleveland was the subject of perhaps the most famous baseball movie of all time; have been more successful in the recent past; and have been the subject of national debate over their name for decades. (Not all relevance is good relevance, but it's a thing.) They also have the longest World Series drought, by far, dating back to 1948. That's a narrative that will capture attention every time they're good. The Twins, Orioles (last title: 1983) and Pirates (1979) haven't yet reached that level where the losing becomes part of the lore.

Kansas City would probably best Minnesota, but they did win a World Series in the past decade, and like I said above, they have an iconic look. They also have Bobby Witt Jr., and while they haven't yet secured funding for it, a new ballpark is on the horizon.

If there’s an American League sister organization to the Twins, it’s the Mariners. They have both struggled to have any postseason success for decades, and they exist in secondary markets. But the star power associated with the Mariners, such as Randy Johnson, Alex Rodriguez, Ichiro, or Griffey, far outshines the Twins. Their teal is iconic, and they’re more involved in the national discussion, whether that’s in their MVP candidate Cal Raleigh or their yearly high-profile fight against the Astros and Rangers for a playoff berth.

The Twins' best case for national relevancy, at least since they were knocked out of the postseason in 2023, was when they were up for sale. Now, even that bit of intrigue has been canceled—not consummated, but called off. There's no way to become more invisible to the baseball world than to not pay off even when you do promise something of interest.

But that’s just my opinion. How wrong am I? Do you think the Twins are more top of mind than any other franchise? I appeared on Locked On Twins with Brandon Warne to discuss this topic a few weeks ago, if you'd like to give it a listen. 

 

View full article

[Schmoeman5]

So. What's your point? Relevant or irrelevant.  Its kind of subjective. Its like scoring wine or reviewing a restaurant.  

[strumdatjag]

What about the team we are currently playing, the LA Angels? Your analysis on that pathetic franchise is unconvincing.  
They couldn’t even win when they had both Trout and  Ohtani.   Now they only have a gimpy Trout.  They have a worse ballpark than our squad.  You say they are in a major market.  But they are second-rate in their own big metro area.  They are even less relevant the Clippers and Chargers.  

[weitz41]

The Rockies called and said they AREN'T giving up their bragging right that easily. 

Seems a bit far to me. We're not even two seasons removed from a playoff series win. 

You could probably replace the Rockies with Nationals, Angels, White Sox and Marlins. Plus a few others.

Besides there's no Dodgers, Padres or Giant in our division. So being even mildly relevant is was easier for the Twins.

[Riverbrian]

Do we win a prize for that? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, weitz41 said:

The Rockies called and said they AREN'T giving up their bragging right that easily. 

Seems a bit far to me. We're not even two seasons removed from a playoff series win. 

You could probably replace the Rockies with Nationals, Angels, White Sox and Marlins. Plus a few others.

Besides there's no Dodgers, Padres or Giant in our division. So being even mildly relevant is was easier for the Twins.

I'd argue that Coors Field keeps the Rockies relevant all the time. People are fascinated by the difference in offense that park provides. I think if you asked a random sampling of people from around the country to name all 30 MLB teams, the Rockies would be named far more often than the Twins. Mile High provides its own eternal relevance.

The Angels have Mike Trout. They'll be relevant as long as he refuses to leave there.

The Marlins are the face of owner cheapness and have relevance for that.

The Nationals, White Sox, and Twins are probably your 3 leaders in the club house.

[weitz41]

22 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'd argue that Coors Field keeps the Rockies relevant all the time. People are fascinated by the difference in offense that park provides. I think if you asked a random sampling of people from around the country to name all 30 MLB teams, the Rockies would be named far more often than the Twins. Mile High provides its own eternal relevance.

The Angels have Mike Trout. They'll be relevant as long as he refuses to leave there.

The Marlins are the face of owner cheapness and have relevance for that.

The Nationals, White Sox, and Twins are probably your 3 leaders in the club house.

If the stadium makes a team's relevant. The Pirates have one of the nicest stadiums in MLB. But when have they been relevant recently? Target field is a great stadium for that matter.

I get the Mike Trout spot, as an MVP candidate sure they're relevant. Now? Pittsburg has Andew Mccutchen. That could be Trout in a year or two.

I don't think cheapness should be a qualifier for being relevant.

We're on the downside of a winning window. I get the negativity. Being relevant as a team with a budget that they HAVE to stick to means 2-3 year of bad to really bad (maybe more) and 2-3 years of excitement.  The waves come in and the waves go out...When we win it's something special. When the Dodgers (Pick a high $ team) it's a wow big surprise their...season...

[LambchoP]

The only way to get us interested in the team next year would be to call up all our top prospects that are in AAA. A lineup with a healthy Buxton, Keaschal, Jenkins, Rodriguez and maybe a few more young and athletic players could be fun to watch. Of course our pitching will blow any lead we may have, so there's that.....

[LastOnePicked]

I'm not sure if they're the least relevant, but I can say this: they are a nothing organization right now. There's absolutely nothing to them. They have no identity. They don't excel at anything. Fan energy is anemic. I've loved baseball all my life, but even friends and family members who used to love the Twins never - and I mean never - talk about them when we get together these days, 

That's what happens when you don't win. When winning is not a priority, and when excellence - or even competence - isn't expected from ownership, then team culture rots. Instead of setting your unwavering sights on a World Series, you end up with meaningless corporate-speak mission statements and comments about "right-sizing" the business.

This is a nothing organization. It's why too many prospects falter. It's why coaches stay too long while superstars try to shorten their stay. The Twins problem is that they lose, yes, but the bigger problem is that they're losers. They have no killer instinct, no fight and no feel for the game. Until the culture changes, nothing will change for this team in terms of relevance.

 

 

[DJL44]

56 minutes ago, strumdatjag said:

You say they are in a major market.  But they are second-rate in their own big metro area.  They are even less relevant the Clippers and Chargers.  

The Angels and White Sox aren't even popular in their own city but the Rays are the #2 team in their market to the Yankees, who don't even play in the same state. They're being forced to play in the Yankees minor league park because they don't even have a stadium to play in. I think that qualifies the Rays as the least relevant team in baseball. At least the Twins are #1 in their own market and have a legitimate baseball stadium to play in.

Imagine if the Saints had remained affiliated with the Dodgers, the MN market kept a large number of Dodgers fans over the years, the Twins were forced to play their home games at CHS Field because the Metrodome fell down, and despite playing in a minor league ballpark, the only games they sold out were against the Dodgers.

[Whitey333]

Very good well thought out article.  Interesting philosophies that are hard to disagree with.  

[DJL44]

22 minutes ago, weitz41 said:

Now? Pittsburg has Andew Mccutchen. That could be Trout in a year or two.

Skenes is on the cover of every baseball video game.

[chpettit19]

9 minutes ago, weitz41 said:

If the stadium makes a team's relevant. The Pirates have one of the nicest stadiums in MLB. But when have they been relevant recently? Target field is a great stadium for that matter.

I get the Mike Trout spot, as an MVP candidate sure they're relevant. Now? Pittsburg has Andew Mccutchen. That could be Trout in a year or two.

I don't think cheapness should be a qualifier for being relevant.

We're on the downside of a winning window. I get the negativity. Being relevant as a team with a budget that they HAVE to stick to means 2-3 year of bad to really bad (maybe more) and 2-3 years of excitement.  The waves come in and the waves go out...When we win it's something special. When the Dodgers (Pick a high $ team) it's a wow big surprise their...season...

Those stadiums don't change play results. That's why I said people are fascinated by the difference in offense that specific place provides. Coors Field isn't famous for being a great stadium, it's famous because it literally changes player's stats. That's very different than Target Field and PNC Park being nice stadiums. Joe Mauer playing at Target Field was never part of his HoF discussion. But it was a huge part of Todd Helton's that year. 

Cutch is not Trout. Trout is in the argument for greatest player of all time. They aren't the same. People who don't follow baseball at all know who Mike Trout is. They didn't know who Cutch was at his peak. Same reason the Mariners will always be relevant, even non-baseball fans know who Junior is.

I wish it wasn't something that keeps people talking about teams, but the Marlins have made it an art form. It keeps the Marlins in the national conversation.

The author certainly set this up as a discussion on their relevance at this specific point in time. And the negativity around the team plays into that. I think another commentor made a great point that their deadline selloff actually brought them more into relevance because it was so large. But the Twins are never all that high on the relevance scale so it doesn't take a huge dip to put them in the discussion for least relevant team in MLB.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, strumdatjag said:

What about the team we are currently playing, the LA Angels? Your analysis on that pathetic franchise is unconvincing.  
They couldn’t even win when they had both Trout and  Ohtani.   Now they only have a gimpy Trout.  They have a worse ballpark than our squad.  You say they are in a major market.  But they are second-rate in their own big metro area.  They are even less relevant the Clippers and Chargers.  

"Second-rate" in their own market and still draw a million more fans a year.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

If you define relevance as “in the pop culture mind”, then I suppose you might be correct.  Since you count terrible teams as being more relevant, I’m not sure that’s a place I want to be.  Nor do I want the Twins’ identity to be defined by a “what the heck were they thinking during that selloff?” This seems like a very millennial argument to make.  

For me, relevance is a good product, a good history, and a positively projectable future.  Right now, we’re failing on some of those fronts, but historically, this franchise has been quite relevant to the league as a whole.  If it’s about what the specifically east or west coast teams/fans think, that doesn’t actually matter because that’s not the audience we need to convince (nor will we ever convince) that the team is relevant.  Our relevancy is more regional, and that’s OK but I also think that’s the wrong word. 

[weitz41]

12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Those stadiums don't change play results. That's why I said people are fascinated by the difference in offense that specific place provides. Coors Field isn't famous for being a great stadium, it's famous because it literally changes player's stats. That's very different than Target Field and PNC Park being nice stadiums. Joe Mauer playing at Target Field was never part of his HoF discussion. But it was a huge part of Todd Helton's that year. 

Cutch is not Trout. Trout is in the argument for greatest player of all time. They aren't the same. People who don't follow baseball at all know who Mike Trout is. They didn't know who Cutch was at his peak. Same reason the Mariners will always be relevant, even non-baseball fans know who Junior is.

I wish it wasn't something that keeps people talking about teams, but the Marlins have made it an art form. It keeps the Marlins in the national conversation.

The author certainly set this up as a discussion on their relevance at this specific point in time. And the negativity around the team plays into that. I think another commentor made a great point that their deadline selloff actually brought them more into relevance because it was so large. But the Twins are never all that high on the relevance scale so it doesn't take a huge dip to put them in the discussion for least relevant team in MLB.

Well, we can keep at this for a while, but I will concede the Trout point. Because Trout will be in the HoF, Cutch probably not.

I still don't buy the stadium argument. that makes the Brewers stadium or say the Reds stadium ...make those teams or players relevant. It's the guys swinging the bat or throwing the pitches that due that.

Relevance is a state of mind or say a feeling at particular point in time. I return to what I said about the negativity at the current point in time for the Twins. Exhale, hope for a brighter future. All 30 teams are relevant. The twins are not # 30 out of 30

[weitz41]

34 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Skenes is on the cover of every baseball video game.

So was Wander Franco. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, weitz41 said:

Well, we can keep at this for a while, but I will concede the Trout point. Because Trout will be in the HoF, Cutch probably not.

I still don't buy the stadium argument. that makes the Brewers stadium or say the Reds stadium ...make those teams or players relevant. It's the guys swinging the bat or throwing the pitches that due that.

Relevance is a state of mind or say a feeling at particular point in time. I return to what I said about the negativity at the current point in time for the Twins. Exhale, hope for a brighter future. All 30 teams are relevant. The twins are not # 30 out of 30

They literally had to put a humidor in Coors Field to control how the ball acts there compared to every other field. Until another stadium has to add equipment to control the results on the field, no, it isn't even remotely the same thing. How this is even a discussion is pretty mind blowing. Are you legitimately unaware of the uniqueness of Coors Field in the greater baseball world? 

At this point in time, a very reasonable argument can be made that the Twins are #30 out of 30. How relevant the Twins are from a national perspective at this point in time is almost entirely tied to whether or not they're going to sell more pieces. Otherwise, they won't be talked about at all by national people. That has nothing to do with a "state of mind" or "feeling." That's just how it is. Because they're a completely irrelevant team right now. It happens. I'm not losing sleep over it. I don't need to "exhale," and my hope for a better future doesn't change their current relevance. It's just the situation they're in right now. It sucks for us Twins fans. But that is the realistic view of things from a national relevance point of view.

[Aggies7]

I’ve never met a marlins fan in my life. They’ve finished last in attendance in the NL all but two years (one during Covid) since 2006. Two non losing seasons since 2010 (one again during Covid). Even when they won the WS, they followed with sell offs. If their own fans don’t care, how could they be relevant to the league as a whole?

[BillyBallLives]

I'll just add:

Q: What do the Twins and a dull pencil have in common?

A: They are both pointless.

[ashbury]

"Who is Mr Twin?"  The average baseball fan across the nation but outside the team's core market might say Kirby Puckett - maybe a few are old enough to say Harmon or young enough to say Joe Mauer.  "Who is Mr Marlins?"  I bet most of those fans would be stuck for answer, to name even one Marlin.  (By WAR for the team, it would be Giancarlo Stanton or Hanley Ramirez - and I doubt most people would associate the Marlins with either one.)

[Aggies7]

12 minutes ago, ashbury said:

"Who is Mr Twin?"  The average baseball fan across the nation but outside the team's core market might say Kirby Puckett - maybe a few are old enough to say Harmon or young enough to say Joe Mauer.  "Who is Mr Marlins?"  I bet most of those fans would be stuck for answer, to name even one Marlin.  (By WAR for the team, it would be Giancarlo Stanton or Hanley Ramirez - and I doubt most people would associate the Marlins with either one.)

Probably Jose Fernandez, but only because of the accident. I bet most casual fans of baseball couldn’t name two current marlins. The marlins just exist, that’s about all that can be said. Although they did get a recent bump in relevance with the crazy home run ball lady 

[DJL44]

13 minutes ago, ashbury said:

 "Who is Mr Marlins?" 

It's Jeff Conine, which is not a great piece of evidence in their favor.

[weitz41]

19 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

They literally had to put a humidor in Coors Field to control how the ball acts there compared to every other field. Until another stadium has to add equipment to control the results on the field, no, it isn't even remotely the same thing. How this is even a discussion is pretty mind blowing. Are you legitimately unaware of the uniqueness of Coors Field in the greater baseball world? 

At this point in time, a very reasonable argument can be made that the Twins are #30 out of 30. How relevant the Twins are from a national perspective at this point in time is almost entirely tied to whether or not they're going to sell more pieces. Otherwise, they won't be talked about at all by national people. That has nothing to do with a "state of mind" or "feeling." That's just how it is. Because they're a completely irrelevant team right now. It happens. I'm not losing sleep over it. I don't need to "exhale," and my hope for a better future doesn't change their current relevance. It's just the situation they're in right now. It sucks for us Twins fans. But that is the realistic view of things from a national relevance point of view.

Well maybe you are unaware of this but as of 2022 all teams are required to keep all balls in a humidor. 70 degrees 57% humidity. Google it....Coors field has less oxygen then all the other fields. Hence the ball travelers farther. Yup, known that since they got a team. Coors field to dead center is? 415 feet.,,State Farm (Brewers)field is 400 feet...Great America field (reds)is 404. 

from out lovely AI...

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f0c0b80fcbedce320e8bf0c7385798c81c1b62ef16ebc111bde506ff37d586c0JmltdHM9MTc1NzM3NjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=2ff8bee5-14a6-6acb-19e8-a8e115c96b41&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9zcG9ydHNsYXdibG9nZ2VyLmNvbS9pbi1kZW52ZXItaG93LWZhci1kb2VzLWEtYmFzZWJhbGwtdHJhdmVsLmh0bWw&ntb=1

I chose dead center just to keep it simple. If you want to run it down the LF or RF line more power to you. It's not that much of a deal breaker. I get your convinced I'm wrong, but the devil is in the details. YES further. enough to compensate for the altitude. Not so much.

YES, I know the history. 

Relevant. today. Yes, you are correct.

I'm not kicking my girlfriend out of my house today because she's not idk...doing what i want atm...

Just utter nonsense to begin with to talk about relevance of a team because of a bad 162 games.

Sign....Point of view is the whole point. It your frustrated by outside things combined with on teh field performance. well, there no right answer for you and many, many others right now.

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, weitz41 said:

Well maybe you are unaware of this but as of 2022 all teams are required to keep all balls in a humidor. 70 degrees 57% humidity. Google it....Coors field has less oxygen then all the other fields. Hence the ball travelers farther. Yup, known that since they got a team. Coors field to dead center is? 415 feet.,,State Farm (Brewers)field is 400 feet...Great America field (reds)is 404. 

from out lovely AI...

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f0c0b80fcbedce320e8bf0c7385798c81c1b62ef16ebc111bde506ff37d586c0JmltdHM9MTc1NzM3NjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=2ff8bee5-14a6-6acb-19e8-a8e115c96b41&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9zcG9ydHNsYXdibG9nZ2VyLmNvbS9pbi1kZW52ZXItaG93LWZhci1kb2VzLWEtYmFzZWJhbGwtdHJhdmVsLmh0bWw&ntb=1

I chose dead center just to keep it simple. If you want to run it down the LF or RF line more power to you. It's not that much of a deal breaker. I get your convinced I'm wrong, but the devil is in the details. YES further. enough to compensate for the altitude. Not so much.

YES, I know the history. 

Relevant. today. Yes, you are correct.

I'm not kicking my girlfriend out of my house today because she's not idk...doing what i want atm...

Just utter nonsense to begin with to talk about relevance of a team because of a bad 162 games.

Sign....Point of view is the whole point. It your frustrated by outside things combined with on teh field performance. well, there no right answer for you and many, many others right now.

If you think Coors only changes offense because of homeruns, you're incredibly wrong, yes. But that isn't even the point. The conversation is about relevance. And Coors Field makes the Rockies relevant because even casual or non-baseball fans know about it. They don't know about Target Field or PNC Park or American Family Field or Great American Ballpark. They aren't the same.

Fine, you don't like that the author made the article about just right now? In general, the Twins are in the argument for the least relevant team in baseball. They go after no major free agents. They play in what has been a generally awful and boring division that goes after no major free agents. They have been awful at developing high end talent so have rarely even had major trade assets to ship off. They are almost never in the national conversation. 

I still follow them. Have my whole life and will continue to the rest of my life. They're my favorite team and always will be. Being honest and realistic about where this organization stands in the hierarchy of Major League Baseball doesn't mean they're going to take my fan card away. It doesn't mean I hate the team. It doesn't mean I'm being negative for no reason. It's just the truth. They were relevant for about 5 years in the late 80s and early 90s, but even in there they went worst to first and were forgotten about immediately in between title runs and immediately afterwards. 

They're not in the national conversation on a regular basis, now or in a general sense. Even if you want to ignore their current state and just discuss them in general. If you get away from the Twin Cities and Midwest and just talk to general people across the country, the Twins are absolutely in the running for the least relevant team in MLB. There is nothing noteworthy or special about them in a national sense.

[weitz41]

OK before I get 3 more WTF are you thinking posts. I'd like to thank Greg for posting this thread. Before I spend any more time on those responses. I want to take that physic 101 class and say... Well **** I didn't finish that course...Chasing the title. Revenant is a great way to get the positives (like me) and the negatives to chat. Great work there the title pulled me in.

[Vanimal46]

44 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

I’ve never met a marlins fan in my life. They’ve finished last in attendance in the NL all but two years (one during Covid) since 2006. Two non losing seasons since 2010 (one again during Covid). Even when they won the WS, they followed with sell offs. If their own fans don’t care, how could they be relevant to the league as a whole?

Also, the team formerly known as the Oakland A’s. Both of these teams have been nothing more than farm systems for the large market teams for a vast majority of my baseball fandom. 

[weitz41]

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If you think Coors only changes offense because of homeruns, you're incredibly wrong, yes. But that isn't even the point. The conversation is about relevance. And Coors Field makes the Rockies relevant because even casual or non-baseball fans know about it. They don't know about Target Field or PNC Park or American Family Field or Great American Ballpark. They aren't the same.

Fine, you don't like that the author made the article about just right now? In general, the Twins are in the argument for the least relevant team in baseball. They go after no major free agents. They play in what has been a generally awful and boring division that goes after no major free agents. They have been awful at developing high end talent so have rarely even had major trade assets to ship off. They are almost never in the national conversation. 

I still follow them. Have my whole life and will continue to the rest of my life. They're my favorite team and always will be. Being honest and realistic about where this organization stands in the hierarchy of Major League Baseball doesn't mean they're going to take my fan card away. It doesn't mean I hate the team. It doesn't mean I'm being negative for no reason. It's just the truth. They were relevant for about 5 years in the late 80s and early 90s, but even in there they went worst to first and were forgotten about immediately in between title runs and immediately afterwards. 

They're not in the national conversation on a regular basis, now or in a general sense. Even if you want to ignore their current state and just discuss them in general. If you get away from the Twin Cities and Midwest and just talk to general people across the country, the Twins are absolutely in the running for the least relevant team in MLB. There is nothing noteworthy or special about them in a national sense.

Jeez.. It's a random post not a bleacher report article I spent a months on. I'm likely 100% wrong but for me it's a game not anything more. This whole mess of the 2025 season is just another summer to me. Is it to you?

[terrydactyls]

You listed ten teams as clearly more relevant than the Twins.  Seven of the teams are East Coast or West Coast teams.  I think this is a major part of the irrelevance.   The Twins are in the middle of the country and in the northern half.  What media is going to give a damn about anything that happens in Minnesota (with the exception of a school shooting or a George Floyd incident).  Not enough viewers i.e. advertising revenues.  There's an old saying that money talks while the middle of the country isn't worth finishing this saying. 

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, weitz41 said:

Jeez.. It's a random post not a bleacher report article I spent a months on. I'm likely 100% wrong but for me it's a game not anything more. This whole mess of the 2025 season is just another summer to me. Is it to you?

Yes, it is. Being realistic doesn't mean I take things too seriously or however you want to describe what you're suggesting. If I'm going to have a discussion about something, though, I'm going to put thought into it and come to the best, most honest conclusion I can. You're investing the same amount of time and energy into this conversation as I am, but because you have the optimistic view that ignores the reality of where the Twins stand in the national hierarchy your time and effort don't count?

It doesn't take me any extra effort to be honest about their position in MLB. I'm home now and will feed and walk my dog before making myself some dinner and enjoying some Master Class and a book. Won't think about this convo again. I don't have to ignore reality and just be blindly positive to keep things in perspective.