How Twins Ownership May Have Broken Byron Buxton’s Moral Code

[D.C Twins]

I've been saying this for months on TD to a chorus of downvotes... nothing shocking about this....entirely predicable. 

[TNtwins85]

3 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

I never claimed anything close to saying that they were $500M in the operating hole to create the debt.   Capital improvements at Target Field are a not insignificant part of that number that doesn't factor into their operating income, and almost all teams carry some level of debt on their books.  There's a level of debt that is responsible to carry on the books of a healthy business as it improves cash flow and accelerates investment.   But they did exactly what you suggest in increasing their payroll over their usual levels with Correa, Donaldson, Lopez, etc and that did not translate into huge profits, if there were any profits at all.  They tried it and it didn't work. 

Regarding the rest of their portfolio: if their other businesses are suffering to a degree that required leveraging the baseball team into the spot they're in (which I think is true to a certain degree), then this cash infusion the Twins received isn't solving those problems.  It's a temporary patch, not a cure.  Their commercial real estate portfolio is just as sickly as it was before the limited partners' capital infusion.  Given that, they're not going to start pouring money into the baseball team just to have to turn around and leverage it to support their other businesses again, especially since it's not just their money anymore.  And if the limited partners thought the Pohlads were going to continue to use the Twins as a piggybank to keep their other businesses afloat, they wouldn't be investing in the first place.  You're right, the limited partners don't want to invest in their commercial real estate, but they might as well be if they're going to continue to use the Twins in this way.  You can't separate the Twins franchise from the Pohlad's other businesses if they're still using one to prop up the other.  So profitability is a must, and that is guaranteed by slashing payroll short term

Think about this: if they really do intend to go right back to the payroll levels they've been at, then why are they being so coy about it?  They need a PR win in the worst way, and I'm sure they can see how season ticket renewals are going (I can't imagine they're doing gangbusters right now).  Per Gleeman, around 80% of ticket sales for the year take place before the season starts.  They'd have no reason not to be out front with it, unless there's some uncertainty around limited partner approval, which would open up a whole new set of problems.  Either way, I see no evidence beyond wishful thinking that the payroll will be anywhere near recent levels, at least in the short term. 

I hope I'm wrong because I want them to win.

But that’s what the line was. Anywhere from $400M-$500M. You don’t lose that much money by paying the 3 top guys $65M per year. Something happened and they decided to put all of their debt into the Twins because they knew they could get investors to jump on board and pay that down. Will it be able to happen again? No. Not with new limited partners. I don’t plan on them spending $150M the next couple of years but  they have time before this next wave gets expensive. I was simply making the point that this is not the Minnesota Twins debt. It’s the Pohlad Companies debt. The Twins don’t lose money. There’s no way. At least not enough to rack up half a billion dollars worth in 3 years. The math doesn’t add up any way you look at it.

[TNtwins85]

3 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

One step further, it's impossible that Miami is losing money. The notion that these franchises somehow aren't printing $$ is laughable. There was real, reported interest in the Twins at $1.5B, that doesn't happen if the asset is bleeding money...

Right, I was emphasizing a point but from the research I did the Marlins still turned a profit of somewhere between $17M-$23M. The point of the discussion was that the Twins are somewhere in the middle of revenue. If that’s the case there is no way that after signing 3 guys for $65M as early as 3-4 years ago that in that time they managed to accrue $500M in debt as the person that posted that claimed. Even if you lost $30M in revenue that doesn’t take you to half a billion in 3 years without money from other businesses being pushed over to the Twins as a franchise. Especially when you know there’s plenty of buyers who would love that steady, easy ever growing revenue stream. Pohlad Companies simply pushed their debt into their most lucrative asset and got not just 1 but 2 supposed buyers. A smart and necessary business move yes. A really crummy situation for fans? Absolutely! But in no way was this the “Twins” debt. 

[KirbyDome89]

43 minutes ago, TNtwins85 said:

Right, I was emphasizing a point but from the research I did the Marlins still turned a profit of somewhere between $17M-$23M. The point of the discussion was that the Twins are somewhere in the middle of revenue. If that’s the case there is no way that after signing 3 guys for $65M as early as 3-4 years ago that in that time they managed to accrue $500M in debt as the person that posted that claimed. Even if you lost $30M in revenue that doesn’t take you to half a billion in 3 years without money from other businesses being pushed over to the Twins as a franchise. Especially when you know there’s plenty of buyers who would love that steady, easy ever growing revenue stream. Pohlad Companies simply pushed their debt into their most lucrative asset and got not just 1 but 2 supposed buyers. A smart and necessary business move yes. A really crummy situation for fans? Absolutely! But in no way was this the “Twins” debt. 

The chart for 2024 revenue vs. 2025 payroll had Miami north of $300M in revenue and south of $100M in payroll. A $17M profit would be shockingly low. Idk how much stock any of us should put in those numbers but yeah, it's borderline impossible for these teams to actually lose money in any given year, let alone rack up $500M in debt over a 3-4 year period. 

[The Great Hambino]

4 minutes ago, TNtwins85 said:

But that’s what the line was. Anywhere from $400M-$500M. You don’t lose that much money by paying the 3 top guys $65M per year. Something happened and they decided to put all of their debt into the Twins because they knew they could get investors to jump on board and pay that down. Will it be able to happen again? No. Not with new limited partners. I don’t plan on them spending $150M the next couple of years but  they have time before this next wave gets expensive. I was simply making the point that this is not the Minnesota Twins debt. It’s the Pohlad Companies debt. The Twins don’t lose money. There’s no way. At least not enough to rack up half a billion dollars worth in 3 years. The math doesn’t add up any way you look at it.

I don't know where this idea that $500MM in debt means they've lost $500MM all in the last 3 years comes from.  Debt is not equivalent to operating losses.  That is not what debt means.  Look at this list of MLB franchise values and debt/value ratios.  28 teams carry some amount of debt on their books.  That doesn't mean that 28 franchises lose money.  The Dodgers are definitely not losing money and they have over $600MM of debt ($6.9B valuation with a 9% debt/value ratio) on the books according to this. (This list puts the Twins at $420MM for what it's worth.) The Twins certainly didn't start out with zero debt three years ago.  If they were carrying a normal amount of debt pre-COVID, then took on some debt to keep cash flow going during COVID, then borrowed some more to renovate Target Field, and never paid down the principal since it was the cheapest debt they could get in the Pohlad Companies portfolio ... they're still probably not up to $500MM, but they're well on their way to it without accounting for any operating losses.  The balance of that is likely other Pohlad Company debt, sure.  But by no means all of it.

You can have an operating profit and still carry debt.  You can have operating losses that don't result in debt incurred.  Capital expenditures, cash flow variances, equity contributions/distributions, even accounting method variances can cause debt to increase or decrease independent of operating income/loss.   

But for the sake of argument, let's say it's all Pohlad Companies debt.  (It's not, but at least some of it likely is.)  In practice, this would happen by the Twins taking out debt, then pulling cash out of the Twins and putting into some other company that needs it.  By taking the limited partners investment, it wipes out the debt but doesn't change the fact that those other Pohlad Companies still need cash.  To the Pohlads, the Twins are just another Pohlad company in the portfolio.  So they still need to get cash from the Twins to their other companies, only now can't take on more debt.  So they have to fund it with profits.  The Pohlads can do whatever they want with their portion of the profits as long as the limited partners get their cut.  But this means they have to turn more of a profit, and they have to do it immediately.  And the quickest way to to that is cutting payroll and hoping for a new landscape post-CBA.

[h2oface]

16 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Right, I know no one likes the POBO, but blaming him for slashing payroll is pretty absurd. There's enough to criticize him for, but selling off players to drop payroll isn't one of them. It's not like he WANTS to make his own job harder.

If Falvey had a soul and any integrity at all, he would have denied an owners request and resigned. That is what people of integrity do. 

[old nurse]

I heard it from a friend who heard from a friend who heard it from another……

 

the talk is cheap if the story is good 

[TNtwins85]

13 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

I don't know where this idea that $500MM in debt means they've lost $500MM all in the last 3 years comes from.  Debt is not equivalent to operating losses.  That is not what debt means.  Look at this list of MLB franchise values and debt/value ratios.  28 teams carry some amount of debt on their books.  That doesn't mean that 28 franchises lose money.  The Dodgers are definitely not losing money and they have over $600MM of debt ($6.9B valuation with a 9% debt/value ratio) on the books according to this. (This list puts the Twins at $420MM for what it's worth.) The Twins certainly didn't start out with zero debt three years ago.  If they were carrying a normal amount of debt pre-COVID, then took on some debt to keep cash flow going during COVID, then borrowed some more to renovate Target Field, and never paid down the principal since it was the cheapest debt they could get in the Pohlad Companies portfolio ... they're still probably not up to $500MM, but they're well on their way to it without accounting for any operating losses.  The balance of that is likely other Pohlad Company debt, sure.  But by no means all of it.

You can have an operating profit and still carry debt.  You can have operating losses that don't result in debt incurred.  Capital expenditures, cash flow variances, equity contributions/distributions, even accounting method variances can cause debt to increase or decrease independent of operating income/loss.   

But for the sake of argument, let's say it's all Pohlad Companies debt.  (It's not, but at least some of it likely is.)  In practice, this would happen by the Twins taking out debt, then pulling cash out of the Twins and putting into some other company that needs it.  By taking the limited partners investment, it wipes out the debt but doesn't change the fact that those other Pohlad Companies still need cash.  To the Pohlads, the Twins are just another Pohlad company in the portfolio.  So they still need to get cash from the Twins to their other companies, only now can't take on more debt.  So they have to fund it with profits.  The Pohlads can do whatever they want with their portion of the profits as long as the limited partners get their cut.  But this means they have to turn more of a profit, and they have to do it immediately.  And the quickest way to to that is cutting payroll and hoping for a new landscape post-CBA.

The $400M-$500M was the reported storyline all summer. From the moment Ishbia pulled out of the running all the way up to the Pohlad interview a month or so ago that was what was reported and what they claimed. Do a google search on it. There will be numerous stories as that was the talking point from Ishbia on. I don’t know where you were but that’s been the hot button issue since say last March or so. The $500M number is not my number. It’s the reported number.

[The Great Hambino]

Just now, TNtwins85 said:

The $400M-$500M was the reported storyline all summer. From the moment Ishbia pulled out of the running all the way up to the Pohlad interview a month or so ago that was what was reported and what they claimed. Do a google search on it. There will be numerous stories as that was the talking point from Ishbia on. I don’t know where you were but that’s been the hot button issue since say last March or so. The $500M number is not my number. It’s the reported number.

I don't know how else to say this any more clearly:

$500MM was the reported debt being carried on the books. It does not represent the sum of operating losses over the last few years.  I have explained this in great detail several times over.  If you're going to continue to choose to ignore this, then I don't think this needs to be discussed any further.

I'm a CPA that works for a family office set up very similarly to the Pohlad companies (on a much much much MUCH much smaller scale, but still).  This stuff is literally what I do for a living.  Perhaps you should try a google search on the definition of debt.

[tony&rodney]

19 hours ago, howeda7 said:

Frankly, they have to spend SOME FA $$ on the bullpen whether they are contending or rebuilding. The last thing you want on a rebuilding team is a bunch of demoralizing blown leads.

I suspect that this is true. People who speculate on how the Twins will act/respond this offseason are left completely on their own because a direction has not been forwarded from the organization. If the team were to continue the pattern of late July, moving Ryan and/or Lopez seems possible. That, in turn, means looking for a team for Buxton as he has stated he wants to win. A teardown team still can win 65 games but 2-4 relief pitchers would be needed to stabilize the pen. This seems both necessary and feasible. Of course, it also seems realistic for the Twins to make money with a $130 million 26 person roster as the 2026 season opens.

[TNtwins85]

6 hours ago, h2oface said:

If Falvey had a soul and any integrity at all, he would have denied an owners request and resigned. That is what people of integrity do. 

Go look at corporate America today a show me someone who tells the truth and does the right thing. I recently watched Ken Butns “Baseball” recently. I believe it was the 1870’s when players began getting paid as professionals and owners started acting as owners and implemented the reserve clause.  Ever since then this has been big business and players, fans and owners all battling each other. 

[TNtwins85]

3 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I don't know how else to say this any more clearly:

$500MM was the reported debt being carried on the books. It does not represent the sum of operating losses over the last few years.  I have explained this in great detail several times over.  If you're going to continue to choose to ignore this, then I don't think this needs to be discussed any further.

I'm a CPA that works for a family office set up very similarly to the Pohlad companies (on a much much much MUCH much smaller scale, but still).  This stuff is literally what I do for a living.  Perhaps you should try a google search on the definition of debt.

That’s great! I’m really proud of you! This was never intended to be an argument with you. Someone else (in this article and other people in several other articles) cannot fathom how the “Twins”(the baseball team itself that most average people see them as)  and the “Pohlads” (as in the Pohlads they know as the owners of the Twins and not the owners of several other large businesses) can “lose” $500M. I was simply explaining that it doesn’t make any sense that the “Twins” lost money but through business dealings can shift a debt burden onto another business that is more easily funded and can find more investors. That’s all I was saying in that the “Minnesota Twins” in no way could lose $500M in 3 years. That’s what the stories were. Not what I claimed. It makes it confusing to normal people and most people don’t understand how that all works. It would explain how a normal person gets so upset when billionaires don’t pay taxes. Although that doesn’t seem fair it can be summed up in a quote. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Ice-T

[The Great Hambino]

12 minutes ago, TNtwins85 said:

That’s great! I’m really proud of you! This was never intended to be an argument with you. Someone else (in this article and other people in several other articles) cannot fathom how the “Twins”(the baseball team itself that most average people see them as)  and the “Pohlads” (as in the Pohlads they know as the owners of the Twins and not the owners of several other large businesses) can “lose” $500M. I was simply explaining that it doesn’t make any sense that the “Twins” lost money but through business dealings can shift a debt burden onto another business that is more easily funded and can find more investors. That’s all I was saying in that the “Minnesota Twins” in no way could lose $500M in 3 years. That’s what the stories were. Not what I claimed. It makes it confusing to normal people and most people don’t understand how that all works. It would explain how a normal person gets so upset when billionaires don’t pay taxes. Although that doesn’t seem fair it can be summed up in a quote. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Ice-T

I think I've found our disconnect.  I've been following these developments way too closely for my own well-being, and at no point did I come across an article that claimed $500MM in losses.  Everything I saw stated that as the debt balance on the books.  If you saw articles claiming that number meant losses, then I can't dispute that.  Although you should abandon those sources permanently as that's an absurd thing to put out there for a publication of any kind.  So yes, I agree that there's no way the Twins could lose $500MM in three years.  I'm just saying that's not what that number means.

You get a thumbs up for quoting Ice-T

[howeda7]

On 11/13/2025 at 1:27 PM, Mike Sixel said:

Anyone that believes these numbers should be leary.... As MLB is claiming the Yankees are losing money. 

They could be, but they also have a $300 million payroll. Are you suggesting the Twins lost more or less than that? The $400 million debt seems to mostly be what they contributed to Target Field construction/upgrades.

[howeda7]

On 11/13/2025 at 2:42 PM, Woof Bronzer said:

You haven't been following MLB very closely then.  Due to MLB's economic structure it is extremely profitable for revenue sharing teams slash payroll and lose.  See the Rockies, As, Pirates, et al. Between revenue sharing and new ESPN deal the team stumbled into and that's probably already above your $70m, and they will receive even if they lose every single game.  The gate from those 1 mil is then pure profit.  

A team doesn't hire Shelton, a guy who spent the last 5 years strategically losing in order to line a billionaire's pockets, because they are going to juice payrolls and give the Central a run in 2026.  

Based on what we know, they sold ~25% of the team for ~$400 million. I believe the plan is to pay off the existing debt with the minority owner's $$, wait until the work stoppage is resolved and then sell in 2027/2028 for $1.8-2 billion.

In the meantime, they certainly don't want to lose a bunch of $$ and accumulate new debt, but they also don't desperately need to scrape out as much profit as possible either. 

They are currently in no-man's land, with a projected 2026 payroll of $95 million and a 70- win team. It makes no sense so sit there.

And once you trade Pablo Lopez, well then you might as well trade Buxton and Joe Ryan too. Now you have a $55 million payroll, zero fans in the ballpark, zero TV viewers and and an alienated fan base. Sure they might make some operating profit for 2026, But it might knock $100+ million of that franchise valuation by 2028 too. Is that a smart financial move? All I'm suggesting is field the most competitive team you can without going into the red. That's somewhere in the $130 million range.

[howeda7]

7 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

The $400M-$500M was the reported storyline all summer. From the moment Ishbia pulled out of the running all the way up to the Pohlad interview a month or so ago that was what was reported and what they claimed. Do a google search on it. There will be numerous stories as that was the talking point from Ishbia on. I don’t know where you were but that’s been the hot button issue since say last March or so. The $500M number is not my number. It’s the reported number.

That doesn't mean they lost $500 million on baseball operations over the last few years or ever. They contributed over $200 million to the construction of Target Field and many tens of millions more in upgrade since then. It seems they borrowed this rather than pony it up, which is fine if that's what they wanted to do, but it's simply incorrect to say it was because they were losing $$ in huge amounts. They have surely had years with operating losses at times, but nothing that would approach that kind of debt. 

[Mike Sixel]

43 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

They could be, but they also have a $300 million payroll. Are you suggesting the Twins lost more or less than that? The $400 million debt seems to mostly be what they contributed to Target Field construction/upgrades.

I'm suggesting the Yankees aren't losing 350 million a year, as MLB suggests. Zero chance. And we should never trust owners/billionaires to be truthful. Ever.

[Woof Bronzer]

On 11/14/2025 at 4:39 PM, howeda7 said:

Based on what we know, they sold ~25% of the team for ~$400 million. I believe the plan is to pay off the existing debt with the minority owner's $$, wait until the work stoppage is resolved and then sell in 2027/2028 for $1.8-2 billion.

In the meantime, they certainly don't want to lose a bunch of $$ and accumulate new debt, but they also don't desperately need to scrape out as much profit as possible either. 

They are currently in no-man's land, with a projected 2026 payroll of $95 million and a 70- win team. It makes no sense so sit there.

And once you trade Pablo Lopez, well then you might as well trade Buxton and Joe Ryan too. Now you have a $55 million payroll, zero fans in the ballpark, zero TV viewers and and an alienated fan base. Sure they might make some operating profit for 2026, But it might knock $100+ million of that franchise valuation by 2028 too. Is that a smart financial move? All I'm suggesting is field the most competitive team you can without going into the red. That's somewhere in the $130 million range.

This all sounds great.  I'd like to introduce you to the Pohlads,  They don't care about baseball or competitiveness,  The minority partners won't care about baseball and competitiveness.  All these folks care about is short term profits.  And the good news for them is, MLB's financial structure ensures profits for revenue sharing teams regardless of team success.  On top of that franchise valuations go up and up and up.  They never ever go down, ever.  There is not one example of a professional sports team being sold for less than what it cost.  The value of the Twins has increased by more than a billion dollars in the last 30 years, despite the Twins winning one playoff series in that timeline (and often running shoestring payrolls with 40,000 empty seats in the worst stadium in baseball). 

It's about hoarding wealth, not winning baseball games.  

[DJL44]

On 11/13/2025 at 12:49 PM, howeda7 said:

I can't recall where I saw the #'s, but in 2023 they supposedly lost $12 million on operations, while having a $155 million payroll and $54 million in local TV $$. They have also always said that ~55% of revenues go to payroll. Using that as a baseline, the "break even" payroll in 2023 would have been ~$148 million. 

In 2024, the TV revenue dropped to ~$42 million. That would lower the breakeven payroll to $141 million. They actually cut it to $135, probably because they only went back to Diamond at the last minute and were assuming it would be lower.

In 2025, they raised it to $140 million. No one knows the true TV revenue for 2025, but I'd estimate it at about $30 million. The break even payroll would be ~$134. They would have gotten under it with all the trades, though I'm sure attendance was far lower than projected. They probably lost $$ but not a ton.

Even holding TV revenue the same for 2026, a $130 million payroll would be very reasonable. 

That totals to losses of $24M. How did they lose the other $400M? Embezzlement?