Should Tom Pohlad's Comments Have Derek Falvey On Notice?

[TJSweens]

21 hours ago, Gamblerssoftball said:

How hot will the seat get if the checkbook remains closed? Proven impact players usually come with a hefty price tag in the free agent market. On the other hand, trades, which need to happen rather soon, is where something can be done to lower the thermostat. IMHO 

You can't buy a core. The checkbook isn't relevant unless the organization can first scout, draft and develop a core. Falvey has failed miserably in that respect. 

[Jeff K]

If the Pohlad's wanted to demonstrate that things are changing, then Falvey should have been fired.  I get that he may well be a victim to the terrible ownership, but the team on the field is his Frankenstein.  

[bean5302]

17 hours ago, laloesch said:

Bingo. And nobody wants to hear it here especially because of certain reasons but a HARD salary cap is DESPERATELY needed no ifs ands or buts. 200-250 million cap. You can’t have a handful of teams spending 450 million and then another group just below it spending 300-350 million and expect any parity. I still firmly believe 2027 is gonna be a lost season. I think the league is not gonna accept anything less than a hard cap this time, despite the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, and maybe one or two other owners. MLB is behind the times. The NHL, NBA, and NFL excepted rationality decades ago but baseball didn’t.

Hard cap doesn't fix anything. The NHL, NBA, and NFL have even more competitive imbalance than baseball.

[laloesch]

4 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Hard cap doesn't fix anything. The NHL, NBA, and NFL have even more competitive imbalance than baseball.

Sorry, that's just totally false and everyone knows it.  A Hard cap is EXACTLY what this league needs.  

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Other than the constant complaining on this website, is there any reason to believe Falvey's job is truly in jeopardy? Has there been one public comment or innuendo that has said Falvey is on notice? Has any Twins "insider" provided a source that says Falvey is on a hotseat of any type?

[Fire Dan Gladden]

18 hours ago, bean5302 said:

While I have felt the Twins have been given enough resources, putting together the history paints a rough picture. Data from opening day payroll figures BaseballCube.com

Since Falvey started in 2017
Teams highlighted in blue = won at least 1 World Series
Teams highlighted in green = went to the World Series
League highlighted in blue = won at least 1 league Championship
League highlighted in green = went to the league Championship.

It's a very stark picture which supports the haves/have nots arguments people have been making on this site. While the have nots still very frequently make the playoffs, they rarely advance far. If you spend, you have a high degree of likelihood you'll make it to at least the league championship. The results are sorted by total spent, but even if you sort by median, the results are pretty similar.

 

Stop bringing facts to an emotional argument.

[bean5302]

5 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Other than the constant complaining on this website, is there any reason to believe Falvey's job is truly in jeopardy? Has there been one public comment or innuendo that has said Falvey is on notice? Has any Twins "insider" provided a source that says Falvey is on a hotseat of any type?

Nope. His job appears to be completely secure because for all the talk, the Pohlads are the Pohlads.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, laloesch said:

Sorry, that's just totally false and everyone knows it.  A Hard cap is EXACTLY what this league needs.  

Okay, put up some analysis like I did this topic.

I've done it before. MLB has more playoff and championship turnover than any of the other big 4 sports. Salary cap does not fix the problem on its own.

[USAFChief]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Okay, put up some analysis like I did this topic.

I've done it before. MLB has more playoff and championship turnover than any of the other big 4 sports. Salary cap does not fix the problem on its own.

Laughable.

Winning in the NFL has virtually nothing to do with spending on player salaries. Its about talent evaluation (and injury luck). Every team can and does compete salary wise. Teams go from bad to good in relatively short time periods, and vice versa.

NHL likewise.

The NBA is a little more complicated, but it's about salary manipulation much more so than salary amount.

MlB is the absolute opposite. How much a team spends is, long term, the single most important factor in winning. Teams stay good for decades, and vice versa.

It's a broken system that absolutely needs to be corrected.

 

[Gamblerssoftball]

Wouldn't a salary floor, or a highly accountable method of tracking the revenue shared funds be just as necessary? I understand that there are teams receiving double their payroll or more. Enlighten me, please.

[lake_guy]

20 hours ago, laloesch said:

 

I still firmly believe 2027 is gonna be a lost season. I think the league is not gonna accept anything less than a hard cap this time, despite the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, and maybe one or two other owners, who are gonna fight it along with the Players Union of course.

MLB is behind the times. The NHL, NBA, and NFL excepted rationality decades ago with salary caps, but baseball didn’t.

If it was just a cap and floor I don't think the big market teams would have an issue, it will literally put more money in their pockets and they can blame someone else for the new agreement.  But when you add in shared revenue...now that's gonna get a reaction from them and they'll do any and everything they can to kill an agreement with that in it.

[Danchat]

21 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I don't take Tom as a nuanced baseball guy; I'm guessing the new 'hands on' approach will be he and the new partners improving the business side of the organization first. The business/marketing/PR side of things is a disaster, and wins on the field next year will likely only marginally improve that because fans have already turned on the team and ownership. So at this point, I'd think Falvey and the actual team is a secondary concern for them until the primary goal is in better focus.

But even if they were looking to improve the on field stuff ASAP, it was already too late in the year to fire Falvey. I know everyone wants him out, but while it's quiet for fans right now, there's a ton going on behind the scenes, and if Falvey were to be fired, they'd basically have on options except to just promote the next man up. And I'm guessing most on this board want a clean house. I can't imagine anyone in ownership is qualified to identify a new POB, so they'll need to hire a search firm. The firm will need to find new outside options from other teams, while other teams are currently gearing up for the 2026 season. Not to mention, with the CBA expiring, and with the Twins still looking like a team soon to be sold, are they really going to get GOOD candidates to interview? Then when they hire that person, they have to repeat the process and hire everyone below them. Front office, scouts, stat-heads.

Falvey's job was safe about a week after the regular season ended.

His job was already safe when he executed the trade deadline, it would be strange for them to can Falvey after trusting him to make so many consequential moves at the deadline. You don't entrust those moves to a GM on a boiling hot seat, and Falvey's moves didn't come off as someone desperate to save their job in 2026.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Danchat said:

His job was already safe when he executed the trade deadline, it would be strange for them to can Falvey after trusting him to make so many consequential moves at the deadline. You don't entrust those moves to a GM on a boiling hot seat, and Falvey's moves didn't come off as someone desperate to save their job in 2026.

Agree, typically that's the case, but presumably Joe let Falvey trade away the team, and since he's being shown the door, the probably means Tom and the rest didn't approve if Joe's decisions. So I COULD have seen a possibility Favley was let go in October if Tom and the investors had already taken charge, but there was likely still too much uncertainty at that time, and the POBO was likely the least of their concerns anyway.

[bean5302]

5 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Laughable.

Winning in the NFL has virtually nothing to do with spending on player salaries. Its about talent evaluation (and injury luck). Every team can and does compete salary wise. Teams go from bad to good in relatively short time periods, and vice versa.

NHL likewise.

The NBA is a little more complicated, but it's about salary manipulation much more so than salary amount.

MlB is the absolute opposite. How much a team spends is, long term, the single most important factor in winning. Teams stay good for decades, and vice versa.

It's a broken system that absolutely needs to be corrected.

 

You're literally agreeing with me while calling my comment laughable. Unless you think talent evaluation, drafting, development, philosophy and injury luck have no value in MLB and it's purely about salary?

A salary cap in baseball alone will not suddenly make the Twins into World Series competitors, which is really all the fan base here cares about or thinks would happen. The cap would be far higher than what the Pohlads would pay. The median opening day payroll in MLB is about $165MM. Where would MLB place the hard cap? $200MM? Would that fix the Twins who's primary problem is a GM who can't develop talent?

Lets pretend we live in a fantasy world where the owners agreed to a 100% revenue sharing model and the MLBPA agreed to a hard cap with a floor like the NFL has. Where does Shoehei Ohtani sign? Not *&^&%^& Minnesota, I'll tell you that much. Players will sign where they get endorsement money which is not Minnesota. Or a place with low income tax. Not Minnesota. Or a place with good weather. Not Minnesota. Or a place with a strong fanbase. Not Minnesota. Players care more than ever about a team being a legitimate contender and playing for a large market team with a strong fan base. Maybe we can add a max contract provision in there? Again, since the Twins wouldn't be able to offer any more for a player than anybody else, guess what? Nobody signs with wintery wonderland, weak fanbase, flyover state Minnesota.

Player drafting and development becomes even more critical for the teams who can't lure the elite players through big endorsement paydays, great weather or championship pedigree. The cost for making a mistake becomes catastrophic more than ever, too. The Wild got utterly castrated for a decade because of the bad Parise/Suter deals.

That's the reality of salary caps. They don't work like people think. They won't turn Derek Falvey into a genius. 

[Woof Bronzer]

8 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

That's the reality of salary caps. They don't work like people think. They won't turn Derek Falvey into a genius. 

You're conflating two extremely separate topics.  Yes, a cap won't turn Falvey into a genius, but a cap can allow, for example, the 26th and 21st highest payroll teams (NBA in 2024-5) compete for the championship, both teams in much smaller markets than the Twins.  When is the last time two teams in the lower 1/3 of MLB payroll played for the Series?  For that matter, when's the last time a team in the lower 1/3 of MLB payroll won a Series?  

Pretending that salary caps accomplish nothing is as silly as saying a salary cap is going to make the Twins into champs overnight.  

[Rigby]

Salary caps do not guarantee the Twins nor any other team to become World Series competitors.  Caps do guarantee a level playing field where player acquisition and development become the paramount drivers in organizational success.

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

 

That's the reality of salary caps. They don't work like people think. They won't turn Derek Falvey into a genius. 

I agree. But you're looking at it backwards

Its not that it'll turn poor GMs into geniuses. 

Its that the lack of a salary cap, or some sort of equitable salary capability, turns a half dozen GMs into perennial geniuses. That's the problem.

All the teams should win or lose based on their ability to identify and develop talent. Not their ability to blitz the competition with mega bank.

Identify the best GMs, owners, and managers, not the richest ones.

[bean5302]

Where's the Vikings Superbowl? How about the Wild's Stanley Cup or the Timberwolves NBA Final Championship?

In the last 10years, 8 teams have made the Superbowl. In the AFC, KC and NE have 8 of 10 Superbowl appearances. 

11 teams have made the Stanley Cup Finals. The last 2 have been idential. Panthers vs Oilers, and the Panthers have made 3 straight.

12 teams have made the NBA Finals. Both the Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers made it for 4+ consecutive seasons.

Salary caps do not work.

12 teams have made the World Series and only 2 teams have gone back to back in the past 10 years.

 

[Woof Bronzer]

9 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Where's the Vikings Superbowl? How about the Wild's Stanley Cup or the Timberwolves NBA Final Championship?

In the last 10years, 8 teams have made the Superbowl. In the AFC, KC and NE have 8 of 10 Superbowl appearances. 

11 teams have made the Stanley Cup Finals. The last 2 have been idential. Panthers vs Oilers, and the Panthers have made 3 straight.

12 teams have made the NBA Finals. Both the Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers made it for 4+ consecutive seasons.

Salary caps do not work.

12 teams have made the World Series and only 2 teams have gone back to back in the past 10 years.

 

You are confused about the point of a salary cap.  The point of a salary cap isn't to have a new champion every year.  The point of a salary cap is to even the playing field so teams don't have undue advantages due to things out of their control like geography and market size.  The advantages come from smart GMs, owners who want to win, and the players on the field.  Dynasties are still possible under a cap; the cap ensures that it's not only the rich teams that can become dynasties, but any team that's good enough.

Your own post shows clearly that salary caps succeed in this goal.  

When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll met in the WS?  That's what happened in the last Super Bowl.

When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom 1/3 of payroll met in the NBA finals?  That's what happened last June.  How about the last time a bottom 5 market (Cavs) made 4 straight WS?

Edmonton would be the smallest market in MLB.  When is the last time the smallest market MLB team made 3 straight finals?  The NHL is probably the best example of why caps work.  For years and years Florida was a laughingstock in a terrible market (about 1000 hockey fans in Florida and half of them cheer for Tampa, zero youth hockey presence, no history, etc) and many people suggested hockey wasn't sustainable in South Florida.  Now it's one of the best fanbases in the game.  What changed?  They started winning.  That's it.  They invested in the team and got better and now they are one of the best organizations in sports.  And that was only possible with a cap.  

[TopGunn#22]

I don't think Tom Pohlad would have said what he did unless there was steel behind it.  I think nicksaviking's take really makes a lot of sense.  Falvey's job for 2026 was secured the day the season ended.  However, we haven't really been given (as fans) any indication of specific benchmarks or goals for the 2026 season.  

How will Tom Pohlad define success?  

The say they want to compete in 2026, but nothing bold has been done to make that realistic. (to this point of the off-season).  Unless you want to allow the idea Tom Pohlad stated he was against.  That being, running it back with essentially the same core:  Ryan, Lopez and Ober in the rotation and a lineup built around Buxton, Lewis, Jeffers, Wallner and Larnach.  

So that brings us back to the primary question.  How will Tom Pohlad define success or the lack of success in 2026?  Won-Loss record?  Attendance? The Business Model?  Growth by young players?  Bounce Back seasons from veterans?  A Playoff Appearance?  Do we have to win a playoff game?  Or even a playoff series?  

I doubt we will ever get any kind of idea how the Twins will determine success or failure.  

As a result, and especially with the high probability that there will be some kind of work stoppage for the 2027 season, if things go particularly poorly in 2026, I could envision a complete housecleaning, starting with the architect of how we got to this point, Derek Falvey.  If THAT domino falls then I could envision Shelton being let go and possibly the entire coaching staff.  Honestly, it would be a raw deal for Shelton, but if the Twins clean house whoever takes over as POBO may burn it all down and start over.  

That would trigger the major rebuild that probably should be taking place for 2026.  But if things don't go horribly bad in 2026, if some but not all of their internal goals or benchmarks are achieved, I just don't have any kind of idea or sense where that leaves the Twins for 2027 going forward.

[bean5302]

5 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

You are confused about the point of a salary cap.  The point of a salary cap isn't to have a new champion every year.  The point of a salary cap is to even the playing field so teams don't have undue advantages due to things out of their control like geography and market size.  The advantages come from smart GMs, owners who want to win, and the players on the field.  Dynasties are still possible under a cap; the cap ensures that it's not only the rich teams that can become dynasties, but any team that's good enough.

Your own post shows clearly that salary caps succeed in this goal.  

When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll met in the WS?  That's what happened in the last Super Bowl.

When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom 1/3 of payroll met in the NBA finals?  That's what happened last June.  How about the last time a bottom 5 market (Cavs) made 4 straight WS?

Edmonton would be the smallest market in MLB.  When is the last time the smallest market MLB team made 3 straight finals?  The NHL is probably the best example of why caps work.  For years and years Florida was a laughingstock in a terrible market (about 1000 hockey fans in Florida and half of them cheer for Tampa, zero youth hockey presence, no history, etc) and many people suggested hockey wasn't sustainable in South Florida.  Now it's one of the best fanbases in the game.  What changed?  They started winning.  That's it.  They invested in the team and got better and now they are one of the best organizations in sports.  And that was only possible with a cap.  

Who cares where dynasties come from? I guess I don't. Maybe you do and you'd rather see the Brewers vs. the Royals for 10 straight World Series' vs. a mix of different teams. I'd rather have some variety and a reason to watch the season.

[Woof Bronzer]

3 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Who cares where dynasties come from? I guess I don't. Maybe you do and you'd rather see the Brewers vs. the Royals for 10 straight World Series' vs. a mix of different teams. I'd rather have some variety and a reason to watch the season.

A salary cap provides the "variety" you are looking for.  Without it, the Series will almost always feature teams in the top 10 in payroll.  You must enjoy seeing the Dodgers in the series every year! 

You still haven't answered my question:  when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll competed for the World Series?  Because that's what happened this year in both the NFL and NBA.  

[USAFChief]

4 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Who cares where dynasties come from? I guess I don't. Maybe you do and you'd rather see the Brewers vs. the Royals for 10 straight World Series' vs. a mix of different teams. I'd rather have some variety and a reason to watch the season.

What you have now is the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, and a couple other rich teams in the postseason every frigging year. And half the league fighting for the odd table scrap year with virtually guaranteed early postseason departure. 

There's your variety.

And it's entirely due to money. Not skill, not good play, not luck. Money. 

Salary cap (and floor) in 2027. More revenue sharing. 

And bust the MLBPA down to size, for the good of all, for good measure. 

[NYCTK]

On 12/22/2025 at 11:45 AM, lake_guy said:

But when you add in shared revenue

Why are so many fans seemingly completely oblivious to the fact that mlb shares nearly 50% of revenue right now? Should it increase? Sure. And I bet it will. 

I'm fine with 100% revenue sharing, but I'm a socialist, so that tracks. I just also think equitable environments are lot more important for poor people than billionaires. 

What is it about sports that turns Americans into full fledged communists? 

On 12/23/2025 at 1:06 PM, USAFChief said:

And bust the MLBPA down to size, for the good of all, for good measure. 

Of all the terrible opinions you've espoused, this is probably the worst. 

"For the good of all" is laughably stupid. Please explain how hurting a union helps anyone? It'd be for the good of the uber wealthy controlling the purses only. 

There will be no salary cap. There should not be a salary cap. If the owners went to increase equitable outcomes, they can share their billions with each other. 

[lake_guy]

18 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Why are so many fans seemingly completely oblivious to the fact that mlb shares nearly 50% of revenue right now? Should it increase? Sure. And I bet it will. 

 

I'm not completely oblivious to 50%, it's increasing it that will be the problem for the big markets.  What that red line is, not really sure, but it exists.  And then there's the clubs that own their networks which provides them a much bigger slice that doesn't get added to the local revenue pot.  Roughly 11 teams do (Yankees, Sox, Dodgers, etc). It's a massive advantage because they can legally hide some profits from the revenue sharing tax.  It is after all a league, I want every dime of TV money to go into one pot and split equally.

[LA Vikes Fan]

On 12/22/2025 at 7:30 AM, Gamblerssoftball said:

Wouldn't a salary floor, or a highly accountable method of tracking the revenue shared funds be just as necessary? I understand that there are teams receiving double their payroll or more. Enlighten me, please.

Yes, at least from what i read. A salary cap would be combined with a salary floor. Unfortunately, this creates opposition on the owner side from the teams that spend little money like Oakland/Vegas, Tampa, Miami (why is it h that the cheapest teams are in Florida?), Pittsburg, etc.  Seems like a math problem to me (revenue share plus gate receipts minus non-player p expense  = floor), so I don't think a floor should create owner opposition. It's an absolute if they want the players to even consider such a system.  

[LA Vikes Fan]

On 12/22/2025 at 2:33 PM, Rigby said:

Salary caps do not guarantee the Twins nor any other team to become World Series competitors.  Caps do guarantee a level playing field where player acquisition and development become the paramount drivers in organizational success.

Preach. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

On 12/23/2025 at 7:00 AM, Woof Bronzer said:

A salary cap provides the "variety" you are looking for.  Without it, the Series will almost always feature teams in the top 10 in payroll.  You must enjoy seeing the Dodgers in the series every year! 

You still haven't answered my question:  when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll competed for the World Series?  Because that's what happened this year in both the NFL and NBA.  

And that is one of the reasons that the NFL and NBA are more popular than baseball. No matter who you cheer for in those leagues, you have a chance to win a championship. Well, unless you cheer for the Vikings. 

[Gamblerssoftball]

7 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

Yes, at least from what i read. A salary cap would be combined with a salary floor. Unfortunately, this creates opposition on the owner side from the teams that spend little money like Oakland/Vegas, Tampa, Miami (why is it h that the cheapest teams are in Florida?), Pittsburg, etc.  Seems like a math problem to me (revenue share plus gate receipts minus non-player p expense  = floor), so I don't think a floor should create owner opposition. It's an absolute if they want the players to even consider such a system.  

Thanks,I would think the player's union should be highly in favor of a floor. The majority of players are making the minimum salary. The union should be working hardest for those players to raise the floor.

[LA Vikes Fan]

Just now, Gamblerssoftball said:

Thanks,I would think the player's union should be highly in favor of a floor. The majority of players are making the minimum salary. The union should be working hardest for those players to raise the floor.

Agree with that, but the MLBPA is controlled by and beholden to guys like Bryce Harper. The view at the top is no cap means guys like me can make more and more money. The players view is that the way to help the bottom is to raise the minimum salary and give players free agent rights sooner. I think that's just as one sided and economically unviable as a salary cap with no floor. The top earners in baseball are willing to help the bottom as long as it doesn't in any way restrict what they can make. Current union leadership listens primarily to the top earners. Put the owners tight fisted positions together with that, add in a powerless commissioner who is interested in preserving what we have rather than growing the pie and what's the end result? Gridlock. And that's what we got.