$3.9 Billion Padres Sale Highlights What Pohlad Wouldn’t Do in Minnesota

[Matthew Taylor]

Image courtesy of Denis Poroy-Imagn Images

The sale of the San Diego Padres just reset the ceiling for Major League Baseball franchise valuations, and it should send a very clear message back to the Pohlad family.

According to Jared Diamond of the Wall Street Journal, the Padres were sold to private-equity billionaire José E. Feliciano and his wife Kwanza Jones for a record $3.9 billion. That number doesn’t just stand out on its own. It becomes even more eye-opening when placed next to what the Pohlad family was seeking when they explored selling the Minnesota Twins.

Back in October of 2024, the Pohlads made it known they were open to selling the franchise. Reports from The Athletic at the time indicated they were looking for at least $1.7 billion, a number that already exceeded Forbes’ valuation of the team at $1.46 billion. Offers reportedly reached around $1.5 billion, but those weren’t entertained. Part of the justification for holding firm was tied to roughly $425 million in debt attached to the franchise.

Fast forward to now, and the gap between what the Twins were hoping to get and what the Padres actually received is massive. San Diego sold for more than double Minnesota’s reported asking price. Even more notably, the Padres entered the sale with a Forbes valuation of $3.1 billion, meaning they sold for roughly $800 million above that estimate. The Twins, on the other hand, struggled to draw offers that even matched their valuation.

At first glance, market size might seem like an easy explanation, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Minneapolis-St. Paul ranks as the 16th-largest media market in the United States, while San Diego comes in at 18th. The Padres generating significantly more value than the Twins, despite being in a slightly smaller market, challenges the idea that market size alone dictates franchise worth.

This gap becomes even more interesting when looking back less than a decade. In 2017, Forbes valued the Padres at $1.13 billion, ranking 21st in MLB. Right behind them were the Twins at $1.03 billion. At that point, the two franchises were essentially peers in terms of valuation and on-field results, both coming off seasons with more than 90 losses.

From there, the paths diverged in a major way.

The Padres chose aggression. Their payroll rankings since 2017 tell the story: 28th, then climbing to 25th, 24th, 10th, 6th, 5th, 3rd, dipping briefly, and now back up near the top of the league in 2026. This is a team that consistently spent beyond what traditional market logic would suggest. In multiple seasons, their payroll pushed well past 60 or 70 percent of team revenue. There were likely years where profitability took a back seat entirely.

The Twins, on the other hand, have followed a much flatter trajectory. In 2017, their payroll ranked 21st in baseball, actually ahead of the Padres at the time. But since then, the Twins have never exceeded 16th in payroll ranking, and in 2026 they sit 22nd in the league, below even that 2017 starting point. While one organization accelerated its investment, the other largely maintained or even pulled back relative to the rest of the sport.

That divergence in spending philosophy shows up everywhere.

Former Padres owner John Seidler approached the franchise with a long-term vision. Rather than managing the team purely as a year-to-year business, he treated it as an investment in relevance, fan engagement, and contention. The Padres committed massive contracts to players like Manny Machado, traded for stars like Juan Soto, and made a point to stay in the national conversation.

That strategy paid off. Not necessarily in annual profit margins, but in franchise value. The Padres transformed from a $1.13 billion team in 2017 into a $3.9 billion sale in 2026, completing the largest transaction in MLB history.

The Twins took a different route. While their valuation did rise over time, it didn’t come close to keeping pace. From $1.03 billion in 2017 to struggling to surpass $1.5 billion in actual offers during their sale process, the growth has been comparatively modest. Over the last few seasons in particular, the Twins have operated with a more conservative approach, limiting payroll expansion and largely avoiding major splash moves that generate widespread attention.

There are other contributing factors, of course. San Diego offers an attractive lifestyle and has a concentrated base of wealth. The Padres also benefit from being the only “Big 4” professional sports team in the city, allowing them to capture a larger share of local attention. But those elements alone don’t explain a multi-billion dollar gap.

Fan engagement is another key piece. The Padres drew nearly 3.5 million fans in 2025, setting a franchise attendance record. The Twins, meanwhile, dropped to around 1.77 million, their lowest full-season mark since the Metrodome era. One franchise created urgency and excitement. The other failed to maintain it.

The Padres provide a clear example of what can happen when an organization prioritizes investment in the on-field product, even at the expense of short-term returns. Their rise in valuation wasn’t accidental. It was built through sustained spending, star power, and a commitment to relevance.

For the Twins, this moment serves as a comparison point that’s difficult to ignore. The idea that small or mid-sized markets can’t support aggressive spending looks less convincing when a team like San Diego not only spends, but turns that spending into long-term franchise growth.

There’s a lesson here about how value is created in modern baseball. It’s not just about controlling costs or maximizing yearly profit. It’s about building a product that people care about, one that draws fans, commands attention, and ultimately becomes more valuable when it hits the open market.

The Padres leaned into that approach and were rewarded in a historic way. The Twins now face a choice in how they want to be viewed moving forward.

What do you think? Should the Twins take a more aggressive approach to spending and team-building, or is there another path to closing that valuation gap?

View full article

[Patzky]

That's a fascinating study in value building. Fresh off a new stadium the Twins were poised to succeed, and enjoyed seasons of fan support and Goodwill. I feel Derek Shelton's old team has just realized that players are an investment lust like stadium and tv rights are. 

To start this process tomorrow, two dollar beers doesn't even move the needle. Signing Joe Ryan, Emmy Rodriguez, Walker Jenkins, to multi year contracts does move it. Trading for a Correa style free agent does move it. Selling the team would definitely add perceived value to it in fans' eyes.

Nothing will happen overnight but some semblance of caring, of planning, would give fans a path back to the team.

 

[bean5302]

Just as easy to highlight this to buyers as it is to sellers. If the Ishbia's had purchased the Twins and dumped money into the payroll consistently to put a legitimate World Series competitor roster together, the buzz would have led to fans flooding into Target Field, and the Ishbia's could have ridden the 2 billion in value appreciation themselves.

The Pohlad family has only half-heartedly committed to spending money to make money. Instead, quickly growing conservative as they settle for a "competitive" position. Unfortunately, they're completely out of touch with the market base and don't understand how to make a Twins game attractive to prospective attendees.

[terrydactyls]

The median income in San Diego is just over $108,000 compared to the Twin Cities median income of $80,000 (in 2024 dollars; source census.gov).  In my opinion, the wealth of the area creates more "value" for a franchise than the typically used market size.  But even if my hypothesis is valid, the product on the field (trying to win versus trying to protect the bottom line) determines the team value.  Who wants to buy a crappy product, especially when two valuable pieces (Ryan and Jeffers) are poised to jump ship.  Invest in the future now (extensions and free agent signings) and then put the team on the market.

[dxpavelka]

Easy to SAY that choosing an aggressive payroll strategy adds to franchise value.  More difficult to PROVE that.  The Padres are an interesting story.  They are the closest of any team in MLB to break even.  Not making money, not losing money.  As fans is selling the team for the most money what we REALLY want?  I thought we wanted entertaining and contending baseball.  A funny thing happens when someone overpays for an asset.  I worked for company once that got sold for more money than it was worth.  As the seller told me (and keep in mind this was 30 years ago):  If your house is worth a hundred thousand dollars and someone offers you a hundred fifty thousand dollars you sell and go buy a very nice house for a hundred twenty five thousand.  I lasted four months working for the new owner that overpaid.  He cut every corner he could because the underlying asset was only capable of generating revenue to make payments to the bank at a level that the property simply was not capable of generating. He overpaid because he saw a well run entity that was generating a return equal to its value.  He thought he could return more by cutting at the edges.  He couldn't.  I left as soon as this became clear.  Let's see what happens in the next half decade in San Diego.  Do you think the new owner will come in with bottomless pockets and spend at the same level as the Dodgers and Yankees?  Do you think that if the Pohlads had or ever sell that would happen?  I'm old enough to remember when this conversation locally centered around the seller being Calvin Griffith and the buyer being Pohlhad.  Fans were ecstatic that that penny pinching bastard was gone.  We were rewarded with two parades in fairly short order.  Do you know who the first team to sign a player to a contract paying $3 million per year was? Do you know who the first team to sign a player to a contract paying $6 million per year was?  Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.  The first contract ushered in an era that included the second Series win.  The second contract ushered in an era of Twins baseball nearly unmatched in terms of futility.  Yes, there are teams that spend like drunken sailors.  Some win, some not so much.  The Dodgers have been winning lately.  (Doesn't hurt that they get away with gaming the system.)  The Yankees SEEM to win but in reality they don't have a ring since before Barack Obama didn't have gray hair.  The Mets?  Clown show.  Phillies?  Closer to the Mets and Yankees than Dodgers.  Sure the Twins might get sold someday to someone who spends more.  Might not bring the results everyone wants.

 

[rdehring]

No question $3.9B is an interesting number.  But none of us know anything about the motivation of the buyer. 

There is another comparison you got partially into.  San Diego has the Padres, while the Twin Cities have four major sports plus other summer competition, such as the Lynx. My sister-in-law and husband had season tickets to the Dodgers for probably 15 years before retiring outside of L.A.  She often commented that Dodger games were always sold out in part because of the large L.A. Hispanic population that is nuts for baseball.  I don't know what percentage of San Diego is Hispanic, but it's gotta be much larger than the Twin Cities. 

Yes, the Twins could have been managed better over the past 5+ years.  But payroll isn't the only reason the Padres are worth more.  Unfortunately, it seems it is to too many writers here at TD.

[Hunter4848]

Right sizing the business will cost the Pohlads billions

[PP24]

Generally, I agree with the article. However, the article greatly diminished the importance that San Diego only has one professional sports team. That matters a lot. When it comes to sports entertainment, people in San Diego have one option where to spend their money. In the Twin Cities, people have five professional teams plus numerous college sports events. 

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, PP24 said:

Generally, I agree with the article. However, the article greatly diminished the importance that San Diego only has one professional sports team. That matters a lot. When it comes to sports entertainment, people in San Diego have one option where to spend their money. In the Twin Cities, people have five professional teams plus numerous college sports events. 

Agreed, but I doubt it explains a 100 percent difference.....

This ownership group routinely blamed fans in the past, under St. Peter. They cut payroll right after winning a playoff series. They will have one of the lowest active payrolls in the game next year, when you deduct CC, Ryan, and Jeffers. They've lost more games than they've won the last two years. They did nothing after the deadline to convince the fans things were going on a winning direction. This is on ownership. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

While I generally agree with Mike, I do think there’s two other factors that have to be considered. First, there are more billionaires in California than any place else in the US, and if California was its own country it would be fourth in billionaires in the world behind the entire US, China, and India. In other words, there is a much larger group of people willing to pay this kind of money for an asset in California which drives up prices. The second is that the Padres have consistently drawn over 3 million fans in the last few years in large part because the owner invested in the team and it was fun and exciting to watch. My question is if a Twins owner invested heavily in the team, would the Twins really draw 3.5 million fans a season? I really wonder if the market is just a little more capped in Minnesota due to the size of the stadium, the overall wealth in the area, and the intense competition from other sports for the entertainment Dollar. I still agree with the premise of the article and with Mike’s comment, but I think the differences between the two markets make a one for one comparison somewhat misleading..

[Trov]

I would not say that because the Padres spent as much as they did it was what lead to the huge sale.  Did it help to keep the fans coming, most likely.  I will agree when the owner spends big to try to win the fans see they care, which helps.  However, this is not the only reason for the huge value.  We will never know, but the Padres were hundreds of million in debt as well, mostly to pay the players because they did not have enough cash on had to pay them, so they had to take loans to do it.  The owners made out better in the end clearly, but I doubt the Twins would have got the same price tag.  

I believe the "Tailgate Park" that the Padres own has a lot to do with it. It is a 1.25 billion dollar development near the stadium that has apartments going in, parking ramp, retail and office space as well.  So a nice non baseball revenue flow that will make money year round.  The Twins lack any kind of real estate around the field to sell with their team.  If you take the 1.25 billion value of that spot, now the purchase still out paces the Twins offers, but much closer.  

You can say it was all the roster spending, but that real estate I am sure was a huge factor for the much larger price. 

[Brandon]

In San Diego there are no other sports teams.  The college team is far north.  Compare that with Minnesota where they have an NFL team, Hockey, NBAa, WNBA, UofM teams, and a AAA baseball team and a fan base that constantly complains.  I live just north of San Diego, there is no complaining here 

How can you possibly compare the value in Minnesota to San Diego when they are in vastly different situations?

[Trov]

21 minutes ago, Brandon said:

 

How can you possibly compare the value in Minnesota to San Diego when they are in vastly different situations?

The people that like to, point to 1 thing, similar media market size.  They ignore all the other differences, like competition of other sports as mentioned.  They use that one fact and that is all they need because everything else does not support their argument. 

[mikelink45]

Add in one more factor - they are in the same division as LA, AZ, and SF.  Lots of star power in a market that will only grow.  The Twins have KC and Detroit and Cleveland.  This boxes the Twins in and impacts overall value. 

[Peter]

6 hours ago, PP24 said:

Generally, I agree with the article. However, the article greatly diminished the importance that San Diego only has one professional sports team. That matters a lot. When it comes to sports entertainment, people in San Diego have one option where to spend their money. In the Twin Cities, people have five professional teams plus numerous college sports events. 

Agreed!!! As much as I love sports do we really need every team from every league? That’s way way way too many plus the U of M Personally alL Minnesota needs are twins/wild/mnufc. F the Vikings/wolves. 

[Sjoski]

Not only is MLB the only major league game in SD....it's weather proof....in Minnesota it's often to cold or to humid to go enjoy a game at Target Field. 

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Agreed!!! As much as I love sports do we really need every team from every league? That’s way way way too many plus the U of M Personally alL Minnesota needs are twins/wild/mnufc. F the Vikings/wolves. 

Read the room.

[bean5302]

9 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

The median income in San Diego is just over $108,000 compared to the Twin Cities median income of $80,000 (in 2024 dollars; source census.gov).  In my opinion, the wealth of the area creates more "value" for a franchise than the typically used market size.  But even if my hypothesis is valid, the product on the field (trying to win versus trying to protect the bottom line) determines the team value.  Who wants to buy a crappy product, especially when two valuable pieces (Ryan and Jeffers) are poised to jump ship.  Invest in the future now (extensions and free agent signings) and then put the team on the market.

It's worth considering San Diego city has a land area of 375 sq/mi. $108k median household income. 

Minneapolis and Saint Paul combined are 110 sq/mi.

Compare to Hennepin county with a land area of 607 sq/mi. $95k median household income.

Expendible income in the Twin Cities is probably higher, but property values are higher in San Diego (dramatically so). That said, the stadium is only leased by the Twins, not owned.

The Twin Cities has plenty of expendable income. Need a product worth spending on. The Wild, for example, sell out despite dramatically higher priced attendance. The Vikings sell out. The Wolves and United are well attended, too.

[Hunter4848]

If the Twins put a good product on the field people would be filling the stadium. It really is that simple. 

It would also help if Twins had an actual star player

[TheLeviathan]

Seems to me that the Padres probably lost money over those seasons.  The ROI seems more than worth it.

I do think more billionaires in California to create a bidding war is a factor.  But the biggest factor is that this team has a rabid fan base that produces revenues and engagement.  Those are factors that create long term value.

The Pohlads sabotaged that. 

[RaoulDuke]

San Diego is a very interesting case.  Yes is it a 1 sport town technically but the state itself also contains 3 other MLB teams (and the As for now) as well as 4 NBA teams and 3 NFL teams so there is no lack of franchises to patron.

The income is higher but so is the cost of living and taxes so I am not sure its any more approachable to attend games.  

It is surely a more desirable market despite being about the same size as the Twins but that does not account for the massive difference in sale price.  

There is a lot to be said for how much more relevant San Diego has been even if it has not led to a ton more success than the Twins.  They have stars, sign guys like Soto and Darvish, and are in a rivalry with big nationally followed teams like the Dodgers and Giants. 

The Twins have just been kinda eeking out AL Central wins sometimes and failing miserably when they do manage to make the playoffs.  The only real splashes were Donaldson past his prime and Correa when he fell into their lap on the short contract.  Then Correa again when everyone else balked, and they ended up paying Houston to get rid of him.

Fan engagement is huge and the Twins have absolutely tanked it to the extreme whereas the Padres have been exciting albeit with about the same amount of success to show for it.

[nclahammer]

Unfortunately for the Minnesota Twins, that ship has already sailed.    I cancelled my partial season ticket 20 game package after 16 seasons.  I will used some of my Kwik Trip points to get some free upper deck tickets and then sit somewhere down on the first level for a handful of games is the plan so far for this season. 

[Linus]

Being the only team has to help with things like corporate sales of boxes, etc. However the Padres have been the anti-Twins when it comes to fan engagement. Turns out allowing your organization to be rudderless for a decade costs money. 

[mluebker]

It’s tempting to think a spending spree would have made the Twins more attractive to buyers when the Pohlads were trying to sell. But there are just too many other factors in play (detailed in the comments above) that make the Twins’ and Padres’ circumstances too different. 

That’s not to say I wouldn’t _like_ to see the Twins invest in more on-field talent—I think doing so probably would make the team more attractive to some buyers. But $3.9 billion attractive? Not anytime soon.

[Patzky]

16 hours ago, Parfigliano said:

Read the room.

He read it wrong. Gotta be Poulad genes somewhere..

[Fire Dan Gladden]

I think the point here is the difference in approach. Had the Pohlad's aggressively made the overall situation better: stronger team, focus on fan experience including television access, the ability to sell the team for what they want would have improved. They chose the other approach: dump everything and tread water hoping someone will buy in.

The saying "fortune favors the bold" is a mantra for a reason.

[Cris E]

As mentioned above, there are lots of differences that both increased and decreased what the Pohlads could get.

- The Padres lost their TV deal in 2024, just a year before the Twins did, for very similar dollars. It was leaked that it cost them approximately $50m that first season, leading directly to more borrowing. The impact on the Twins was likely very similar, except that the Padres payroll was twice ours and they continued to win as we chopped ours down by 20%.

- There's so much more money in SoCal.  People are used to spending a couple hundred bucks on entertainment out there, as opposed to $100 dinner tab being an event in MN. New owners are certain they can get more of it, or at least keep claiming their share in tickets, concessions, parking and gear.

- The Padres were carrying $300m in debt as well as $150m cash callbacks in recent years. Those were just rolled up as line items and accepted whereas no one was willing to do that in a Twins deal. 

I think a lot comes down to culture, and the cheap folk living in the cold north are not as numerous or free with their money as the Californians.  You don't lose a quarter of the schedule to April rain and September chill out there, and we go out in our short, precious summer rather than stay home to watch baseball on TV.  There is a reason that the Central divisions do not feature the star power of the coasts, and it's because we don't have the money and density and weather of the coasts. 

But they still should have been able to sell this team.  The player names come and go, just about any contract can be traded or bought out, and you can fire every single person in an org down to the parking lot attendants if you think the losing culture is too much to over come. Which is my long way of saying I think the family really wanted piles of money from the team while staying involved much more than they wanted to sell it completely.  There are lots of rich folks around, but the Pohlads like being the bigshots that saved baseball and own a team. No Dayton or Carlson can say that. Alas, I think they are still rich enough to want the bragging rights more than the money from a sale right now.  
 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 4/19/2026 at 10:34 AM, PP24 said:

Generally, I agree with the article. However, the article greatly diminished the importance that San Diego only has one professional sports team. That matters a lot. When it comes to sports entertainment, people in San Diego have one option where to spend their money. In the Twin Cities, people have five professional teams plus numerous college sports events. 

At the beginning of the MLB season there are NBA, MLS and NHL.

At the end there’s WNBA and NFL.

For the middle half of the season, there’s very little overlap. Do the Twins see exaggerated seasonality relative to the Padres? Did the Padres see a spike in sales when the Chargers went to LA?

From what I’ve read, the majority of tickets are sold in the offseason and mostly driven by last year’s record, with some very minor spikes due to offseason acquisitions.

the mlb-wide view is that NFL is the favorite sport and baseball is a distant second or third, and young people prefer MLS over MLB. This would lend credence to your theory that financially it’s a limited reserve of disposable income, and competitors vie for the same dollars.

what about shopping malls? One would think the rent in a shopping mall (indoor or outdoor) would be very extremely low relative to standalone. Why would a boutique retailer want to be located right next door to a giant discounter? Potential customers could just walk next door and pick the lowest price. While indoor shopping malls are indeed struggling, outdoor malls are booming. Even in this era of online shopping, outdoor malls are doing well.

Why?
Competition is good for everyone.

[old nurse]

The Ishbia’s came, saw the numbers and figured out the Twins at 1.7 billion  were not worth sinking the money into to make a contender  The market size may be large, the willingness to spend money on tickets, and at the time cable, were not there.  

San Diego at the start of last year was capped at borrowing money, 40% of valuation  Of the valuation was 2.5b, they had a billion in debt. The return on their investment is not as great as people make it out to be considering the 5 acre prime development site is included