Dear Pohlads: Don't Do This

They need to work with the rest of the BSN teams and start up their own broadcast network. That way they can invest in their own teams and not share profits with a 100 other teams on a bankrupt network.

2 hours ago, arby58 said:

The X post indicates that the Twins are 16th in baseball in terms of percentage of revenue devoted to payroll - and just a fraction from 15th. That suggests 'mid-market' to me, and the various statistical gyrations to suggest they aren't meeting payroll expectations aren't all that impressive. Media market size, for example doesn't really matter other than what you can get in payment from media for broadcasting the team, and we've seen that $ eroding, not growing.

As that graph suggests, payroll doesn't necessarily translate into great results - witness the two teams at the top of the payroll as a percentage of revenue. Last year, the top three teams in terms of payroll all missed the play-offs. There are lots of other areas of investment that are also important, including the farm system. The Twins have pretty consistently ranked in the upper half (or better) for farm systems. They are turning out some pretty good young talent, and it appears more is on the way. 

Sure, a 'big splash' would be great (wait, wasn't that Correa?), but making the play-offs on a pretty consistent basis is a decent product, which is what the mid-market Twins have done of late.

"making the play-offs on a pretty consistent basis is a decent product, which is what the mid-market Twins have done of late".

I seem to remember Gardy doing just that; we made the playoffs quite often, but never went far.  

Being consistent and competitive is great, but it is still 2nd tier (better than the bottom feeders, yes), and once in a while it would gin up the base if we could go toe to toe with the 1st tier when the opportunity arises.  I don't want to be the Mets, for crying out loud, spending just to spend and never really getting anywhere, but there are windows, as we call them, that open every once in a while and this just might be ours.  If we don't try, we better win this October, because if we don't try AND don't win, the fan base will be less than forgiving.  That is when the vicious cycle begins, as Eric so eloquently said.  

To answer some of the posts in this thread.  I’m not sure we need to trade for a starting pitcher.  I think we are fine heading into the playoffs.  The concern is more along the lines of having enough quality pitching to make it through the season.  Right now the Twins hold the 2nd spot of three in the Wild card standings.  Kansas City, Boston, Seattle/ Houston are all reasonably close to Minnesota in the standings.  It only takes 2 of them to go on a tear to Knock us out of the playoffs.  Tampa Bay is on the fringe of being a part of this too.  So do we need another starter to help fend off the challengers or can we do this internally with Festa and Mathews and. Varland and possibly Dobnak?  I’ll leave that up to Falvey to decide.  With the way our pen is shaping up for the playoffs if Varland will just make the switch we will be very competitive there if our offense shows up.

As far as the budget is concerned, I think the Twins pushed their chips in last year when they were able to repivot and sign Correa. I am not happy about the budget constraints this year but atleast it’s consistent with how the Twins operate.  No one should be too surprised by this.  Also while I don’t like the cuts, I am glad we knew it was coming to reset expectations upfront even if it hurt ticket sales.  They let everyone know the budget was being cut before you bought your season tickets.  That is integrity. I still don’t like it but I get to live with it as a fan of the team.  Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with. 
 

I imagine if the Twins were on pace to draw 200,000 more fans then last year instead of losing fans this year they might’ve given a small amount like 2-4 million to play with.  But with attendance dropping they probably think the risk of adding to payroll is not worth it.  

3 hours ago, CRF said:

Very few ownership groups, in any sport, understand that in order to make money, and continue to make money, they have to spend it on their teams occasionally. That's what generates interest and brings fans to the stadiums, sells merch, etc. They have to show fans that they're willing to spend and upgrade the team.  That doesn't mean blow the luxury tax out of the water, but show that they want to win. No one believes billionaires crying poverty. It's a bad look.  

Well said...I don't think a realistic fan is saying lets have a payroll of $200,000 on a year to year basis.  However, there is NO reason it shouldn't be in the $160,000,000 range.  That is not asking too much of ownership.  WIN TWINS!

The MLB has stated certain teams negatively affected by their TV deals can receive anywhere from $0 to $15 million if they spend it on team upgrades and I believe the Twins are one of those teams.  It seems like the Pohlad's don't even have to spend their own money to fund additions this trade deadline.  So, if the front office doesn't make a trade I will be very confused.  

2 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

The billionaires would LOVE for you to believe they are losing money. There's a reason none of them open their books until they are forced to.

The Mets and the Padres are the only teams in recent memory that have been run without profitability as the top priority and that's because Steve Cohen couldn't spend all his money if he tried and Peter Seidler wanted to win one before he died. Those are extreme outlier cases in all the history we have of MLB team spending. 

According to Atlanta Braves reported earning, they have to report as they are part of a publicly traded company, their company Braves Holdings, in 2023 they had an operating loss of 46 million. The company is more than just the team itself, but most of it is the team, other than some outside revenue from things near the park is my understanding.  So the one team that does open the books say they lost money when reporting to their stock holders. 

I am sure they are not alone in this loss as they have public investors to answer too, not just their own private funds.  So you can add Atlanta to the document loss to your list, and they were not seen as a super over spender reaching for dreams.  

1 hour ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

I 100% disagree with this take.

We are not just the fans, we are the customers.  We are the ones that "buy" the product.  Silence and apathy are ways to let ownership now how we feel, but screaming at them from the rooftops is also another way.  Sometimes businesses need to be told directly that they are alienating their customer base, otherwise they may not see the level of distress they are causing

So going to games, buying the merch, and watching TV, while you complain about the product is like going to a restaurant, paying full price for a meal, then yelling about how expensive it is they should lower the price, but then saying you will be back tomorrow to do this all over again.  Sure, the employees will get sick of you yelling, but the owner will just keep taking your money and not changing the price of the food.  Only if you walk in, say this food is too much bye, and have a whole lot more follow, will the owner say maybe I need to adjust my business plan because now I am losing money. 

I agree we are the customers, and the only way you get a business to change their ways is either affect their bottom dollar, or threaten to affect and have them believe you.  Sometimes there is not much they can do other than fold up shop because the customer is expecting too much, mainly because they do not know the business to know how viable their plan is. 

I love watching shows like bar rescue where dumb people buy a bar because they think it would be fun and want to run it the way they think a bar should run.  Then they lose a ton of money, call an expert for help and the expert says you do everything wrong to make money.  That is like the fans that complain about ownership.  I bet if any of the fans on here were given a billion dollars and to buy the Twins and run them as they see fit, they would be out of cash real quickly, or they would change their tune real quickly.  

9 minutes ago, Brandon said:

To answer some of the posts in this thread.  I’m not sure we need to trade for a starting pitcher.  I think we are fine heading into the playoffs.  The concern is more along the lines of having enough quality pitching to make it through the season.  Right now the Twins hold the 2nd spot of three in the Wild card standings.  Kansas City, Boston, Seattle/ Houston are all reasonably close to Minnesota in the standings.  It only takes 2 of them to go on a tear to Knock us out of the playoffs.  Tampa Bay is on the fringe of being a part of this too.  So do we need another starter to help fend off the challengers or can we do this internally with Festa and Mathews and. Varland and possibly Dobnak?  I’ll leave that up to Falvey to decide.  With the way our pen is shaping up for the playoffs if Varland will just make the switch we will be very competitive there if our offense shows up.

As far as the budget is concerned, I think the Twins pushed their chips in last year when they were able to repivot and sign Correa. I am not happy about the budget constraints this year but atleast it’s consistent with how the Twins operate.  No one should be too surprised by this.  Also while I don’t like the cuts, I am glad we knew it was coming to reset expectations upfront even if it hurt ticket sales.  They let everyone know the budget was being cut before you bought your season tickets.  That is integrity. I still don’t like it but I get to live with it as a fan of the team.  Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with. 
 

I imagine if the Twins were on pace to draw 200,000 more fans then last year instead of losing fans this year they might’ve given a small amount like 2-4 million to play with.  But with attendance dropping they probably think the risk of adding to payroll is not worth it.  

 "Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with"

So did Ryan and Gardy, for as long as Falvine have been here, until the last 4 years when the bottom fell out.  We moved on to the new age, and have done.............well, about the same as before.  I'm sorry if this sound critical, because it is not meant to, but you have far more faith in this FO and field management than I, or a lot of others, do.  I have watched the team since the '65 world series, and I see the eras come and go.  We haven't been to the world series in, what, 33 years?  We have won one playoff series in what seems like a lifetime, and when we are in that window we stand pat?  As long as we have the mindset that we are a mid size market organization, we are going to be a middle of the pack organization; winning just often enough to keep an amount of interest needed to survive.  Most fans want more than that out of their teams, or why stay tuned?   

I am not going to pretend to tell the team who to trade for, or who to trade out; a lot of factors we don't see go into that beyond payroll.  But I do believe that if we look to the future too long, it passes us by, as it has done for longer than I care to remember.  Don't sacrifice the future sounds smart, and it usually is, but sometimes the window closes before the future arrives.  The window is open, but right now all I hear is crickets.........I sure would like to hear something else.  🙄

23 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Legitimate question, where are you seeing that the Twins have been losing over $10 mil in cash for several years?

Thank you for asking.  As I mentioned, it’s not something I can prove via publicly available documentation. I do have a bit of insight, though, and I can only leave it at that.

This could be wrong, of course.  But let’s assume that it isn’t for a moment.  Would that change anyone’s thinking on how the Twins as a “business” are operated?

I understand my views on this topic are not popular.  However, if the Twins are in fact losing tens of millions on a cash basis annually, at least one could conjure up a modicum of understanding as to why the Twins’ owners/managers make some of the decisions they do.  

8 minutes ago, rationalfan said:

I've thought about this often.  There are different scenarios based on what (how much wealth do I have and is the team my own or shared with me being in charge of team operations), how (inherited or grew a business myself), when (young, middle-aged, or old), and did I get the team when the value was lower or did I just recently buy the team for >$1B?

If I'm being realistic, if I was making that much/worth that much $, I'd like to think that I would try to make the community better as well as larger national and even world impact.  But, let's have a little fun with it and say that here I am, middle aged and worth several billion and so I buy the Twins.  I would look to own this team the remainder of my life, running it in a sustainable fashion that allows the team to be competitive but allow me to also help the community and maintain wealth such that I can keep it going for decades.  Losing tens of millions a year puts the sustainability in jeopardy - a decade from now my worth has decreased significantly and if a recession hits it may lower to the point of cash flow issues.  Sure, the franchise is growing in value, but that doesn't mean much if I'm not selling.  Also, there's that balance with what else I could do with that money - losing $1B over 10-20 years to win means a lot less investment in the community (and to avoid making this political, that can mean a balance between running good businesses that offer good jobs and charitable contributions and foundations).  If I get in the Ilitch (old) or Seidler (illness) situation where it looks like I'm not going to live much longer, then I could see perhaps spending a lot more in my final days (heck, my family is gonna be ridiculously rich anyways and if they're gonna be sour later that they inherited less than they could have, I ain't gonna be around to hear it).  

Great post.  Btw, your vision may actually not be that far off from how the team/franchise is currently run.  

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The markets aren't the same either. The NFL is #1 in the Twin Cities market and the NBA/WNBA are gaining in popularity. The Cardinals have the St. Louis market basically to themselves with just NHL hockey in the offseason and a brand-new MLS expansion team during the season.

I agree, I hate when people point to "market size" and compare that as the only factor.  Like on here before so many posts about KC and SD market size being same or smaller than TC, now throw in St. Louis.  They neglect to then look at what other sports franchises are in the area.  How do they draw from the disposable income, and time of the sports consumer. 

As pointed out, here in TC there is NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS(growing in popularity) WNBA(also growing), where in SD they have baseball, that is it.  Yes, they had NHL but it got moved to LA.  KC has NFL and MLS to fight with, other than that no NHL or NBA.  St. Louis has NHL but no NBA or NFL.  They do sell a lot of XFL or whatever league they are now there, but that shows people will go see sports if they have the time and money, but if you have a lot too pick from you may have to pick 1 over the other, or spread it around.

That does lead to the argument that the Twins then need to spend more to fight to get the fans to come, but win will not equal attendance always, as Ray for years would fight for their division but have no fans come to games.

Point is, do not just look at media market to decide who should be spending what or if they can afford it.  You should also look at things like house hold incomes, versus the cost of living.  This gets into the disposable income fans may have.  It would be poor to assume each fan has a similar disposable income or time to spend for games in each market. 

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

It could be, but a bunch of that is tax return manipulation. How much of that is just paper loss? They got a new stadium so certainly most if not all of that 46M is depreciation and amortization. 

Certainly tax laws are utilized to maximize objectives. However, let’s just say that, in fact, the Braves are losing cash on an annual basis and the Twins are as well.  Would that change anything in terms of how one views the way the team is run and the decisions made?

16 minutes ago, Mark G said:

 "Falvey and Levine have done a great job keeping us competitive with what they have to work with"

So did Ryan and Gardy, for as long as Falvine have been here, until the last 4 years when the bottom fell out.  We moved on to the new age, and have done.............well, about the same as before.  I'm sorry if this sound critical, because it is not meant to, but you have far more faith in this FO and field management than I, or a lot of others, do.  I have watched the team since the '65 world series, and I see the eras come and go.  We haven't been to the world series in, what, 33 years?  We have won one playoff series in what seems like a lifetime, and when we are in that window we stand pat?  As long as we have the mindset that we are a mid size market organization, we are going to be a middle of the pack organization; winning just often enough to keep an amount of interest needed to survive.  Most fans want more than that out of their teams, or why stay tuned?   

I am not going to pretend to tell the team who to trade for, or who to trade out; a lot of factors we don't see go into that beyond payroll.  But I do believe that if we look to the future too long, it passes us by, as it has done for longer than I care to remember.  Don't sacrifice the future sounds smart, and it usually is, but sometimes the window closes before the future arrives.  The window is open, but right now all I hear is crickets.........I sure would like to hear something else.  🙄

I agree with you.  But we are a mid market team.  We are the smallest market with all major sports franchises.  Hockey, NBA, NFL and MBL.  Plus we have WNBA and we did have an independent baseball league and AAA team and college.  That’s what makes us a small to middle market team not the size of our market.  
but like I said I agree with you and I don’t like it but I also understand what they are doing too.  I think not giving a million or two is petty but it is what it is.  And it’s really frustrating.  

34 minutes ago, Trov said:

So going to games, buying the merch, and watching TV, while you complain about the product is like going to a restaurant, paying full price for a meal, then yelling about how expensive it is they should lower the price, but then saying you will be back tomorrow to do this all over again.  Sure, the employees will get sick of you yelling, but the owner will just keep taking your money and not changing the price of the food.  Only if you walk in, say this food is too much bye, and have a whole lot more follow, will the owner say maybe I need to adjust my business plan because now I am losing money. 

I agree we are the customers, and the only way you get a business to change their ways is either affect their bottom dollar, or threaten to affect and have them believe you.  Sometimes there is not much they can do other than fold up shop because the customer is expecting too much, mainly because they do not know the business to know how viable their plan is. 

I love watching shows like bar rescue where dumb people buy a bar because they think it would be fun and want to run it the way they think a bar should run.  Then they lose a ton of money, call an expert for help and the expert says you do everything wrong to make money.  That is like the fans that complain about ownership.  I bet if any of the fans on here were given a billion dollars and to buy the Twins and run them as they see fit, they would be out of cash real quickly, or they would change their tune real quickly.  

You and I basically agree.  My point to the comment was basically that we can be fans of the Twins and complain about the product we are fans of.  Just because we are vocal about our opinions does not mean we should go root for someone else.

The bottom line is truly this:  Any owner that claims they are losing money year over year is 100% dishonest.  If they were truly losing money on their investment, they would be selling the team.  Cash flow may be an issue at times, but they are making money, either by cash flow or team valuation.  That is why Big 4 sports teams do not sell that often, and when they become available there is always someone there to buy them.

16 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I made a typo above....but the point remains. Established businesses that lose money every year don't go up in value every year. They just don't. 

This.  100% this.

Very well written article about a very important topic, I wrote 2 blogs "Dying Fanbase" 12/12/23 &  "So What Now?"  03/26/24". So it's something I feel strongly about.

I'm very concerned about the dying fanbase & the future of the Twins. I'm very curious about how much "The Pohlads" have to do with Joe's Twins, if any? One way to increase the fanbase is to increase TV exposure, Joe blew that. Another is to better the team. Under current financial problem the best way to do that is player evaluation & development & initiating necessary trades w/o depending on other teams approaching us with good trades. Joe Pohlad has nothing to do with this & Falvey is poor at it. Can the Twins survive w/o Joe Pohlad? I don't think so. Can the Twins survive w/o Falvey? IMO yes & thrive.