Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Tom Pohlad is Saying a Lot, and None of It Lines Up

    When the Twins chairman’s words are placed side by side, the message gets harder to follow, instead of easier.

    Cody Christie
    Image courtesy of © Bruce Kluckhohn-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

    Tom Pohlad has talked more openly about the Minnesota Twins in recent months than, perhaps, any member of the Pohlad family ever has. The problem is not a lack of transparency. It's that the transparency points in several different directions at once.

    Taken individually, each quote sounds thoughtful. Put together, they paint a picture of an organization apologizing for the past, promising competitiveness in the future, and asking fans to ignore the present. That's a difficult sell when the current reality is a payroll just north of $100 million; the departure of the team’s top baseball executive; and a fan base that feels more deflated than it did during the very period Pohlad admits was mishandled.

    Speaking about the decisions made following the 2023 season, Pohlad didn't mince words.

    “We made what we thought at the time was a responsible financial decision, and we obviously failed to consider the long-term impact of that decision, and the short-term impact of that decision, frankly,” he said. “We sucked the air right out of our fan base, and it did significant damage to our brand and to our family from a confidence standpoint. Plain and simple, we got it wrong.”

    That is an extraordinary admission for a Twins owner. It also lands awkwardly when paired with the state of the team today. Payroll is lower now than it was then. Confidence is not restored. If anything, the air feels even thinner.

    Pohlad has repeatedly pointed to 2026 as a pivotal season, framing it as both a goal and a justification for the current approach.

    “We will be competitive in 2026,” Pohlad replied. “Yes. I expect that. But the sense of urgency is about making sure that we start, right this second, getting after what the long-term plan is for this organization. And I’ve talked a lot recently about finding a way to build a business that can support a level of investment in the team, two or three years from now, that can be playing competitive baseball for a string of seasons in a row. That’s what we’re trying to build. And I think 2026 is critical to that success.”

    There is logic in building toward sustained competitiveness, rather than chasing short bursts of performance. The issue is that the Twins are asking fans and employees alike to buy into a long-term vision, while simultaneously scaling back in the short term. That tension became impossible to ignore when Derek Falvey stepped away from the organization. Whatever else his departure represented, it signaled that the internal understanding of competitiveness did not match the public one.

    Pohlad has also tried to shift the conversation away from payroll, urging observers to focus instead on results.

    “Yes, our payroll is down from last year,” he said. “I think there’s still investments to be made between now and Opening Day. And I’d also say that, at some point, I’d love to get off this ‘payroll’ thing for a second and let’s get halfway through the year, to the end of the year, and let’s judge the success of this year on wins and losses, on whether we’re playing meaningful baseball in September. And if we’re doing that, I think we’re gonna be in position to grow payroll the following year, and the following year. That’s what I hope we can start focusing on.”

    In theory, judging a season on wins and losses makes perfect sense. In practice, payroll remains the clearest signal of intent in modern baseball. Asking fans to ignore that signal requires trust, and trust is hard to rebuild after publicly acknowledging that it was broken.

    Now look at the roster construction. Few experienced and healthy free agent relief options remain. Teams rarely make significant trades during spring training, even if it is not impossible. That leaves the Twins (probably) relying on young starting pitchers to transition into bullpen roles, a process that often takes time and rarely goes smoothly.

    None of this means Tom Pohlad is being dishonest. It means he's speaking from multiple timelines at once. He's apologizing for past restraint while practicing present restraint. He's promising future competitiveness while overseeing the Twins' lowest payroll in over a decade. He is asking for urgency while preaching patience.

    Fans are not confused because they're ignoring what he is saying. They're confused because they're listening to it all. Pohlad needs to fix that, and changing actions (rather than words) seems the only way to do so.


    What do you make of Pohlad’s comments? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, SS
    The 22-year-old went 2-for-5 on Friday night, his fourth straight multi-hit game. Heading into the week, he was hitting .246/.328/.404 (.732). Four games later, he is hitting .303/.361/.447 (.808).

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    5 hours ago, old nurse said:

    When the person complained that the Twins got 350m for the stadium and thus owed the fans, my point was the Twins did pay it back.  The poor math was the Twins accountants who didn’t say to quit spending once the debt reached 350m.  Sorry everything has to spelled out for you 

    Well let me spell it out for you....if they lost 350M in 4 years on merely baseball that would be an impressive feat.  One they can easily prove to the public if they'd like to.  (And which would defy the limits you claim baseball puts on teams)

    Except...we know MLB doesn't actually enforce those limits.  And the odds of losing that much money per year on baseball alone is basically impossible. 

    Which leaves any rational person to a simple conclusion: they lost money on their other ventures, despite a taxpayer gift to their baseball operation, AND they want to blame fans for lowering their revenue on baseball.  They're silver spooned dopes.

    The only real mystery is why you feel the need to fall on the sword for them.

    It's worth noting that, based on things I've heard multiple times but can't seem to find in print, attendance reactions to team performance generally operate on a one-year lag - apparently, most tickets are sold before the season begins.  That's why they set their attendance record in 1988 and not in 1987.  So where were those one-year-lag bounces recently?  In 2020, they got COVID-ed, while in 2024, they right-sized themselves out of that bounce.  Tom basically admits it with this quote from this very article:

    On 2/9/2026 at 10:54 AM, Cody Christie said:

    “We made what we thought at the time was a responsible financial decision, and we obviously failed to consider the long-term impact of that decision, and the short-term impact of that decision, frankly,” he said. “We sucked the air right out of our fan base, and it did significant damage to our brand and to our family from a confidence standpoint. Plain and simple, we got it wrong.”

    I think it's safe to blame ownership when ownership blames ownership

    4 hours ago, old nurse said:

    What one player signable for thirteen million would have turned the 24 Twins into a hundred win team? The Twins had to have that kind of team to increase the attendance. The twins had a division leading team for almost all of the 23 season the Twins had  2 Cy Young caliber pitchers. They had only a slight increase in attendance. So division leading in and of itself was not bringing in fans.  

    I completely agree and I was trying to establish an accurate value for drawing 350,000 fans.  A $13M free agent averages about 1.5 WAR.  They don't put fans in the seats and such a player probably would not have made a difference on the 24 Twins.  You may recall, the two free agents that had the most support here were Jordan Montgomery and Rhys Hoskins.  There is a common conclusion in this forum that decreased spending wrecked the 24 Twins.  We would have been worse had we signed Montgomery and Hoskins.  I guess the point is that there is no certainty that spending would have saved the 24 Twins and the theory that spending will be recouped at the gate is also far from certain.

    7 hours ago, old nurse said:

    In all of your posting you still have not shown that 350000 more fans would significantly change the payroll.   You can post 100 different things, it still doesn’t change the fact the fans did not come back in significant numbers when they won. 

    Yes, he has, several times.  He's made the point that if you don't tear down the team by slashing payroll, those increased fan numbers can compound over time.  What if we didn't slash payroll, were still good, and increased attendance for a 2nd year, then a 3rd year, and so on?  Do you see how this works?  A good product over time builds trust that the product will be continuously good, thus creating and maintaining 'fans' of said product.  And how many lifelong fans did they possibly miss out on creating over these years?  It all builds, man.  No one said that 350,000 extra fans would pay for Player X.  It doesn't even work that way.  I'm not sure how anyone else can explain this to you.  Seems you either just want to argue or you're Tom Pohlad's kid.

    On 2/10/2026 at 8:54 AM, old nurse said:

    Once again, Forbes figures it out for each club. For Minnnesota it is easy because they can look at sales tax receipts. $50 a fan. Now remember that revenue per fan is shared so the Twins see 52% of it, thus 9 million 

    From the article I found, $51 is the average fan spend inside the park after buying tickets. The average ticket is $37, that would be $88 x 350,000 =$30.8m. Plus of course there’s tv revenue per subscriber and advertising revenue.

    2 hours ago, Charleo said:

    Yes, he has, several times.  He's made the point that if you don't tear down the team by slashing payroll, those increased fan numbers can compound over time.  What if we didn't slash payroll, were still good, and increased attendance for a 2nd year, then a 3rd year, and so on?  Do you see how this works?  A good product over time builds trust that the product will be continuously good, thus creating and maintaining 'fans' of said product.  And how many lifelong fans did they possibly miss out on creating over these years?  It all builds, man.  No one said that 350,000 extra fans would pay for Player X.  It doesn't even work that way.  I'm not sure how anyone else can explain this to you.  Seems you either just want to argue or you're Tom Pohlad's kid.

    That compounding of fans has not happed in the last 50 years 

    54 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

    From the article I found, $51 is the average fan spend inside the park after buying tickets. The average ticket is $37, that would be $88 x 350,000 =$30.8m. Plus of course there’s tv revenue per subscriber and advertising revenue.

    If the subscriber numbers were decent they wouldn’t have made a deal with ESPN. The numbers were so low it was reported that MLB gave the teams $10m that had streaming. 




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...