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

    3 True Lies From the Twins Offseason


    Cody Christie

    Minnesota Twins fans’ morale should be near an all-time high. Instead, the club spent the winter spreading what can be perceived as true lies that will impact the organization beyond the current season.

    Image courtesy of Matt Blewett-USA TODAY Sports

    Twins Video

    Pitchers and catchers reported to Fort Myers earlier this week, which is typically a time for fans to get excited about the upcoming season. Teams try to build support throughout the winter by hosting events like Twins Fest and Winter Caravan, where leaders from the team can answer questions from fans and the media. The Twins have tried to spin different storylines this winter and direct the narrative surrounding the team. Unfortunately, those quotes looked like the truth at the time and have morphed into lies, whether intentional or not.

    True Lie 1: There will be no blackouts in 2024
    Current impact: The Twins are back on Bally Sports North for the 2024 season, which means fans will be limited in how they can consume the team’s games. Cory Provus, the team’s new television announcer, and others in the organization told fans that blackouts were going away. However, those statements were made before Amazon made a deal with Diamond Sports, BSN’s parent company, to save them from bankruptcy. The Twins decided to return to BSN for one more season because of an estimated $30-40 million being paid to the team. Fans hoping for easier access to television broadcasts, especially streaming options, are left empty-handed.

    Future impact: The Twins are among a group of teams who will be television free agents next winter. MLB has a few options with these clubs if they package them together as one group of 12-15 clubs. They can offer television and streaming rights to a larger company like Amazon or Apple to broadcast through their platforms. Another option is for MLB to take over the broadcasts for these teams, which is what the Colorado Rockies, San Diego Padres, and Arizona Diamondbacks are doing this year. Overall, there should be more access to Twins games in 2025, but there are no guarantees in a quickly changing television landscape. 

    True Lie 2: The Twins must cut payroll.
    Current impact: Minnesota’s front office was bizarrely forthcoming at the start of the offseason that the team’s payroll would be dropping. Fans were told it was necessary, because the team expected to lose significant revenue due to the lack of a television contract. Last year, the Twins earned $54 million in television revenue, so the removal of that revenue stream figured to lower the payroll from $159 million to around $124 million. Minnesota received an influx of revenue with their one-year renewal with Diamond Sports, but there are no signs the team is about to embark on a spending spree. It seems likely for the team to add one more right-handed outfield bat, which should keep the payroll under $130 million for 2024. 

    Future impact: If asked about the payroll, the Twins would likely point to the young players on the roster and say there would be a natural decline in payroll. Many of those players have yet to become eligible for arbitration, which means they are making close to the league-minimum salary. Starting next year, Pablo López sees his contract rise from $8.25 million to $21.75 million. There will also be a slew of players eligible for arbitration for the first time, including Royce Lewis, Joe Ryan, Bailey Ober, and Jhoan Durán. The Twins roster will get expensive in a hurry, and those issues will only be further magnified if ownership continues to limit spending.

    True Lie 3: The front office is attempting to improve the team.
    Current impact: Every contending team enters the offseason hoping to make improvements to their roster. This proposition was difficult for the Twins because of the organization’s self-imposed payroll limits. The team also lost Sonny Gray and Kenta Maeda, two starters who recently finished runner-up for the Cy Young Award. Derek Falvey indicated at the Winter Meetings that the Twins would attempt to trade some of their veteran players, with Jorge Polanco being the lone casualty at this point. Minnesota turned him into a fifth starter, a late-inning reliever, and two prospects. Strictly on value, the Twins did well in this trade, but it’s easy to argue that the current roster is worse than last year's.

    Future impact: The front office will always make moves where the Twins acquire more value. The Polanco trade is just one example of this type of swap. On the eve of the 2022 season, the Twins traded Taylor Rogers, the team’s closer, and Brent Rooker to the Padres for Chris Paddack and Emilio Pagán. It was a move that made sense from a value perspective, but the timing of the trade seemed suboptimal for clubhouse morale. Unless the payroll situation drastically changes, the front office must continue making value trades, even if it hurts the current roster. Expensive veterans must be shed, especially when a large chunk of the team’s payroll is tied to Carlos Correa, Byron Buxton, and López. Dropping payroll by $30 million will make any team worse, unless the team’s young core takes massive strides forward in 2024.

    On the surface, the Twins weren't trying to lie to fans, but given the way various situations above have unfolded in recent months, that's how it turned out. Some fans were already wary about the team’s historical spending record, and those worries have been multiplied this winter. Minnesota is still the odds-on favorite to win the AL Central, but it’s tough to be optimistic about how the offseason played out.


    Which true lie is the most disheartening? How does each area impact the team in the long term? 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

    1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

    I agree, especially with the part that someone should have told Provus their plans were not ready for public reveal.  That said, just because people presume someone is speaking for their company does not make that a reasonable presumption.  We need to be reasonable and holding the Twins accountable for something a broadcaster said is not completely reasonable, especially given any reasonable person would not presume his intent was to mislead.  I think the reasonable takeaway is that the twins were planning on ending blackouts, he was excited about it, and then the landscape changed.

    My thought when I heard it was that he was cleared to say it.  No way to know for sure but a seasoned professional communicator doesn't generally speak out of school on something that huge.  

    They were trying to get the message out, likely because they do hear some of the crap being said.  If they had pulled it off, it's genius. Now, not so much. 

    4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

    From a business perspective they simply existed. They didn't build some wonderful product that drove revenue. They threatened to take their ball home if they didn't get free money. If you can't understand that professional sports teams get free stuff no matter how good their product is I can't help you with these topics. None of us can.

    Your argument is basically been summarized to, they rich bah!

    I made sure to quote this statement so you could see it, read it back out loud and try to sort it into a reasonably economically literate statement.  That's not how anything works.

    We've had this discussion is several different forms throughout the offseason and please trust me as I say again. This is not the hill to die on.  It's not even close to a thing that should effect your fandom.

    I'm still trying find someone who will admit to telling some other business that their products, that are basically free to me and pretty darn good, that they didn't spend enough money to make this product.

    Like dammit George, this hot dog is fantastic but I'll be damned if I consume another until you spend another 30% to produce it.  While I wait, I'm going to drag your name in the mud all over the internet and expect you to tell me how great a customer I am at the same time. 

    Sports fans are weird man. 

    45 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

    Your argument is basically been summarized to, they rich bah!

    Your argument is....what exactly? Are you disagreeing that the Twins got a $500m handout?  Are you disagreeing that the Pohlads threatened to leave or contract the team if they didn't get their handout?  You are screeching about "how things work" but provide nothing to the contrary.  I'm sorry if it triggers you but those things happened.

    47 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

    It's not even close to a thing that should effect your fandom.

    If you don't think there's a correlation between payroll and success, can't help you.  Since 91 only 1 team 18th or lower in league payroll has won a Series.  I cheer for the Twins to see them win; the Pohlads operate the Twins solely to make cash.  Yeah, the Pohlads affect my fandom.  Do you think, say, A's fandom is affected by the actions of their owner?

    49 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

    Like dammit George, this hot dog is fantastic but I'll be damned if I consume another until you spend another 30% to produce it.

    Did George demand welfare from his city because he needed it in order to produce great hot dogs, threaten to leave the state if he didn't get what he wanted, successfully receive that money, and then spend several years producing crappy hot dogs and pocketing the excess welfare to line his own pockets?  If not, do you think this is an appropriate analogy?  

    1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

    Your argument is basically been summarized to, they rich bah!

    I made sure to quote this statement so you could see it, read it back out loud and try to sort it into a reasonably economically literate statement.  That's not how anything works.

    We've had this discussion is several different forms throughout the offseason and please trust me as I say again. This is not the hill to die on.  It's not even close to a thing that should effect your fandom.

    I'm still trying find someone who will admit to telling some other business that their products, that are basically free to me and pretty darn good, that they didn't spend enough money to make this product.

    Like dammit George, this hot dog is fantastic but I'll be damned if I consume another until you spend another 30% to produce it.  While I wait, I'm going to drag your name in the mud all over the internet and expect you to tell me how great a customer I am at the same time. 

    Sports fans are weird man. 

    And I'll wait for you to explain to me how many other businesses have anti-trust laws for them since the 1950s. How many other businesses get taxpayer dollars to build their facilities. How many other businesses get paid directly by their competitors so the product they produce literally doesn't matter because their competitors just need them there.

    Your "George and his hot dog" analogy doesn't work. The Twins aren't always producing a "fantastic hot dog." But it doesn't matter. They're literally paid by the 29 other teams whether their hot dog is edible or not. The Pohlads make money every year whether their "hot dog" is good or not. George doesn't have the luxury of not caring about how good his hot dog is and still making money. George doesn't get his hot dog restaurant built by tax payers because he threatens politicians with leaving if they don't do it. The Twins are not George and his hot dog restaurant. The Twins hadn't won a single playoff game in nearly 2 decades, but I'm supposed to praise them because they were able to lose cheaply? Yeah, no thanks. If George doesn't make a "fantastic" hot dog for 2 decades he goes out of business. The Twins aren't George and the Twins are literally paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year by their competitors simply to exist. They don't have to be good, they don't have to try. They simply have to be there to give other teams someone to play.

    And, on a side note, quit telling me what should and shouldn't effect my fandom. Some fans care about titles. Some care about well played games throughout the year. Some care about having players around a long time so they can get to know them. We all care about different things when it comes to the teams we cheer for. I can choose to be a fan however I want to. I'm happy for you if you don't care about payroll or the processes behind building the team. I do. 

     

    11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

    How many other businesses get taxpayer dollars to build their facilities.

     

    All of them. 

    Including my own.

    Including all the companies I've ever worked for.

    It's literally the foundation of the tax code.  Create value, get tax benifit.  

    I'm sorry if you don't like it. Just don't deny reality. 

    Am I to understand that George has to deal with business reality and the Twins/MLB do not? 

    33 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

    All of them. 

    Including my own.

    Including all the companies I've ever worked for.

    It's literally the foundation of the tax code.  Create value, get tax benifit.  

    I'm sorry if you don't like it. Just don't deny reality. 

    Am I to understand that George has to deal with business reality and the Twins/MLB do not? 

    Taxpayers built the building your business is in? As in the government literally paid for that building to be built? Not tax benefits. Not tax breaks. Literally paid the company that built your building. That's your claim? That tax payer dollars have built every commercial building in America? Dang, I guess I learned something new today.

    The reality of the Twins business is very different than the reality of George's, yes. Until George is getting paid by other hot dog companies simply to have hot dogs, even if they're bad, then, yes, he is dealing with a different business reality than the Twins.

    You own a business? If your business had a 13 year stretch where it was successful at it's job 5 years and failed 8 would your business still be racking in profits? The Twins have had a .500 record 5 of the last 13 seasons. And they continue to rack in profits. Their business reality simply is not the same as yours.

    59 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

    Taxpayers built the building your business is in? As in the government literally paid for that building to be built? Not tax benefits. Not tax breaks. Literally paid the company that built your building. That's your claim? That tax payer dollars have built every commercial building in America? Dang, I guess I learned something new today.

    The reality of the Twins business is very different than the reality of George's, yes. Until George is getting paid by other hot dog companies simply to have hot dogs, even if they're bad, then, yes, he is dealing with a different business reality than the Twins.

    You own a business? If your business had a 13 year stretch where it was successful at it's job 5 years and failed 8 would your business still be racking in profits? The Twins have had a .500 record 5 of the last 13 seasons. And they continue to rack in profits. Their business reality simply is not the same as yours.

    We just disagree on the scaling. It's the same thing, just different degrees.

    As for George, how do you think franchises work?

    And yes, this year I will get a tax benefit that roughly offsets a 3 year stretch of losses where I put a few hundred thousand of my own billionaire funds into it to stabilize. I'll get the benefit over several years but it was the cost of building a long term winner. Anyone with a business knows about lean years.  5 good years in 13 is not a horrible ratio unfortunately. Ask a farmer. Not Kyle.

    Racking in profits is just a silly buzz phrase.

    4 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

    We just disagree on the scaling. It's the same thing, just different degrees.

    As for George, how do you think franchises work?

    And yes, this year I will get a tax benefit that roughly offsets a 3 year stretch of losses where I put a few hundred thousand of my own billionaire funds into it to stabilize. I'll get the benefit over several years but it was the cost of building a long term winner. Anyone with a business knows about lean years.  5 good years in 13 is not a horrible ratio unfortunately. Ask a farmer. Not Kyle.

    Racking in profits is just a silly buzz phrase.

    The Twins get all the massive tax breaks of any big business. Other big businesses don't get their buildings built for them. The scaling matters. Pretending they're the same as every other business is ignoring the realities. They aren't. Their tax benefits are on a different scale, yes. But then they add 500 million in tax payer money to directly pay for their facilities. Those "different degrees" matter, and change things drastically.

    Oh, so now George owns a hot dog franchise? There used to be a Dairy Queen by my house. Franchise, right? It didn't produce a good enough product. Now it's closed. How many seasons of bad product do you think it would take the Twins to close? How realistic do you think it is that the Twins just close their doors someday?

    Oh wait, you invested your own money into your product to improve it? You didn't just ask your customers to continue supporting it while refusing to invest your own money so you actively took a loss for 3 years to better improve your position? You're literally telling me you did what many of us are asking the Twins to do while you tell me I'm being crazy to think that should be an option. My argument this entire offseason, while you've been telling me not to die on this hill, is that the Pohlads should take this opportunity coming off the excitement from last season and not kill their momentum, but instead take a purposeful loss (if that's what is needed) to build a "long term winner." So a "regular" business like yours should do that, but it's crazy for me to think the Twins should do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the Twins play in the same business pool as you and my argument about purposeful losses for long-term improvement is valid or the Twins don't play in the same business pool as you. You can't have it both ways.

    My argument all offseason has been to eat some money this year if that's what's needed to build their fan base and help drive more revenue for a better long-term situation. You're now telling me that's a very normal practice. In fact you did it for 3 years, I'm only asking for 1 (to start). But you've been telling me not to die on this hill. Interesting.

    19 hours ago, old nurse said:

    Blindly critiquing the FO is OK without knowledge of the facts is OK. No Koolaid accusations there. 

    Facts are exactly what you're not getting from this FO. They let out only the info that fits them.

    '21 we came off 2 division championships, the fanbase was excited. In the off-season they didn't get the FA SP they wanted, So they got some older SPs in Happ & Shoemaker & ex CWS closer, Colume, they showed some past stats & stated that Johnson was going work his magic & fix Shoemaker's mix, and the fanbase got even more excited, watch out MLB here we come. I criticized that Happ wasn't a good idea because an old slow LHP in a heavy dominant RH-hitting Central Division was never going to work. old Shoemaker had a lot to fix & showed no openness to change. Plus there must be a reason why CWS let  Colume go, Closers have a super stressful job, and you need to be highly confident in your stuff & yourself to be one. Colume was having problems (that's why CWS let him go) plus being let go doesn't do anything for your confidence plus getting acclimated to a different club is too much, Plus FO wanted to show they made the right decision by showcasing him as our primary closer. And just like now, I was hammered, "You're crazy", "you don't know what you're talking about", and "Don't rock the boat".

    Questioning sources, observing, doing research, putting pieces together & making an assumption isn't blindly accusing this FO. I might not be 100% correct but I'm not being blind. I sincerely would like this FO to do well. But I'm going to speak up when I don't agree.

    59 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

    Facts are exactly what you're not getting from this FO. They let out only the info that fits them.

    '21 we came off 2 division championships, the fanbase was excited. In the off-season they didn't get the FA SP they wanted, So they got some older SPs in Happ & Shoemaker & ex CWS closer, Colume, they showed some past stats & stated that Johnson was going work his magic & fix Shoemaker's mix, and the fanbase got even more excited, watch out MLB here we come. I criticized that Happ wasn't a good idea because an old slow LHP in a heavy dominant RH-hitting Central Division was never going to work. old Shoemaker had a lot to fix & showed no openness to change. Plus there must be a reason why CWS let  Colume go, Closers have a super stressful job, and you need to be highly confident in your stuff & yourself to be one. Colume was having problems (that's why CWS let him go) plus being let go doesn't do anything for your confidence plus getting acclimated to a different club is too much, Plus FO wanted to show they made the right decision by showcasing him as our primary closer. And just like now, I was hammered, "You're crazy", "you don't know what you're talking about", and "Don't rock the boat".

    Questioning sources, observing, doing research, putting pieces together & making an assumption isn't blindly accusing this FO. I might not be 100% correct but I'm not being blind. I sincerely would like this FO to do well. But I'm going to speak up when I don't agree.

    Pretty much lost in your salad was the article was about the current payroll  Not a person has shown how the front office has been disingenuous about the numbers. Facts are few and far between. Fact in a Nick Nelson article, they lost money in 2022. Payroll went up in 2023 but they also had extra revenue from BAM money.  Attendance went up only slightly for 2023   Those are the facts at people’s disposal.

    10 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

    The Twins get all the massive tax breaks of any big business. Other big businesses don't get their buildings built for them. The scaling matters.

    I basically with you more that taxpayers should not fund stadiums.  So, let's say starting next year every team had to start paying $50M/year (rent or financing) or had to come up with $2B for a stadium.   Do you understand the financial implications, specifically who would be paying the toll so to speak?

    11 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

    The Twins get all the massive tax breaks of any big business. Other big businesses don't get their buildings built for them. The scaling matters. Pretending they're the same as every other business is ignoring the realities. They aren't. Their tax benefits are on a different scale, yes. But then they add 500 million in tax payer money to directly pay for their facilities. Those "different degrees" matter, and change things drastically.

    Oh, so now George owns a hot dog franchise? There used to be a Dairy Queen by my house. Franchise, right? It didn't produce a good enough product. Now it's closed. How many seasons of bad product do you think it would take the Twins to close? How realistic do you think it is that the Twins just close their doors someday?

    Oh wait, you invested your own money into your product to improve it? You didn't just ask your customers to continue supporting it while refusing to invest your own money so you actively took a loss for 3 years to better improve your position? You're literally telling me you did what many of us are asking the Twins to do while you tell me I'm being crazy to think that should be an option. My argument this entire offseason, while you've been telling me not to die on this hill, is that the Pohlads should take this opportunity coming off the excitement from last season and not kill their momentum, but instead take a purposeful loss (if that's what is needed) to build a "long term winner." So a "regular" business like yours should do that, but it's crazy for me to think the Twins should do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the Twins play in the same business pool as you and my argument about purposeful losses for long-term improvement is valid or the Twins don't play in the same business pool as you. You can't have it both ways.

    My argument all offseason has been to eat some money this year if that's what's needed to build their fan base and help drive more revenue for a better long-term situation. You're now telling me that's a very normal practice. In fact you did it for 3 years, I'm only asking for 1 (to start). But you've been telling me not to die on this hill. Interesting.

    There's a very good chance that money you want them to eat this year has already been eaten the last two years. We've discussed that as well. Is it the same ask if it's three years in a row?

    By the way, closing their doors is contraction. Remember that? The stadium made the business functional again but it's not like there's billions just laying around all of a sudden.

    You're going in circles, making my case for me, then ignoring what you are saying to come to your emotional conclusion.

    Go spend some time with the prospect lists and spring training reports, we can take this up again next offseason. There's a good chance it will be worse.

    22 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

    The Twins are treated as a stand-alone entity, and I'm totally good with that. Where I disagree is the idea that the lack of certainty in media revenues after this year should lead to them slashing payroll this year, and that blackouts are just an "annoyance." They're a stand-alone entertainment entity. If you can't get your entertainment in front of people who want to be entertained by it it should be viewed as far more than just an annoyance to fans. It's actively hurting their ability to increase revenue for their stand-alone entity.

    Their choice to view the Twins as an entity that needs to produce profit year in and year out is a business decision that leads to short-sighted decisions that hurt their ability to grow their fanbase and revenue. They rake in profits while providing a horrible, unentertaining product for years, but now that they have what could be a good, entertaining product they choose to not risk their profit and make the short-sighted decision to take as much money as they can instead of trying to expand their fanbase. It's not selfish fans being unreasonable, it's dedicated fans saying "we literally paid for your building and have made you 10s of millions of dollars a year while you provided us with nothing so now we'd like to see you guys sacrifice a little of your unearned money to provide us with the best product you can that we can actually watch." 

    The Pohlads #1 priority is making profits. Totally fine. It's their business they can do what they want. But then they need to tell Dave St Peter to quit questioning their consumers and telling us they aren't tone-deaf. Nobody is asking the Pohalds to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher, we're asking them to invest in their product like any other stand-alone entity has to do from time to time to improve their customer base and revenue. Not an unreasonable ask.

    I always try to be respectful when I post here.

    So I say respectfully that it seems a tad ironic to give "here's how you should run your business" advice to a family that has turned a $40 million investment into a $2.5 billion one.  

    However, I agree completely with your point on DSP.  It is my experience that the truly tone-deaf never recognize it in themselves. How else do you explain all that bad karaoke?  

    One thing that we have to acknowledge about the Pohlads. They never get rid of anyone. Bill Smith, Terry Ryan, TK. They are all still on the payroll. I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Martin is still drawing a check.  DSP seems the beneficiary of that philosophy.  I bristle every time he trots out that "you don't love us enough" nonsense. Please join the rest of us in the real world Dave.  But I have to warn you. Self parking can be a little scary. 

    27 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

    There's a very good chance that money you want them to eat this year has already been eaten the last two years. We've discussed that as well. Is it the same ask if it's three years in a row?

    By the way, closing their doors is contraction. Remember that? The stadium made the business functional again but it's not like there's billions just laying around all of a sudden.

    You're going in circles, making my case for me, then ignoring what you are saying to come to your emotional conclusion.

    Go spend some time with the prospect lists and spring training reports, we can take this up again next offseason. There's a good chance it will be worse.

    Why is there a good chance it's been eaten already? I'm told by you and MLR that their 30 million BAM money was why they could spend last year and since it's gone that's why they can't spend. Why did they lose money in 2022? What's your reasoning there? Other than 2020, why would we believe the Twins ever lose money?

    Your honest opinion is that the Twins literally couldn't have survived without Target Field? You honestly believe that? The business wasn't possibly functional without a publicly funded stadium? That's your honest belief? More power to ya, I guess.

    I'm not going in circles. My argument all offseason from the second Falvey told us they were slashing payroll is that it was a shortsighted move that focused on immediate profits instead of long-term growth. After it was announced they were wrong about ending blackouts because they went with short-term money instead of building their fanbase I again said it was a shortsighted move that focused on immediate profits instead of long-term growth. As you've noted, you've continually told me "this isn't the hill to die on." But now you literally said you did exactly what I'm asking them to do with your own business. That's not an emotional conclusion. You literally said you took a short-term hit to "build a long term winner." I've spent all offseason suggesting they take a short-term hit to "build a long term winner" and you've told me that's a ridiculous idea.

    And, again, quit telling me how to be a fan. If you don't want to have a back and forth with someone you disagree with then just ignore my comments. Me disagreeing with you isn't automatically an "emotional conclusion," and even if it is I'm entitled to it. So if you don't like it just ignore me and move on with the rest of your life. You fan however you want to fan and I'll fan how I want to.

    2 hours ago, Johnny Ringo said:

    I always try to be respectful when I post here.

    So I say respectfully that it seems a tad ironic to give "here's how you should run your business" advice to a family that has turned a $40 million investment into a $2.5 billion one.  

    However, I agree completely with your point on DSP.  It is my experience that the truly tone-deaf never recognize it in themselves. How else do you explain all that bad karaoke?  

    One thing that we have to acknowledge about the Pohlads. They never get rid of anyone. Bill Smith, Terry Ryan, TK. They are all still on the payroll. I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Martin is still drawing a check.  DSP seems the beneficiary of that philosophy.  I bristle every time he trots out that "you don't love us enough" nonsense. Please join the rest of us in the real world Dave.  But I have to warn you. Self parking can be a little scary. 

    Where I have a problem is with the idea that they really had to do much of anything to turn their 40 mil investment into one that's worth close to 2 bil now. That's more just the nature of pro sports teams. Pick any NBA, MLB, or NFL team that you feel is the worst run of all. That team has seen a massive increase in their valuation despite being horribly run (assuming they weren't just purchased). Look at the Wolves right across the street from the Twins. At one point in the last few years they held some pretty horrible records for the most losing franchise in major North American sports history. They were just sold for $1.5 billion. 

    That's kind of my point here. Pro sports teams aren't normal businesses that some people want to compare them to. They don't have to succeed to succeed. You can be the losingest team in history and turn a $94 million purchase into a $1.5 billion sale (what Glen Taylor did with the Wolves). 

    I’ve posted my disgust about this off-season. But now I would like to give a hat tip to the FO. They were put in a difficult spot trying to improve their roster while their budget was slashed. I didn’t like the Polanco deal but looking at it now it makes sense. It was the only way to free up any money to try and improve the roster in other ways. When the dust settles they will likely end up with just as good a club this year as last. That’s pretty good work considering the pile of crap ownership dumped on them. 




    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...