What the Latest Twins Ownership Update Could Mean for the Franchise This Season

“…it's not uncommon for financial conservatism to take precedence over aggressive spending”.  I’m not sure how that’s possible. 

6 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Great points, but this I hadn't thought of. We could very well see the stock of the United States as a destination for exceptional international individuals crater like we're seeing with the nazi car company. The attempted deportation of a permanent resident protestor on flimsy "anti-american" accusations? 

The USA could very well look much like Russia within a few years, with all the protectionism and complete destruction of soft power, and the industries remaining would be left with a fraction of the value. 

Or the US will be wildly successful  and economic growth will take off instead of just price inflation…..
and when did the Nazi’s start producing cars past 1945? 

6 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Thankfully the GOP is working on more tax cuts for those struggling job creators 🙏

 

#savetheyachts 

Yup, 63% of all private industry jobs are created by small businesses. Them there tax cuts are going to create lots of jobs

First, I would like to suggest that we all tone down the political rhetoric on this subject.  While I do believe that the DC gang has too much influence over business decisions, I don't believe that they would be the breaking point on whether the team is sold or not. 

In order, here is what I believe (my opinion) on the potential headwinds involved in completing a sale (in order of importance):

1. Pohlad's asking price:  It has been reported that the Pohlad's have an asking price of around $1.8 billion, which is well above the reported valve of the franchise of $1.4 - $1.6 billion.  That's a spread that may slow down buyers as it may come across as not as motivated to sell as they originally thought, especially considering the remaining factors.

2. Player lockout looming:  As an earlier poster as noted, it seems to be about 50/50 that the owner's will lockout the players.  Even the owners can't seem to agree on a way forward with the changing revenue models before they get to negotiating with the players.  A potential buyer may be reluctant to purchase any team knowing they may not have ANY revenue for a year right after completing a sale.

3. General business climate:  With a potential recession looming and the DC groups (everyone, not just one person or party) creating chaos in consumer confidence, any potential buyers may wait and see if this asset goes on sale and maybe get a "deal" compared to what the Pohlad's are asking for right now.  At the very least, they may be developing a wait and see approach to the overall markets as consumer confidence is key in consumer spending, i.e.: game attendance.

4. Tax implications: These are all billionaires that we are discussing so they have had the tax implications sorted out long before they even started to put together a bid.  While some tax breaks may be coming off the table, these are people that plan for taxes 5 to 10 years down the road.  While most people consider taxes in their business decisions, it's more like the tail wagging the dog vs the other way around.

Finally, I would like to say that my personal issue with the player payroll has not been the year over year spending as they have consistently been the top spender in the AL Central.  My issue has been that when they have had the team to make a deep playoff run, the ownership hasn't given the funds necessary to improve the team for such a run.

2 hours ago, Western SD Fan said:

Finally, I would like to say that my personal issue with the player payroll has not been the year over year spending as they have consistently been the top spender in the AL Central.  My issue has been that when they have had the team to make a deep playoff run, the ownership hasn't given the funds necessary to improve the team for such a run.

The money has been given ..... Gallo, Bundy, Bader, Vazquez, and a pile of others. I said it in October of 2023 and I will say it again ...... Jordan Montgomery and Rhys Hoskens are fine athletes and they may have been the near consensus guys we needed  but my money is better spent watching Woods Richardson, Festa, Matthews, Morris, Miranda, Keaschall, and Rodriguez. The Twins signed Byron Buxton and Carlos Correa to big deals and it is the job of the front office to surround those guys with talent. 

18 hours ago, beckmt said:

With a better than 50 - 50 chance of a lockout after the 2026 season, that uncertainty is going to affect the price. Rich people do not like uncertainty.  That will tend to drive the price lower, and it may well not make the Pohlad's an offer they can accept.  My feeling is unless Glenn Taylor steps up after the Wolves sale goes through, this team could well linger on the market until after the baseball financials are resolved sometime in 2027.

"Rich people do not like uncertainty."

Trust me, us poor folks like it even less.  😉

On 3/14/2025 at 7:05 AM, NYCTK said:

What this means for the Twins is attendance will drop further. Interest in the club is at a 25 year low. 

 

New television situation won't help.

16 hours ago, Western SD Fan said:

First, I would like to suggest that we all tone down the political rhetoric on this subject.  While I do believe that the DC gang has too much influence over business decisions, I don't believe that they would be the breaking point on whether the team is sold or not. 

In order, here is what I believe (my opinion) on the potential headwinds involved in completing a sale (in order of importance):

1. Pohlad's asking price:  It has been reported that the Pohlad's have an asking price of around $1.8 billion, which is well above the reported valve of the franchise of $1.4 - $1.6 billion.  That's a spread that may slow down buyers as it may come across as not as motivated to sell as they originally thought, especially considering the remaining factors.

2. Player lockout looming:  As an earlier poster as noted, it seems to be about 50/50 that the owner's will lockout the players.  Even the owners can't seem to agree on a way forward with the changing revenue models before they get to negotiating with the players.  A potential buyer may be reluctant to purchase any team knowing they may not have ANY revenue for a year right after completing a sale.

3. General business climate:  With a potential recession looming and the DC groups (everyone, not just one person or party) creating chaos in consumer confidence, any potential buyers may wait and see if this asset goes on sale and maybe get a "deal" compared to what the Pohlad's are asking for right now.  At the very least, they may be developing a wait and see approach to the overall markets as consumer confidence is key in consumer spending, i.e.: game attendance.

4. Tax implications: These are all billionaires that we are discussing so they have had the tax implications sorted out long before they even started to put together a bid.  While some tax breaks may be coming off the table, these are people that plan for taxes 5 to 10 years down the road.  While most people consider taxes in their business decisions, it's more like the tail wagging the dog vs the other way around.

Finally, I would like to say that my personal issue with the player payroll has not been the year over year spending as they have consistently been the top spender in the AL Central.  My issue has been that when they have had the team to make a deep playoff run, the ownership hasn't given the funds necessary to improve the team for such a run.

How did you get that far down your list and miss the broadcast revenue problem?  That's #1 with a bullet, given how they held back on the announcement of the sale until there was no longer any chance of hanging on to the old  model.

Here's what a guy from San Diego wrote about their first year outside the RSN tent. Keep in mind that the old contract was for about $60m per year, which is more than the Twins' $54m deal.

Quote

I've been doing some digging on the Padres local TV deal and it isn't pretty. MLB will control the broadcast rights for 6 teams in 2025, including the Padres. Last year, the Padres got $15 million from MLB for those rights. I don't know who gets the advertising revenue, but I suspect that MLB does. I've also been unable to find out if any of that revenue gets split with the Padres. In addition, there were 40,000ish subscribers to MLB's streaming service, but I suspect that number includes season ticket holders who get it for free. Still, assuming the most optimistic numbers, that is probably worth about $6 million (probably less) of which the Padres will probably get some percentage.

 

After all my digging, my most optimistic estimate is that we brought in $30 million in TV revenue last season unless I'm missing a major source of TV/Streaming revenue. The number will be similar for 2025 by all accounts.

Losing half or more of your broadcast revenue is a big deal. And the fact that there are another handful of teams in the same boat means that the pool of shared 48% of revenue is going to be smaller too.  It's a fact that the new owners are not going to enjoy the margins that the Pohlads are getting today.

On 3/14/2025 at 7:57 AM, NYCTK said:

Thankfully the GOP is working on more tax cuts for those struggling job creators 🙏

 

#savetheyachts 

Both parties are in bed with one another. We now have the uniparty and we'll enjoy it......

On 3/14/2025 at 7:56 AM, beckmt said:

With a better than 50 - 50 chance of a lockout after the 2026 season, that uncertainty is going to affect the price. Rich people do not like uncertainty.  That will tend to drive the price lower, and it may well not make the Pohlad's an offer they can accept.  My feeling is unless Glenn Taylor steps up after the Wolves sale goes through, this team could well linger on the market until after the baseball financials are resolved sometime in 2027.

50/50 chance of a lockout? Try like 95% chance and I'm being generous leaving 5% off. With all the things that have happened there will be a lockout for sure. The Dodgers and all their things they have done almost alone will make it happen. 

Then you have all the TV deals that fell apart and now ESPN on the way out MLB will most likely try to make teams pool the money and there's no way the large markets are going to give up their golden geese. 

As hard as it is the write MLB needs a lockout to get their stuff together and hopefully not lose any games in the process.

So if I was looking to buy a team there's no way I'm doing anything until the new labor deal is final. So a couple more years to go.

21 hours ago, Cris E said:

How did you get that far down your list and miss the broadcast revenue problem?  That's #1 with a bullet, given how they held back on the announcement of the sale until there was no longer any chance of hanging on to the old  model.

You're right.  That should have been #1 in what would be holding up an asking price as the revenues just won't be there that once were for a new owner.  Hence why #2 is important as the owners need to be on the same page with their own revenues before they can go to the players.

On 3/14/2025 at 7:57 AM, NYCTK said:

Thankfully the GOP is working on more tax cuts for those struggling job creators 🙏

 

#savetheyachts 

#savetheyachts       GOOD ONE!!!

On 3/14/2025 at 6:42 AM, dxpavelka said:

I love how fans just assume that new ownership is going to come in and spend money like a drunken sailor.  And that doing so is going to somehow make the team successful. 

Exactly, despite how many teams being utter failures while running top 5 payrolls most people still think you build a team with strictly free agents. No, every championship team is built internally as opposed to externally. Spending more money on FA’s just wins you the stupid prize of overpaying for a 30+ yo player as he significantly declines. No thanks.

4 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Who has said this?

Everyone that’s complained about the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers and probably now the Mets for the last 30 years thinking those teams buy championships. Everyone in here wishing for a new owner thinking that’s a guarantee to spend more money and that that will 100% guarantee a championship. Everyone clamoring for a salary cap and floor to “Even” the playing field. So everyone that’s not a Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Mets fan pretty much.

47 minutes ago, FargoFanMan said:

Exactly, despite how many teams being utter failures while running top 5 payrolls most people still think you build a team with strictly free agents. No, every championship team is built internally as opposed to externally. Spending more money on FA’s just wins you the stupid prize of overpaying for a 30+ yo player as he significantly declines. No thanks.

Almost every big Free Agent contract proves to be an albatross on the back end.

7 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

Almost every big Free Agent contract proves to be an albatross on the back end.

Yes, and if you’re a mid market team that contract can cripple a team for years. Hell, sometimes it cripples a big market team. Imagine what the Yankees could have done with the $220M they’ve paid Stanton over the last 7 years only to get 9WAR out of him.  That contract has not quite crippled them but damn that hurts! Most contracts turn out that way and I for one would rather the Twins not enter those kinds of sweepstakes. I would rather they make a few well timed trades to add talent but no way do I want them spending on the old high priced FA’s. 

11 hours ago, ashbury said:

That is not what you said before.  Again, no one is saying build a team with strictly free agents.

But that’s what everyone wants when they say they want new owners that spend. Everyone who’s team is not the Yankees or dodgers want their team to be able to spend like the Yankees or dodgers. They want the excitement of signing a big FA every year or every other year. You know it and I know it. What else is everyone referring to when they say they want an owner who opens up his pocket book? They want an owner like Steve Cohen. Or that’s who they’re hoping for which is what they thought when they heard the name Ishbia because of what his brother did in Phoenix. I dislike the Pohlads as much as the next guy but not because they don’t spend as much money. It’s when they choose not to spend money. 

17 hours ago, FargoFanMan said:

Yes, and if you’re a mid market team that contract can cripple a team for years. Hell, sometimes it cripples a big market team. Imagine what the Yankees could have done with the $220M they’ve paid Stanton over the last 7 years only to get 9WAR out of him.  That contract has not quite crippled them but damn that hurts! Most contracts turn out that way and I for one would rather the Twins not enter those kinds of sweepstakes. I would rather they make a few well timed trades to add talent but no way do I want them spending on the old high priced FA’s. 

Actually kind of like the way the potential years 7-10 of Correa's contract are structured.  Last 4 years are $25 Million, $20 Million, $15 Million & $10 Million IF he meets vesting options.  The vesting options are such that if he meets any of them, he'd be a steal at those numbers.  If he doesn't meet the vesting options the team still has an option to keep him.  Say what one may want to about Twins ownership and FO but to me that looks like very smart deal. For the most part, I'd rather see them keep their home grown talent than spend what I like to refer to as stupid money on outside free agents.  I'd like to see them be a bit more aggressive about retaining their own.  They could have afforded the contract that Berrios eventually signed with Toronto.  That would have removed the need to trade for Tyler Mahle a year later AND maybe even the need to move a batting champion for Pablo Lopez.  Don't get me wrong, I like Lopez and think it's pretty cool that we might have three potential Cy Young candidates leading our rotation this year but when you aggregate everything that has happened since July 29, 2021 we've given up a lot to get him.  I get a LOT of blow back on this site for my take that we should not have moved on from Eddie Rosario when we did.  We moved on to save $8 Million on a guy who was top 20 in MVP voting in his last two years here.  We assumed Kirilloff, Larnach, Rooker & Garlick could replace him.  I constantly get "well look at what he's done since he left."  That first season his WAR was better than Kirrilloff, Larnach, Rooker & Garlick combined AND he was NLCS MVP and got a WS ring.  Since I brought up Rooker do I even need to mention that moving him and Rogers for Paddack & Pagan was probably another tentacle of having moved the best SP we've developed in a generation?

1 hour ago, Parfigliano said:

I don't remember any Mets world series championships in the last 30 years.

My point exactly. In the last 30 years how many championships have those teams won? Not as many as you would think by all the clamoring about the big teams spending money. If you just read articles you would assume that those large market teams win it every year.