TheLeviathan

How do you think Houston's owner sold the deal? Look, I'm on the record that I don't mind we sold on Correa to get out from the contract before it becomes an albatross..... However, Crane's pitch worked because he preyed on the Pohlad's weaknesses about money and profit. The Pohlads are why that deal happened 100%. They basically negotiated it without Falvey for long stretches. I don't know how much more meddling or forcing you can be than to usurp your GM.

The article makes quite clear that this opinion is false. If it's one you want to hold on to...that's your perogative. But it's not reality. We've been hearing the same line from our GMs for 30 years. I imagine their willingness to take fire from the public is part of what retains their employment even though they aren't accomplishing much on the field.

Here's the thing....Nailor has a hand injury, Addison has a suspension, JJ has been nursing something all training camp, and Hockenson has a lengthy history. Bring back Brandon Powell, try Gabe Davis or Amari Cooper, Nelson Agoholor. Just bring in an experienced reciever with the issue going on. That's where I'm at.

Well, the other poster admitted to not reading the article. I don't think there is much ambiguity here. Also...according to Reusse it was Jim Pohlad, not Joe, who was in conversations with Crane. (Confirming the report) So a few things: 1) The Pohlads were absolutely directly involved and 2) Either they don't talk to each other (incompetence) or Joe is lying (Possible, his public facing communication doesn't have a sterling track record).

The Athletic article confirms it was an ownership move almost exclusively. At comically incompetent levels.

Ok, all of that sounds great from a practical standpoint, but this reaction isn't practical. It's, by definition, emotional. It's something you care about. I think you are attempting well meaning advice here but you happen to be mistaken. Let me try to explain by analogy what I think is wrong about this advice: A young, naive Lev married a wonderful woman. But like all relationships, arguments would happen. Mostly because young Lev was a dude and dudes do stupid things. When said things happened, and Mrs. Lev was justifiably angry our young Lev used to think a wise strategy was to say "relax". (Married men out there are cringing now. I feel you brothers) I can tell you as an older, wiser (and still married!) Lev.....such advice is not a good tactic. It ignores the justifiable feelings someone else has, offers no real advancement of the issues at hand, and can be interpreted as condescending even though it isn't meant to. Your argument is the "relax" of sports ownership/fandom. People are reacting and responding in a justifiable way. They engage with the content because it is a big part of the thing they enjoy. Those press releases and comments are pretty important. Just ignoring them isn't really an option in a practical sense. Fans just found out something they thought was happening wasn't going to happen and those press releases are the closest thing to an answer for "why?". And fans have every right to ask "why?" and be pissed off when the answers they get aren't very good. They don't want to hear "relax" in that moment. They want to be pissed. In this case...I say let the people who are pissed off be pissed off. Maybe there is some small chance they'll be heard by the clowns who need to hear it.

My issue with Mike earlier is the same I have here: we shouldn't be lecturing each other about how to be fans. Everyone is going to respond in their own way. If you tune it out and try to focus on the game....good for you. If you want to rage at the stupidity of the Pohlads....rage away.

This team has so many corner fielding, lefty hitting clones. I want to see Outman get some run down the stretch here because I think there is still juice to squeeze.

I'm not sure what your point is to be fair. It's somehow both "stop" and "enjoy" while arguing that somehow what people are mad about doesn't directly impact their joy? Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

Why is it that some of you are acting like fans tuning out won't impact the on-field product? I mean, how many more decades of failure by Pohlad oversight do we need to see in the on-field product to realize that the problems start there? This is the Glen Taylor thing all over again. Yeah, you can point at the David Kahn's of hte world...but who hired them? Who sets the practices in the executive wing? Who oversees the decision makers? The problems we've seen with this team all point back to one place. Me plugging my ears and singing "la-la-la" does absolutely nothing. Chanting "sell the team" might not either...but at least it's cathartic.

You're glossing over the effects of THIS ownership group. That's why you're wrong then and it's quite painfully wrong now to defend that stance. I don't need speculation - we know ownership DID impact the trade deadline. We know they forced the Correa move. It's likely the front office pivoted this hard knowing they had a reduced payroll coming. I guess we can at least say they got a head's up this time rather than the rug being pulled in 2023. But take stock in the many, many ways this ownership group impacts the team: It's having an impact on fan loyalty (I mean....99% of us are pissed and chanting "Sell the team") which impacts revenues (because peole tune out - looking at you attendance numbers) which impacts payrolls. There is a direct line of cause and effect from this organization's ownership and fan sentiment to the product on the field. It's having an impact on the front office - where they are retaining the same people in leadership. You know....the ones charged with development, decision-making, and performance. You keep trying to twist this as a new beginning, but none of the chairs are new on the Titanic Nick. They didn't even bother to tell us the new partners. Everyone is staying put. And that has been this ownership group's M.O. for as long as I've been a fan. I'm pretty sure they were using MS-DOS in the executive wing until about 5 years ago. You're not wrong in the sense that a do-nothing ownership group who employs good executives and has an eye for such talent can be overcome even if they are cheapskates. But that isn't the Pohlads. They clearly have a bad eye for executive choices. They have a bad business sense in how they sell their product and get it to their fans. They have a bad busines acumen that directly impacts the operations of the team. All of these things do impact the on-field product. The Pittsburgh Pirates are a monument to this. We're becoming the AL equivalent if not them already. I'm sorry...but to sit here and call that quote accurate is to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You were arguing AGAINST the idea that the narrative centered on the Pohlads and needed to change. My argument was - and is (and clearly you seem to agree now without the requisite "my bad" for your attacks last time) - the Pohlads are THE driving force behind the narrative. It may be true in other markets that ownership can be overcome. We have 34 years of evidence to the contrary here. The Pohlads are the problem here. Them staying, perpetuates all the negatives they brought with them. So now I am going to dunk on how wrong you were Nick - the message on Thursday didn't deviate. It doubled down. And that message is the central problem with the Twins in 2025. I'd sure be a lot more "excited" to use your term....if that message ACTUALLY changed. And that starts up top. Nothing else matters until it does. Not for the Minnesota Twins.

I agree...however, ownership this incompetent does impact that experience. Right-sizing the payroll being evidence #1.

So yeah....plot twist to this author's argument in July: Ownership does matter. It can be overcome by some other organizations and is sometimes overstated....but sometimes a family so terrible and incompetent owns your organization and it is THE issue.

Ah...good catch. Thank you, I thought I read he was a FA after next year. Appreciate it!

If we're deciding who you'd take off the rosters and combine the right now/going forward it's a pretty clear line for me: 1. Buxton (but the injury things don't make this the landslide I've seen stated here) 2. Churio 3. Contreras - He's a 27 year old catcher who can hit. 4 . Keaschall/Turang To me this is pretty close to a tie, Keaschall has more upside but Turang's jack-of-all-trades game has been great this year. 5. A bunch of Brewers. I haven't given up on Wallner, but he's 27. Collins, Frelick, Yelich, Durbin are all better than their Twins counterparts right now. I get the upside argument on Lewis....but that Lewis may be dead to us now. Wallner probably mixes in somewhere here, but of the next 6 or 7 guys....he's the only Twin I'm taking. I'll happily field the rest of my team as Brewers.

I'm not as down on Outman as others. Though his lack of team control is a pretty big negative. This makes a lot of sense to me - Stewart might not pitch another 80 innings in his career. He's that much of a ticking time-bomb IMO.

This is the mentality of so many billionaires in our society today in a nutshell: We've allowed them to accumulate so much wealth that they act (and in some ways do) live on a different plane of existence than the rest of us. We the Plebs are barely worth their actual consideration except when they feel it necessary to emerge from their Ivory Towers to condescendingly "address" us while they rob us of all we hold dear.

I mean....has anyone read about the bleep show that the A's are going through in moving to Vegas? You can put relocation in the "Nope, never happening" pile and forget about it. Baseball isn't healthy enough to relocate or even expand. Which is maybe the most stunning indictment one can make.

I hope Brock is able to get back. This is also why I wasn't overly concerned about the return for him.

110-120 OPS+ is a pretty significant difference. Especially when most of your lineup is hitting that way. They play a scrappy brand of baseball where they win on the margins.

*Me trying really hard to find any of these as actual silver linnings

Sure, you're always looking to improve......but having Joey Ortiz on your team stops you from having to sign Nishioka because your farm has no other SS. Or Kyle Farmer. Or whomever. Corbin Burnes wouldn't be on this team. And even if he was he'd be eating 20% of the salary to be on the injured list. Instead, Ortiz (who they probably had higher hopes for) at least gave you a floor that wasn't "Sign some dude in FA for 4M and hope to god he's not terrible". We, as Twins fans, should understand the value of that. It's also not fair to the argument to focus on Joey Ortiz and then conclude they win despite their moves. They turned a closer they weren't going to retain into one of the league's best everyday catchers. That's the kind of net win that is so tremendous you'd have to whiff multiple times to zero out the gain. Durbin being a positive player is a win for them too. Their ace is the product of trading renowned baseball star Adam Lind. So let's maybe take stock of all the moves and not just the ones that help our argument. No one is asking for the Twins to raze the team to the ground every year....but there are times to realize pivoting and bolstering your future is worth the try. You never know when that move will align with a Brice Turang, Jackson Churio, Sal Frelick, Quinn Priester call-up festival that unlocks something special. It's worth a shot if all you can do otherwise is meander your way to .500 and watch them walk for nothing. I'll point this out too - Milwaukee isn't just about selling off. They went out and got Contreras. They went out and got Yelich. They signed Hoskins. The Twins need to be willing to sell when it's time to sell, but also buy when it's time to buy. (And you are right of course that ultimately developing internal stars is priority one)

Yup, that's the part that you do have to gamble on from time to time. Take a swing at Cliff Lee. The playoffs are still a silly crapshoot, but sometimes it's worth taking a shot.

It depends on a variety of factors. A team like the Brewers isn't going to be the Dodgers and able to fill all vacancies with high end players. Think back to 2006....wouldn't you have taken a 1 WAR player over Rondell White? If the alternative to Ortiz was a guy who can't hit AND can't field (looking at you Nishioka) then that's a good way to sink an otherwise good team. Teams like the Brewers have to win along the edges. 1 WAR vs. -1 WAR at two every day positions adds up. Couple that with the fact that those players were added for guys they wouldn't have been able to resign just gives you more options. When you're a middle to lower market team, that's the game you have to play unfortunately.