TheLeviathan

I wouldn't label it as "stability" - that gives off a positive connotation. How about stagnant? Rigid? Complacent? The frame you present your argument in....is part of the argument.

Well...you did leave Contreras off that list and that would seem to be a fairly large omission. Ortiz and Durbin may not be gamebreakers but they occupy starting positions on the team as at least positive WAR players and they received them for guys they otherwise wouldn't have on the roster. Something is better than nothing. Wasn't that the main issue so often with good Twins teams in the recent past? It wasn't that they didn't have the star power or the elite players, but the dregs of their roster always held them back. (Looking at you Rondell White. Or Kyle Gibson/Martin Perez. You get the idea, no more PTSD required)

Very true, but playoff success is fickle and prone to small sample sizes. IMO....a front office/team should aim to put themselves in a good position and hope the Gods of Random Outcomes favor them for a few weeks. That's really the best you can hope for. (Especially if you can't afford to be the Dodgers)

Then the title should've been "In addition to ownership, Twins fans shouldn't expect organizational changes either" Stability, generally speaking, has a positive connotation to it. It's the wrong vibe. Poverty is "stable" too in the sense that it's hard to get out of it. Stupid decision making is "Stable" in the sense that it generally keeps repeating itself for those prone to it. As the Pohlads have done a masterful job demonstrating.

I mean....you slap a headline like that on your article.....you sorta bring it on yourself? Look, maybe there is a time to talk about the fact that there will be "stability". But today? With that headline? It's so tone deaf you can't be shocked when people read into it with their feelings.

I'm not going to dignify that title by reading it. Read the room, good god.

Mother ^*@^$*......that human looking AI-bot was trolling us the whole time!

I haven't seen anyone else lay this out, but let's look at how it appears the pieces fell: 1) Pohlads lose buckets of money on commercial real estate thanks to Covid. 2) Pohlads continue to try to squeeze the blood out of their only ripe lemon and make stupid broadcasting decisions, right size payrolls, increase ticket prices, etc. to try and offset those losses. 3) Pohlads have just enough business sense (non-zero, but not by much) to see that they've lost the fanbase due to those moves and realize there are limits to how much they can squeeze. 4) Pohlads notice that other major professional teams are selling for huge, juicy price tags. They see a way out that will help them completely offset other losses. 5) Pohlads start floating the idea out in back channels and find Justin Ishbia very interested. Conversations start. Eventually, somewhere along the way, the Twins attach 400+ million in debt to the sale. 6) Ishbia starts wondering why he's paying for the franchise and somebody else's debt. Gets cozier with the franchise he's already associated with.....backs out. Media finally gets a hold of those conversations. 7) Pohlads lie they have multiple bidders. They purposely misconstrue people interested in becoming limited partners as legitimate buyers hoping to fish out another Ishbia. Nobody rides in on their white horse. 8) Pohlads decide (due to the lack of interest in paying their debts for them by other billionaires) to keep the Twins (who they are clearly making money on), cut payroll to increase the money they are making, and get some quick cash to sell off pieces of the team to address the debt that is the center of this. 9) Pohlad's long term plan is to hope the CBA swings media revenues in their favor and protects their low allocation of funds to the payroll with a cap and a floor. They'll sell if it doesn't, hold on if it does. 10) They continue to profit. We continue to suffer.

Honestly, it was BS then and it's BS now. Manfred might as well be an IPAD on a table rolled around with AI ready to answer questions.

Said it when Ishbia backed out.....this wasn't Corporate Being Corporate that a sale fell through. This, the trade deadline, the sale....Pohlad business incompetence. All of it.

Let me dust this puppy off from March.....

@LastOnePicked Oh ****......we were right. God damn it.

So....hope for Brooks Lee still?

I'd be pretty surprised if Lopez was a Twins come opening day next year. One of the lefty corner OFs probably needs a new home too.

I think Travis Adams might take the Cole Sands route. Marco Raya seems destined for the bullpen.

Villain? Absolutely not. But I've been all done with his vibe for awhile. Give me Buxton's vibe. Keaschall's vibe. Ryan's vibe. These are the dudes I want leading the Twins clubhouse. Correa's polished politician style I believe was totally genuine. He'll make a lot of money being in Front Office's spitting out word salads to the press in his future. Probably will be really good at it. But that's not the vibe I want for this next wave.

I would like to offer a third path than the one being argued here: 1) Selling off Correa to pinch pennies is "shameful" in the sense that it was largely done on ownership's behest and that money won't be reinvested. All true. I, for one, endorse this criticism and have never once downplayed the role ownership deserves in our criticism. But if we're going to take runs at people about ownership now, it might be relevant to point out that this is also what @Nick Nelson has had to say about ownership when some of us tried to point out the negative role they play in this team's present and future.   (Also....a different tune on Correa from what I can tell) 2. Brooks Lee has been mostly terrible. For long stretches of time. He doesn't look like the heir apparent to SS. He should be the guy logging time there for the next two months, but my confidence is pretty shaken in him. They should not have dealt Correa to make room for him. However.....3) 30 is an age that is quickly approaching the SS age cliff both offensively and defensively. His feet/lower body already seem to be a nagging issue. I have no problem with dumping Correa in a normal circumstance. The problem, as it has been for a long time, is that our situation is not normal. Our ownership will not reinvest that money. That said - from a baseball perspective I'm mostly fine with the move. I'm not sad that the path is open for Culpepper. I think we might have got out from an albatross at the right time much like we did with Donaldson. I just would've liked to see something in return rather than just a salary dump. (I'm also of the opinion that while Correa is not a bad guy, I think his vibe is one that I'm sorta glad is gone)

I get it that there will be raw emotions after a deadline like the one we had.....but this team is playing fun baseball again. I'm going to keep repeating it for anyone out there that still needs to hear it: The other ship wasn't sinking - it had been sunk. For a long time. Enjoy these guys. Enjoy that the next wave may not be as far away as we thought. They're above .500 without Buxton and they're doing it against competent teams. Let's hope these are building block months that keep showing positive signs like the last week has!

I think that will force a depth move.

I hope this comes off right: Lee needs to work on his body this offseason. He looks dumpy. I can't shake that the extra weight he seems to carry is hurting bat speed and agility. He doesn't need to look like Marty Cordova....but a little sleeker may do a world of good. When you squint you see the athletic tools, but so far they just haven't been there.

You can't convince me from that picture that Mick Abel isn't 57 years old.

Yeah....this isn't a good look for the players. It makes Manfred look sympathetic and the majority of fans are going to want the owners to win on the salary cap and revenue sharing issues. Harper being aggressively the opposite of that isn't going to play well. The league needs shared media revenues, a floor, a cap, rebuild the arbitration system, more money for minor league players, and probably a dozen other things. I expect to miss a season of baseball and I expect that I will feel terrible in that I mostly will side with the owners if the players settle on "no to any proposal with a cap"

This is the deal I liked least of the deadline moves, but ultimately it's going to come down to what the Twins get our of Roden and Rojas. In a year or two if Rojas is a strong lefty in our rotation.....then dealing a reliever (no matter how good they are) to get him will be a steal. I mostly didn't like it because the team had dealt so much from the bullpen that Varland felt like a stabilizing piece. But if the team is confident that the return they got is worth it....then TBD. I'll wait to see how things play out. I won't, however, be angry about it because Louie is from here. I get that reaction in the clubhouse, but that doesn't factor into my decision at all. And it shouldn't factor into Falvey's either.

Days like today are why I really wanted a selloff. I don't endorse all the moves (Varland for sure) but this team needed a makeover. They have been largely terrible for a long time. These last six games have just felt different. I don't expect them to play above .500 ball or even .500 ball, but hopefully they keep fielding lineups that pressure the opposition and make them work.