Johnny Ringo

That's your takeaway of what Harvey was known for?

Don't fear.

That's where we differ. I don't care for anyone guilty of sexual assault, regardless of their balance sheet.

OMG, yeah Hollywood money is virtuous and good and earned through art, not like that nasty banking stuff. Bill Pohlad does have his name on a few pictures, but Harvey Weinstein has his name on many, many more.

If anyone wants to say the Pohlads have been bad owners and have been ridiculously cheap and cruelly indifferent to the fans, I will buy the beer. But this is just innuendo spaghetti thrown at the wall, rife with factual errors.

I am sorry that we disagree. There are a number of problems with this article. Do you want to move on next to this one? "As one article noted, “None of the profits that Pohlad had accumulated over the years from [NWA’s parent company]'s relationship with NWA were to be considered in the bankruptcy process.” On the long list of people who lost money when Northwest passed through bankruptcy, you won't find Pohlad. " Problems: --Misstates what Pohlad actually owned (not NWA's parent company) ; --Uses a website called Against the Current as a definitive source: --Lacks understanding of the bankruptcy code and the guard rails of fraudulent transfer and undue enrichment. There is no evidence that Pohlad received preferential treatment in this bankruptcy. There are about ten more turkeys in this article. I am not about defending the Pohalds. But even unpopular owners deserve facts.

Saying that all bankers and rich people are evil is as ignorant as saying that all (fill in the race or religion) are (fill in disgusting pejorative). That point of view is utterly hypocritical. I am sure that you would decry racism or sexism but you embrace classism like an old friend. If you don't understand that contradiction, I don't know what to say.

" Pohlad had arranged a deal in 1989 to sell the Twins to baseball commissioner Peter V. Ueberroth for $464 million, but Lorenzo pushed back and killed the deal." Selling the Twins in 1989 for $464 million would be a nice piece of business. Is there no editorial oversight at Twins Daily? Not only is this piece an assault on facts (the line above is clearly wrong) and the English language, it lacks even a rudimentary understanding of finance and the bankruptcy code. I am not defending the Pohalds in any sense. But Mr. Labuza is way over his skis here. He had a similar problem when he wrote about the Bally bankruptcy. He seems to think he understands things that he clearly doesn't. I spent years in the bankruptcy space and this is like a doctor watching Doogie Howser operate on a patient. He is using a rubber chicken rather than a scalpel. Do these articles have anything to do with the Twins or baseball? Not really. Maybe they should find their way to I Hate Bankers Daily or I Hate Rich Guys Daily. I am sure the readership is much bigger there.

Royce is serially injured, seems to have an attitude problem and has no defensive position. He was drafted as an athlete but has bulked up into a physically (and seemingly, mentally) inflexible whiff machine. Further, the last thing ownership wants to do, as they look to sell, is saddle themselves with anything that looks vaguely like this contract. The Pohlads wouldn't do it in a million years and from a pure baseball perspective, I don't blame them.

In response to this likelihood, I have adapted the lyrics to Dave Loggins' immortal 1974 hit. Please come to Ft Myers for the spring time I'm stayin' here with some friends and they've got lots of room You can pitch in the snow in April And you’ll be payin’ Walz’s taxes soon Please join the chaos He said "No, would you come home to that?"

I haven't listened to the podcast and I am not sure that I will because listening to 40 minutes of shilling for the Patreon in an hour podcast is honestly kind of rough, (But the Pohlads are shameless money grubbers, right?) John and Aaron don't believe that baseball teams should be run like real businesses and so maybe they think they shouldn't be sold like real businesses either. Let's sack those nasty investment bankers and bring in those fairies with pixie dust that allow increasingly sanctimonious podcasters to ignore a complete loss of television revenue. Their reality is much more pleasant. The truth is baseball is going through a revenue crisis triggered by the implosion of the regional sports network model. But that is a subject for another day. In the real world, the DSP/Falvey timing is not odd at all for a variety of reasons. This move somewhat improves the 2025 income statement for the Twins as the new GM and Falvey are cheaper than DSP/Falvey and Levine. I am guessing that statement is pretty red right now. Standard window dressing in a sale. (Explains the Levine thing too.) DSP is a Pohlad guy who would not survive new ownership. (Falvey shouldn't either but I digress.) But also and maybe importantly, the MLB office may have strongly urged or even insisted that ownership now have a front guy and the team have one and they aren't the same . Time to pick jerseys! This practice is common in a sale process because those two parties may have conflicts of interest over the course of the transaction. I have no inside information here, just experience in these matters. I have not consulted with the fairies on my theories. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Moneyball is a truly great movie. I sometimes vacillate in my view that it is one of the five best baseball movies of all-time and a movie not really about baseball at all, but about the universal struggle of decent people slugging it out in an unfair and uncaring world. In any case, its the first film where I thought, "Damn. Brad Pitt can really act." Little Big League and Back to the Minors are lightweight and inoffensive fare I guess but they are noteworthy in that the Twins allowed themselves to look like great fools for what you presume was only a few dollars. So in that sense, they can be seen as haunting and as a harbinger for the next twenty years.

From what I hear, Max is already in the HOF with the ladies.

I appreciate the comments sincerely. But I think the implications of this article are far more insidious than Joe Blow stinks at the plate.

Let me premise this query to our moderator with a statement to all others: I carry no water for ownership. I don't think they are great owners, probably not even good owners but they aren't the devil either. Now the question: is it the view of TD and the moderator that the inflammatory title of this article, the contents of it and a prominent display of a photo of one of the owners does not qualify as a personal attack? It is a serious question. Note to the TD writer: you might want to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. Just a thought.