BH67

19-40 in their last 59 games. Your optimism is warranted, Eric, but it's not worth my attention to watch it unfold.

A Rally Groundhog might suffice for a tourniquet...

A city in the northeastern US has a finance director that has just completed an eight-year trek from the edge of state intervention to a Moody's credit rating upgrade. She's an Indian immigrant. And as her predecessor I promoted her into leadership to demonstrate and increase her skill set. And I didn't care about her gender, religious views, skin color or any other personal preferences. She was obviously the best person for the path ahead. DEI is necessary and important because for many companies it is a compulsory corrective for engaging underrepresented populations that they would not otherwise do. But a wise manager focused on merit and talent doesn't need DEI to do what is right.

How would you assume in any obvious way that I don't?

Matthew, Jackie Robinson was not a DEI hire. He was a highly talented player that merited a starting place on an MLB team, with racism being an intractable and evil barrier until Branch Rickey dared boldly to break it. Jackie and his equally amazing wife Rachel bore the bitterness and threats to their lives to blaze the trail for others to travel. Another African American player, Curt Flood, sacrificed the end of his career to set in motion the end to the reserve clause and enable all major leaguers free agency and nearly unlimited wealth. He was brave, smart and selfless, too. Loudly celebrating today the fantastic human that is Jackie Robinson should not be cheapened by your allusions to modern-day racial unrest, legitimate as that issue is. You admirably decry social injustice in your posts, but your consistently scolding tone is improper to me who has walked this earthly path much longer than you. Please stop that. I want to mention one other African American trailblazer with a Minnesota connection. When Willie Mays blazed through a few weeks with the Minneapolis Millers in the,spring of 1951, the starting third baseman was 37-year-old Ray Dandridge. Ray was a career Negro Leaguer who at the end of his playing career was signed by the Giants, and he hoped to get one shot in the majors. His wisdom and playing skill influenced Mays and many others. And in the autumn of 1987, as the Twins were winning their first world championship, Cooperstown called Ray to welcome him into baseball's Hall of Fame. Many of us then alive cheered and recognized the correction of an injustice. We always have, and will.

G-Man was the sparkplug that lifted his teammates to outstanding performance in the 1987 playoffs. His tag of Darrell Evans in ALCS Game 4 is forever etched in my memory. I always yearn for someone like this to be present on every Twins team, but it rarely happens. Thank you, Al. And thank you, G-Man.

I just returned from the indolence of last September to look around. Nothing's changed. I'm outta here.

Thank you, Senator Dirksen. Now -- I welcome some clarity about the commitment the Twins have to remain in Minnesota per the Target Field lease and whether a change in ownership could change that. I default to an expectation that a new owner would move the team, though fan interest could increase considerably with a new owner.

Ah, yes -- "the league's wealth needs to be radically redistributed.." I have no desire to rehash excursions down ideological rabbit holes that have accompanied such statements ere now. Redistribution of existing big-market revenue is dead on arrival, but a more competitive and systematic direction of new streams of media revenue toward smaller market clubs, no matter the location generating such revenue, must occur if MLB is to exist meaningfully in the future. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum equation. Indeed, Rob Manfred's changes to game rules seek increased consumer interest and revenue even if their competitive effects are contentious. Absent such initiatives, small-market teams cannot exist competitively for much longer in any event.

I did a doubletake of the headline to make sure I saw the "c-o-u" in "Encouraged."

"The damage actually might have been greater, but Kirby Puckett—who led the majors in double plays grounded into in 1991—grounded into a double play right before Chili came up." What the...? What's he doing in the lineup, then? He'll probably bat 3-for-18 before Game 6, too! Like anything good could come after that! Sure hope we'll learn our lesson when Correa does this later on! /s (PS: I just watched video of Gaetti, Evans, and Brinkman on a pickoff attempt. I'll be smiling all week.)

Too bad they don't pay attention to them, perhaps? I think I have "knowledgeable schmo" bona fides on many subjects, too, but that doesn't get me much gravitas where decisions are made. 😏

It's a term used to explain that the simplest explanation for something is likely the correct one.

Touché, and the same to the others with whom I had spirited discussion today. I'm thus inclined to think they hoped otherwise despite the evidence and didn't have a Plan B, and also that they lacked the foresight needed to understand trends in streaming revenue. As you and I discussed earlier about the salary dump, that seems to me the only logical way the Pohlads got here.

It seems the Pohlads didn't grasp the magnitude of it. I doubt they were alone among their peers.

First, if the economic effects of this were sufficiently known three years in advance, the Pohlads hoped for a different outcome that didn't pan out, and now they want to sell the team. So perhaps they understood the issue but not the ramifications or timing of the economics, and they weren't the only business people caught flatfooted here. That doesn't contradict my basic understanding. Second, why the derision per a subject so vicarious to daily life?

No. The unpleasantness of reading these things comes from being told that I'm a wishful thinker when I make assumptions based on what I understand to be true.

Maybe not. But that's the crux of what we're talking about.

Short of the investment banking sector, I doubt anyone anticipated that with sufficient foresight,

Question: And yet, one year after signing Correa, the Twins stripped down their payroll around him, sabotaging a playoff-caliber squad that unraveled in the shortstop's absence. Correa was deprived of a chance to deliver more postseason heroics, and as we look ahead to a reshaped competitive landscape in the Central next year, ownership seems inclined to follow the same inexplicable path. Answer: This is where I just sort of get lost in trying to grasp the logic and mindset behind what's happening. Look, if finances and the bottom line are the guiding factors for the Pohlads, I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I understand. It's called Occam's Razor, Nick. My guess is that the pending Diamond Sports implosion wasn't known at the time of Correa's signing. The insistence of many knowledgeable voices here of something more nefarious at work has made reading Twins Daily insights unpleasant for me. But that's the cost of admission.

In which case, here's an example for the commentariat: If David Popkins arrived in 1978, the year after Rod Carew batted .388 (1.019 OPS), what would be different in the '78 Carew under his tutelage from the real one (.333 and .853) in terms of technique? Apply the same to Borgschulte if you wish, and incorporate direction from Falvey. Asking a lot, but I appreciate specifics.

Two big unknowns per investor desirability are a more equal distribution of MLB media/streaming revenue and a more restrictive salary cap. Both seem necessary for someone who wants to pay $2 billion for the privilege. But an even bigger obstacle to me is the randomness of success in the MLB playoffs since the field was expanded to 12 teams. Ultimate success in MLB is more prone to chance than in any other North American sport.

In light of this morning's news about the Pohlads possibly selling the team, I think you summarized this perfectly.

Saying that the Pohlads never cared about baseball is indefensible. Forty years ago, their intervention probably kept the Twins in Minnesota. Their desire to make considerable profit is front and center, but I would expect that of any business owner. And acquiring Carlos Correa speaks well of their desire to have a competitive product presently. All that said, their response to the end of the 2024 season told me that they had reached too comfortable an acceptance of status quo performance without consequence. They need to sell for that reason most of all, and that will rekindle my interest in the 2025 Twins. But making ad hominem broadsides about them is disrespectful at the very least.

From a tax standpoint, that makes sense. On the expenditure side, I surmise that ownership determined how much they would spend on payroll over multiple years to ensure profitability while the new media plan took effect. For simplicity, let's say the aggregate spend totals $260 million across 2024 and 2025. Not cutting payroll in 2024 would result in $160M payroll that year but only $100M in 2025. Both years would necessarily include the salaries for Buxton and Correa, and the second year would possibly include a big increase in Lopez's salary. In such a case, paring salary in 2024 and keeping it constant in 2025, at the same $260M total spend, would give the Twins a plausible playoff chance both years at the expense of a World Series run in 2024 only. It's the only sensical explanation to me, and I may be giving the Pohlads too much credit.