LA Vikes Fan

No. The guy to swing for from Boston is Abreu. Not worth Lopez or Ryan, but worth Ober plus a good pitching prospect not named Prielipp, Abel, or Matthews,

I don't think you and I are so far apart. I really do question whether the current "core" is good enough even if augmented by 3-5 Solid or better MLB players like O 'Hearn and Fairbanks. Still, I see enough to make it worth one more shot, particularly with a new manager. What I would like to see is the addition of a middle(ish) of the order FA bat like O'Hearn or a trade for a guy like Duran or Abreu, which I know means giving up multiple pitchers since I would not trade Ryan or Lopez for either player or anyone like them. It would have to be Ober plus a Matthews type prospect. Sign 2 FA relievers, one of whom has to be a potential closer like Fairbanks or Johnson, or at least at the level of Seranthoney Dominguez, plus a lesser LH guy like Coulombe or Rogers, Festa moves to the bullpen as the #2 closer. Lopez, Ryan, and Buxton stay but only for now. If the Twins are competitive and look like they have potential in the first half of 2026, you roll the dice and maybe even add at the deadline. If not, the bloodletting begins in earnest. It is 2025 all over again or maybe even bigger. Ryan, Lopez, Jeffers, Lewis, and Buxton are all available as is Bell, O'Hearn and the veteran relievers you signed. Stock up on highly ranked prospects and point to 2028. In other words, give it one more half season to see if these guys can contend and give them a chance by adding some talent. If they can't, blow it all up and re-stock for 2-3 years down the road.

Pretty much everything.

Preach. Ownership has a shot here to create a new narrative. It won't be easy, and it won't be cheap, but it has to be done. Better not blow it because there may not be another chance any time soon.

I think the hard part here is what can Tom do relatively quickly to show there is a change. Also, what is the baseline from which we measure the change? Changes in the business side, back office, etc. may be meaningful but we won't know that, so those kinds of things don't change the fanbase's perception of the team or indicate a shift to a "go big or go home" from the previous half-measures. In other words, he may be doing big things that we can't see or don't understand so we think it's just more of the same. For example, Falvey said he has $20M to spend. That may be a big move from before - Joe may have said don't spend any money but we'll never know that is a change. That puts Tom in a tough spot - he needs to do something visible to show that things really ae changing, but you don't want to do something just to do something and Falvey may not be the guy to pull off anything big even if you want to do something big. Two obvious answers. The first is improve the on the field product with one or more free agent signings or a trade. For a FA, there isn't much left assuming we aren't in on the $15M plus guys or guys to far on the wrong side of 30 other than relievers. The name that stands out is Ryan O'Hearn. He would be a big upgrade at 1B and Bell can move to DH/backup 1B. That means Wallner in RF (not ideal) with Roden/GG/Jenkins/Emma/Fedko either in AAA or on the bench. However, if we did sign O'Hearn and then cut/traded Larnach and Outman so Martin and Roden are the 3rd/4th OF, we've really improved the team while still leaving open a spot for one of the young guys to take now or by mid-summer. Same if we made a trade for a quality OF like Abreu in Boston by giving up a real SP like Ober, SWR, or Bradley plus a strong developmental guy. Sign at least one good reliever like Fairbanks or Pierce Johnson and a lesser light like Coulombe or even Taylor Rogers and it looks like you're at least trying. If we got the equivalent of O'Hearn or Abreu plus 2 quality relivers, then I would start to think "maybe things are changing". The second is to engage with the fanbase. Get your ass out of the owner's box and sit in the stands with the fans. Rotate sections and talk to fans so you see what motivates the people who care enough to buy tickets. Give free or heavily discounted seats to organizations, schools, boy and girl scout troops, the Y, whoever you can. A kid gets a report card of all As or even half As and half Bs, he or she gets two bleacher tickets so they can go to a game with their Mom or Dad. Mom and Dad or group members get a coupon, so everyone gets a free or very cheap hot dog and a soda and the chance to buy a hat for $5. The Dodgers sell a simple kid's hat for $10 at the stadium, and they sell thousands a year. All of sudden, half the kids in school are wearing the hat. The kids, groups, and Mom or Dad will love you for it. Do it and publicize the crap out of it. Fill the seats even if they aren't paying much but fill the seats. A baseball game with 30,000 fans is so much more electric and fun that people actually want to come back. It also motivates the players. Don't be afraid to take criticism and deliver a consistent message of "we haven't been good enough. We are going to get better. Give us a chance and you'll see" and then deliver. Sign kids up for the kid's club and then give them something that actually has value - a chance to win tickets, stories, chances to meet players, etc. Go old school if you have to but get people engaged. Sorry for the rant, but that's what I would do.

I agree. I'm not sure why we can't acknowledge what appears to be the obvious - Royce Lewis the is the Twins primary 3B unless he shows he can't hit. He did not hit well last year, although better post ASB (.723 OPS) vs. pre ASB (.585 OPS). He hit well in 2023, not bad in 2024. He hit well in the 2023 playoffs so he's shown some ability to hit under pressure. Lewis will get 2026 as the primary 3B and probably 2027 unless his hitting falls off a cliff. Lee, on the other hand, has not shown that he can hit well enough to start on a MLB team. He will get a shot at SS, mostly because we don't really have anybody else for the start of the season, and maybe he gets better and locks down the position. Lee is much more at risk of falling out of the infield mix in becoming a UTL than Lewis is. Let's stop ignoring the obvious and projecting an infield with anyone other than Lewis at 3B. They are talking about Keaschall in the OF because we may get to a position where Culpepper shows he can handle and needs to be in a starting spot. If Keaschall can play well in the outfield, that opens up the possibility of him playing RF or LF to keep his bat and speed in the lineup, while giving Culpepper a spot at either SS or 2B to get him in the lineup. Alternatively, Lee can go to the bench which is where his bat plays unless it improves (I think it will). We also have Austin Martin, and the host of AAA OFs who potentially could have an OF spot -GG, Emma, Jenkins, and Fedko. Oh, and let's not forget that Matt Wallner is actually the incumbent RF even if he really projects more as a DH/5th OF, and that's assuming he can actually hit.235 or better rather than the lousy .202 he had last year. Having all of these guys available potentially for the SS/2B/RF/LF and DH spots is actually a good thing for a team that needs to get better. We need to have lots of candidates who have a shot at being the guy for a spot. I do think we need to get one thing straight at least for 2026 - absent injury, Royce the is the everyday third baseman. Let's not concoct scenarios where he somehow disappears or moves to another position, particularly if those scenarios are designed to find a place for Brooks Lee to play. That ain't happen unless Lewis falls off the cliff at the plate.

That article says the Pirates 2024 numbers are - revenue is $292.4, expenses are $294.6M for an operating loss of $2.2M. Makes sense to me.

That's a a good point if the $210M number is accurate. I can't find that anywhere. I did find an article that said $110m in revenue sharing per team, and I've seen "estimates" ranging from $50-&70M for the Royals to "somewhere between $100 and $200 million per team", a range so broad as to make the number almost meaning less. The Baseball America article says the Pirates bought in $84M in gate revenues which supports the idea that they cover payroll from the gate since they have such a low payroll. The article it is based on says the Pirates pay in $70.4M into the revenue sharing pool and pull out $121.9M for a positive $51.6M addition to revenue. Remember, the way the revenue-sharing pool works is that each team puts in 48% of their local operating revenue into the revenue-sharing pool and then each team pulls out the same amount. So the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. put in over $200 or $300 million apiece and pull out the same $121.9 million that the Pirates pullout after only putting in $70.4 million. Bottom line is I can't find anywhere that says Pirates get $210 million in additional revenue from the revenue-sharing pool. Maybe there's something that says that's what each team pulled out but doesn't take into account what they put in? I don't know, I just can't find that $210M number anywhere. Can you tell me what the sources? Here are links to the articles I reference, hopefully since I suck at computers and might not be giving you what you need to access the articles: https://dkpittsburghsports.com/team/site-stuff/feed?page=0&content=pirates-losing-money-bob-nutting-investigation-mlb-dk https://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under the new collective bargaining,million USD%2C if not more ttps://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under%20the%20new%20collective%20bargaining,million%20USD%2C%20if%20not%20more

I think you misread the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pirates covered their on the field payroll from gate revenue in most years, especially since their payroll has been in the bottom 5, normally between $70M and $90M. That leaves about $171.7M in additional expense not covered in the reported case of the Pirates. That money is for the minor league system, front office and support staff, travel, player development, logistics, draft and signing bonuses, outside legal and accounting, admin expenses, etc. Payroll at 30-35% of total revenue is about right. That article doesn't say the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone, that article says the Pirates cover their on the field payroll for players from gate revenue. In other words, the Pirates cover roughly 30-35% of their overall expenses from gate revenue. Whether they are profitable depends on other revenue sources. The idea that the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone isn't correct. Look, I'd be happy to get out the pitchforks on the Pohlads if they were making a killing on the Twins and not re-investing. The numbers I've been able to find don't show that. They show revenue of roughly $342M in 2023, and revenue of $324M in 2025 against expenses of $300-330M. That all tracks with the published Pirates and Braves numbers since the Twins run higher payrolls than the Pirates and much lower than the Braves, and those two teams run between $171.7M (Pirates) and $256M (Braves) in non-payroll expenses. If you run the numbers that I've seen in places like Forbes, the Twins are probably a little better than break even in 2026 with a $110-120M payroll, with maybe a 5% gross margin. If somebody a has complete numbers that show something else, I'd love to see them.

I agree with this to a point but I just don't know the answer to the short term 1B issue this team has. I would love for them to trade for a Colby Mayo or even Ryan Mountcastle and commit to trying to find a long term answer at the position. I'd even support signing Ryan O'Hearn to a 2-3 year deal at the predicted $11-15M a year, but it sounds like he doesn't want to come to MN because he wants to go to a contender. Failing that kind of trade or signing, we just don't have a youngish 1B on the way up to play. I get trading for a 1 year stop gap at 1B unless we are going to commit to moving Larnach there (and teach him to hit LH pitching) or move Wallner there (my choice), but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. I'd love to hear that we have someone else in the system but I just don't see that guy.

Guys, if the Arraez of 21 019-2023 was available I would try to sign him in a heartbeat. The problem is that guy is not who Arraez is any more. He's a slow, plodding singles hitter who hit .292 with a .327 OBP and .392 SLG with a 99 OPS+ in 2025 after going .314/.396/.392 in 2024. His OPS plus the last 4 years? 107, 100, 108, 99, i.e, basically a league average guy who is a lousy fielder with no power and no SB potential. In other words, in 2025 he was less than Austin Martin at the plate without the upside from stolen bases Martin has, can't field a position whereas Martin is an above average LF from all the stats, and he is 10-12 times the Austin Martin price. If you don't want Martin starting every day, you don't want Arraez on your team. Greggory is right, the only sane argument for bringing him back is if you can get him back to what he was when he was in MN. The objective evidence says you can't. Is Josh Bell any better? Yes, although not a lot better in the field on the basepaths, but Bell brings 20-25 HR power and RBI potential that Arraez doesn't have. If you gotta choose between those 2 for a 1 year deal, Bell is the better choice and it isn't really very close. Look, I get that we all want the team to get better, many of us would question (or hate on) Falvey if he signed Aaron Judge or cured cancer, and at least I have very positive nostalgic visions of Arraez when he was in MN. Unfortunately, those visions don't win baseball games. Arraez isn't that guy any more. Falvey may only have clearly won 2 trades in his career but Arraez for Lopez was one of them. Luis won't help us much this year and he's not along term answer for after this year. I don't think Bell will help a lot either, but he's going to help more, was cheaper, and will be easier to trade because of his track record and power. Let's not forget Bell hit .267/.353/.489(.842) after the All Star break last year and had a 110 OPS+ for the season after a lousy start. Picking up Bell may turn out to be a mistake, but picking up Arraez would definitely be a mistake IMHO.

Agreed. Lee stunk at 2B last year. He's either a SS or a UTL. Give Keaschall a chance to lock down 2B. Martin hit well after 8/1, give him a chance to lock down LF. Batting order is Martin (.374 OBP in 2025), Keaschall (.302/.382/.445(.827)), and Buxton (35 HRs, .878 OPS). 4 hole is a fight between Bell(1B) and Wallner(DH), with the loser hitting 6. Jeffers and Lewis hit 5 and 7 depending on production, Lee 8 and the 9 spot goes to however wins the RF competition between Roden (he'll get the first shot), GG, Emma, and Jenkins. Squint hard and its a middle of the pack offense. Squint really hard and the RF winner turns out to be #4 hitter, everyone else moves back one, and we're a top 10 offense. Look at it clearly and it's better than last year but still not too good.

This. Why the hate on this move? If the hate is because "we should have signed someone better like Ryan O'Hearn", I get it. I would have preferred that also. But the hate seems to be "we're blocking young talent". There is no young talent the plays first base and is ready to play in 2026. Clemens is old "talent", Julien is failed "talent", and the guys who played IB and AAA are "probably don't have MLB quality talent". As for playing Keaschall at 1B, why would we do that now? He certainly wasn't great at 2B last year but he wasn't terrible and what time he could be a better-than-average defensive 2B. Newsflash – he ain't blocking anybody either. Lee is actually a better SS than 2B (he stunk at 2B last year) and the jury is still out on whether he can hit enough, Payton Eeles is gone, Fitzgerald is over 30, and Tanner Schobel has yet to conquer AAA so he is unlikely to be MLB quality in 2026. IF Culpeper gets to MN this year, it won't be until at least July and in the unlikely event that he is blocked by spotless health and stellar performance from Keaschall, Lee and Lewis (wouldn't that be dreamy), we can trade Bell or Keaschall could also potentially play in the OF. Look, this move hardly makes us instant contenders but it's incremental improvement AND suggests we aren't punting to a complete tear down. Beats the crap out of trading Lopez, Buxton, and Ryan for AA and A ball prospects, that's for sure.

Do you like Mayo or Mountcastle better? Mayo has the high upside allure but a bad MLB track record. Mountcastle has faded the last 2 years, bit has shown he can hit MLB pitching. Tough choice

It seems to me that Baltimore signing Alonso really means that Mountcastle is available. I could see the Twins trading for Mountcastle as a RH 1B. The question is the price. Baltimore is going all in this year so trading a prospect for Mountcastle seems unlikely to be enough, but the Orioles do need starting pitching. How about a trade of Ober for Mountcastle plus a prospect? Both are guys with some decent track record coming off a down year. We get the prospect because a starting pitcher is just worth more than a 1B.

i hear your argument and it has some merit but I see 2 good reasons to continue to hold the franchise if I'm the Pohlads. The most obvious is the run up in franchise value. It's like owning a house you rent out. Maybe the rent does nothing more than cover the mortgage, taxes, and insurance, or leaves yo with a slight positive every month. It's still worth owning as long as its value is going up every year and not worth it when that stops. That dovetails with the Pohlads behavior; they kept the franchise as it went up in value and then tried to sell it when they thought the value rise would stop. They just overpriced it for the market, so they took on two LPs (we think) and undoubtedly will put it back on the market unless franchise values start rising again. I don't think that's likely short term, so my guess is the Twins are either bought by one of the new LPs or back on the market after the new CBA is signed. The second is the reason most of these billionaire types buy teams - the prestige and ego gratification. Think about it this way. How many people in the US own the majority or all of a professional sports franchise? 100? 150? 200? Now cut that to the big 4 in order of prestige, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. Given the cross ownership in many cities between leagues, we are now probably down below 100, maybe to 75, people who own enough of a team to be the "ownership face" of the team. Limited partners/behind the scenes partial owners don't count. Owning a major sport pro team gives one some serious billionaire flex. You get to sit in the owner's box at games, go to the meetings, sit on committees (like Jim Pohlad on the CBA negotiating committee), get tickets to other sports events like the Super Bowl, go on TV and sound important, talk the press if you want, etc. So I see a good business reason to own the team and a good ego reason. You could argue that ownership should put some of the increased vague into payroll but almost none of them do that unless they have a bunch of cash sitting around and even then, most don't. Besides, it's just not good business to rob Peter to pay Paul; something the Pohlads have learned. They did that with the Twins, wound up with too much debt, and had to take on partners.

I'm with Mike. The important thing is that next year's starting OF should be Buxton (CF), Martin (LF), and Roden (RF), with Wallner as the DH and occasional RF. We need a backup CF so maybe Outman unfortunately makes the team. If Roden or Martin falter by May/June (or there is an injury), GG, Jenkins or Emma comes up to take their place in the order justified by their 2025 and 2026 production. Right now it's the order above but that can change next year. When they come up, they play every day. They don't sit on the bench so Outman can play; he is a backup OF only. Love to replace Outman, but don't know with who. Andujar makes sense IF he can be a regular 1B. If he can't, we would have to sacrifice Roden or Martin to play Andujar because Wallner has to go back to RF. That is too high a price to pay to add Andujar as a DH. Also kills the OF defense because Wallner isn't good out there. 2026 is about finding the guys who will patrol the OF with Buxton in 2027 and 2028 from Martin, Roden, GG, Jenkins, Emma, and Fedko. Play them and find out.

Hard to say. We'll know in about 5 years. Let's chat then,

It's not the cash that's the victory. It's the getting of a decent prospect by simply taking somebody that the Giants wanted and sending him over. The $72,500 is just gravy.

Exactly. The Twins paid the $100,000 Rule 5 fee to get a guy the Giants just paid a $150,000 to sign. We keep Carabello until all of his rights are expired in about 8 years. The Giants keep Susac IF they keep him on the MLB roster for the entire 2026 season or they have to give him back. Seems like a good deal to me.

You may have seen the math I did above. I'm guessing that the team makes some money in a good year, loses a little in a down year, and basically breaks about even or operates at a slight profit over the longer 5-7 year haul. In other words, I think they spend what they get out of the team but don't add a lot to that, except maybe investing in payroll if they think they have a playoff team and can bank on getting their money back form an increase in attendance in the short term leading to increased revenue. That explains the up and down in the payroll and the unwillingness to invest beyond what the business generates. I don't think we have a bunch of fat cats burning Twins generated dollar bills to light their cigars while they drink vintage champagne, but I also don't think the Pohlads are reaching into their own pockets in a vanity play like Steve Cohen of the Mets. In other words, they are acting like rational businesspeople, not the win at all cost spend my own money owner we all wish we had. Let's face it, the real money in owning a baseball team is the increase in franchise value. The problem is you can't spend that increase unless you sell the team or borrow against the franchise. We now see the flaws in the borrowing approach. The unfortunate news is that we shouldn't expect a big rise in spending unless attendance improves or TV revenue spikes. The better news is that by the Twins selling limited shares, we may be spared a complete tear down and a team that looks like Pittsburg or Oakland/Sacramento/Vegas.

This is the big question that without an answer really makes the Pohlads are cheap mantra kind of meaningless. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, the Twins revenue is likely above $300m and below $350M now after the collapse of the RSN model. Forbes estimated their 2023 revenue at $342M with an operating profit of $19M, and estimated revenue for 2025 at $324M net of Target Field related payments. Don't forget that the Twins contributed $175M to the Target Field construction - the narrative that "taxpayers built them a ballpark" is only partially correct. So what happens to that $324M? Well, they have debt of $425-450M so a lot goes to debt service. But let's pretend that doesn't exist or will be gone in the future due to taking on limited partners. The team payroll last year was about $130M - started at $145M, ended at $95M, the $130M is actual cash out the door. Pittsburg's 2024 numbers show they had another $171.5M in expenses for administration, minor league teams, signing bonuses, salaries, travel, back office, etc, including stadium costs. Atlanta had $595M in revenue, $504M in expenses, of which $238M was the team payroll, so the Braves had $256M in non-payroll expenses. Let's be helpful to the Pohlads are cheap side and say that the Twins' non-payroll expenses are a little more than Pittsburg but a lot less than Atlanta, so $180-$200M. The Twins are bigger spenders in the international draft, coaches salaries, on the minors, etc., than Pittsburgh, but nowhere near Atlanta. That puts the Twins total expenses at anywhere from $310m - $330M for 2025, possibly more, unlikely to be less. That would leave at most $14M in operating profit, or less than 5%, and could result in an operating loss for 2025. In other words, most likely the Twins as a business basically broke even before debt service on the $425M in debt. Now it's fair to say that at least some if not most of that debt is from unrelated businesses so that's on ownership, which is why didn't count it. Still, if these numbers are even close the point is the Twins last year did not make much if any money, even after selling of half the team at the trade deadline. In fact, selling off half the team is how they broke even or limited their losses. If they hadn't, they would have had another $25M in payroll and would have operated at a loss if the revenue and expense numbers are right. Look, there's a lot of things we don't know so this is speculative, but I'd be willing to bet these numbers are within 10% or reality. Also, this is only operating profit, it does not account for any increase in value of the team as an asset. So where does this back of the envelope math leave us? Well, let's assume that (1) the new limited partners clear out the debt, (2) the 2025 revenues and 2026 revenues are roughly the same (could easily be much less based on comparative attendance and sales of streaming rights), (3) the team is not going to spend any increase in team value on the team for the simple reason that they have to sell to realize that increase in value and could make a lot more money taking that value and investing it in the stock market, and (4) they would want to make at least a 7-10% operating profit (good luck with that). The current payroll is $95M, and the other expenses in 2026 are closer to the $200m mark if only for inflation but let's say $190M. That totals $285M on a $324M revenue base, leaving $39M. It's unreasonable to think they won't want at least some operating margin for unforeseen expenses and some profit, so let's be greedy to us, not the Pohlads, and give them a margin of 5% of revenue, or $16M. That leaves them $23M to up the payroll to around $118M. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? And keep in mind, that's with a conservatively low view of non-payroll expenses and a 5% operating margin. Very few companies stay in business with a 5% operating margin. With that thin a margin, all you need is one piece of bad luck and you are operating at a loss or out of business. In other words, if ownership is willing to operate without making any margin and take the risk of an operating loss if attendance or TV revenue declines, the payroll could be $135M. A more likely scenario is an on the field payroll of $110-115M, leaving us room to add $15-$20M, of which raises through arbitration, etc could eat $5m or so. Two FA pitchers at a total of $7m or less and a 1B at $6-10M and it's gone. Spend that now and their is no room to take on salary at the trade deadline, no money for replacement guys from other teams when a player gets hurt, and very little room for error if attendance tanks. With all that, I come to 2 conclusions. First, the idea that the Twins have "mild flexibility": to add free agents makes sense. They got a few bucks, but not much. Second, owning a MLB team in a smaller to mid market is a depressingly lousy business unless you can draw 2.5-3M fans paying full price. Ain't nobody getting rich owning that kind of a team. You have to be rich and willing to be a little less rich if you want to own a baseball team outside of the coasts, Atlanta, Houston, and Chicago. I welcome comments on the math and revenue or expense assumptions IF you have a basis and sources. Mine are Forbes estimates and published information about other teams. I don't pretend to be an expert so I'd be really curious on other's takes but "I know the Twins make a lot more money" without backup is not a good take.

Any thought that Gasper might join him?

And right on cue, the Twins just dropped McCusker "so he could pursue an opportunity in Asia." I'm guessing the draft either a relief pitcher or Rumfield, the 1B.

Thanks for the comment. So does that mean we can't take anyone in the Rule 5 draft, or does that mean we can take someone and then drop a Julien, Outman, etc. to make space? Or something else?