Woof Bronzer
Verified Member-
Posts
1,248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Woof Bronzer
-
Passan: Buxton Willing To Waive No-Trade Clause
Woof Bronzer replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Yeah I mean the debt is preventing the team from being sold and it is driving their plan to cut payroll and let the welfare flow in, so it has everything to do with the team's operations right now, even if the debt service isn't technically showing up on the Twins payroll. -
Passan: Buxton Willing To Waive No-Trade Clause
Woof Bronzer replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
The "current core" was the worst team in baseball post deadline. -
Passan: Buxton Willing To Waive No-Trade Clause
Woof Bronzer replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
More like, for years the Pohlads used the Twins as a debt shelter to hide the costs of their mismanagement/incompetency/lack of foresight. They doubled down on commercial real estate when even pre COVID the writing was on the wall for that market, and continuing to double down through COVID, so now they are stuck with a huge portfolio of underperforming real estate assets. They had to eat massive losses on Bring Me The News and B96, the 2 media properties that Joe Pohlad destroyed. They likely still have some Target Field debt on the books too - billionaires hate paying for things with their own money. But because the Twins books are private, the shell games they've been playing never came to light. But, as a result of their chronic shortsightedness, they never considered that one day they might want to sell the team, and that the debt would come to light in the sale process - or, more likely/alarming, they didn't think it was a big deal and they would still get what they wanted because they're billionaires and billionaires always get whatever they want. So here we are - stuck with an ownership group that is so grossly short-sighted and incompetent they do that they can't sell a company with a quarter billion dollars in guaranteed (subsidized) minimum annual revenues and a valuation that doubles every 10 years or so independent of performance. -
Passan: Buxton Willing To Waive No-Trade Clause
Woof Bronzer replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I don't believe the Pohlads have ever used the phrase "minority owners" and I think a lot of fans are putting a lot of stock into these mythical saviors. I suspect the limited partners are investors who will take the debt off the Twins' books to facilitate a quicker sale. With or without these investors the Pohlads are going to have to pay down the debt though, which is why I believe the plan is to run shoestring payrolls and rake in the revenue/tv shares for a few years. And the Pohlads may be getting a little nervous about the CBA throwing a wrench in this plan so I fear they are accelerating a bit. The Athletic had an interesting article the other day about the Pirates and Marlins actually going after some free agents this offseason, the thought being that their owners are worried their lack of effort will be used as evidence to support a salary floor or reduced revenue share so they are trying to demonstrate that they are trying to win. The Pohlads likely aren't willing to do that so you have to wonder what they are thinking right about now. -
Passan: Buxton Willing To Waive No-Trade Clause
Woof Bronzer replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Oh for sure, I don't care about the rankings at all. But the mere fact that someone close to Buxton wants it to be publicly known that he's open to a trade is pretty concerning. -
Passan: Buxton Willing To Waive No-Trade Clause
Woof Bronzer replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
But someone is telling Passan this he's willing to do this, and this someone gave him this information on the record, so this someone is absolutely telling Passan for a reason. Whether that is to startle the Twins to action, or to start down the path of a trade, who knows. But this does seem like this is a bit more meaningful than your typical hot stove league rumblings. -
Do biomechanics help players run the bases? Sacrifice? Play defense? Run out ground balls? Hit cutoff men? Let's work on those things too. It won't cost much, and it'll have a much stronger correlation with winning than using fancy software to increase launch angle by 2.2%.
- 29 replies
-
- keith beauregard
- royce lewis
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
In a normal market, yes, but this is MLB, closer to a socialist model than a capitalist one. Franchise valuation goes upward independent of business performance. The Twins are guaranteed about $200m in revenue share and likely $50+ more from their ESPN deal. A guaranteed $250m/year in revenue even if you are the worst run business on earth, plus your valuation increases by about $40 mil/year even if you are the worst run business on earth.... I think it's really, really easy to sell this model - if you can somehow manage to spend less than a quarter billion dollars ever year, you'll rake in profits. I think most people here would be willing to take on that risk!
-
Twins Add Catching Depth with Early Offseason Swap
Woof Bronzer replied to John Bonnes's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
It's less the trade than the signal. The "plan" is coming into focus: try to somehow improve an underperforming team without investing more in the roster and magically compete for the division. Take one of the 5 worst teams in MLB, sign a couple scrap heap relievers and depth pieces in January/February after all the free agency dust has settled, and viola! AL Central champs. This was the same plan last offseason, with a significantly better core roster, and it failed miserably. Basically, the plan is: do the same thing all over again and expect different results. I'm resigned to being bad next year. I just want it to mean something, to lead to bigger and better things like the young Twins teams in the early 80s. Trying to eek out a couple extra wins in 2026 by hanging onto Jeffers (and eventually maybe losing him for nothing) is a dumb strategy in my opinion. -
Thanks for the response, a lot of this makes sense. I guess what bothers me about the whole salary cap conversation is the idea that nothing can ever change, and we must always just accept things as they are. I disagree with that idea wholeheartedly. We can actually improve things. We can make things better. We just have to try. And we don't have to just live with whatever most benefits our billionaire overlords. Oh no, a salary cap might somehow lose some billionaires a few million dollars, the humanity. Baseball is a game. It only exists as an extremely lucrative business because of fans. It's ok to make changes that benefit fans from time to time. The fact that teams like the As and Rockies and Pirates are actively trying to lose in order to further enrich a single billionaire is not sustainable, and more and more teams (ahem...) are going to do this if they can. Something needs to change and I refuse to believe that change is impossible.
-
Why? I am not doubting you, but this is a talking point I hear often and it doesn't make sense to me. What makes MLB so unique and special and rigid that change is impossible? If every other major sports league can figure it out, why can't MLB? Aren't 25 NFL/NBA/NHL owners losing revenue because they feel sorry for Green Bay/Oklahoma City/Raleigh? Again not a criticism of you, I am hoping to be educated!
-
Curious if you read the piece you cited. In his written order, Judge Crump plainly stated that the Twins exercised their option to play baseball in the Metrodome and he's holding the team to its lease. I did a ctrl-F for "Brad" and "Radke" and nothing came up. I think we can put to rest your hot take that Brad Radke put so much pressure on the Pohlads that it swung a judge's ruling and saved the team. The Pohlads reacted to fan "pressure" to improve the team by first threatening to move and then, when that didn't work, attempting to contract the team out of existence for spite. They have nothing but contempt for fans and everyone else beneath their station and are absolutely unmoved by criticism.
-
Harry Crump ruled the way he did because of the law. The Pohlads were illegally trying to break the Metrodome lease. Comments from Brad Radke had absolutely nothing to do with the ruling, come on man. Billionaires don't care what their employees, their customers, or any other non-billionaire thinks. That's why you become a billionaire, so you can do whatever you want without accountability, so you don't have to listen to anyone.
-
This all sounds great. I'd like to introduce you to the Pohlads, They don't care about baseball or competitiveness, The minority partners won't care about baseball and competitiveness. All these folks care about is short term profits. And the good news for them is, MLB's financial structure ensures profits for revenue sharing teams regardless of team success. On top of that franchise valuations go up and up and up. They never ever go down, ever. There is not one example of a professional sports team being sold for less than what it cost. The value of the Twins has increased by more than a billion dollars in the last 30 years, despite the Twins winning one playoff series in that timeline (and often running shoestring payrolls with 40,000 empty seats in the worst stadium in baseball). It's about hoarding wealth, not winning baseball games.
-
Very interesting. Hard to read this as anything but a shot at Rocco.
- 146 replies
-
- gio urshela
- pablo lopez
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
You haven't been following MLB very closely then. Due to MLB's economic structure it is extremely profitable for revenue sharing teams slash payroll and lose. See the Rockies, As, Pirates, et al. Between revenue sharing and new ESPN deal the team stumbled into and that's probably already above your $70m, and they will receive even if they lose every single game. The gate from those 1 mil is then pure profit. A team doesn't hire Shelton, a guy who spent the last 5 years strategically losing in order to line a billionaire's pockets, because they are going to juice payrolls and give the Central a run in 2026.
-
We might see a lot of the young guys by 2028 but to assume they are going to hit the ground running and turn this team into a legit contender right away is wishful thinking to me. Could happen, but I think it's much more likely that there will be growing pains and maybe 2030 is when the club comes into its own. 2028 will be too early to judge the success or lack thereof. But whether its 2028 or 2030 this plan requires the Twins to let the young guys play and probably trade off some of Buxton, Ryan, and Lopez. It requires committing to an actual rebuild, not...whatever it is Falvey is doing now.
-
I don't think the answer needs to be any more complicated than "it's a poorly run organization with a toxic culture". In failing organizations the good employees who can get better or lateral jobs elsewhere leave, while the mediocre or bad employees stay and gain authority/promotions via attrition. The organizational culture is clearly terrible. People who care about their job don't like working in environments like that.
- 24 replies
-
- derek shelton
- rocco baldelli
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Grading the Twins' Hiring of Derek Shelton
Woof Bronzer replied to Cody Christie's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
If a corporation hired as their new COO the former COO of a less successful competitor who just got fired after five years of failure and doesn't have a previous track record of success, under the sole qualification that the person worked there for 2 years back in the day in a lesser role, I think employees would grade that significantly lower than a B-.

