Woof Bronzer

AKA the same plan as last offseason. And that worked out great!

Not arbitrary at all. Both the NBA and NFL championship series in 2025 featured teams in the bottom half of payroll. The poster claimed that MLB has the most parity of all the sports, so my point is in response to that absurd claim. I think it would be ridiculous to call MLB "the king of parity" if it's been several decades years since 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll compete for the championship, but that's just my opinion.

Exactly. "Parity" doesn't mean a different team wins every year. It means every team has a chance every year. Can't say that about 15 MLB teams each season.

Yeah this is the issue, he defines "competitive imbalance" You used the existence of dynasties to prove that salary caps don't work. I'm saying dynasties are not the result of salary caps. What would you consider the Dodgers? You still have not answered the question: when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll played in the Series?

A salary cap provides the "variety" you are looking for. Without it, the Series will almost always feature teams in the top 10 in payroll. You must enjoy seeing the Dodgers in the series every year! You still haven't answered my question: when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll competed for the World Series? Because that's what happened this year in both the NFL and NBA.

You are confused about the point of a salary cap. The point of a salary cap isn't to have a new champion every year. The point of a salary cap is to even the playing field so teams don't have undue advantages due to things out of their control like geography and market size. The advantages come from smart GMs, owners who want to win, and the players on the field. Dynasties are still possible under a cap; the cap ensures that it's not only the rich teams that can become dynasties, but any team that's good enough. Your own post shows clearly that salary caps succeed in this goal. When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll met in the WS? That's what happened in the last Super Bowl. When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom 1/3 of payroll met in the NBA finals? That's what happened last June. How about the last time a bottom 5 market (Cavs) made 4 straight WS? Edmonton would be the smallest market in MLB. When is the last time the smallest market MLB team made 3 straight finals? The NHL is probably the best example of why caps work. For years and years Florida was a laughingstock in a terrible market (about 1000 hockey fans in Florida and half of them cheer for Tampa, zero youth hockey presence, no history, etc) and many people suggested hockey wasn't sustainable in South Florida. Now it's one of the best fanbases in the game. What changed? They started winning. That's it. They invested in the team and got better and now they are one of the best organizations in sports. And that was only possible with a cap.

You're conflating two extremely separate topics. Yes, a cap won't turn Falvey into a genius, but a cap can allow, for example, the 26th and 21st highest payroll teams (NBA in 2024-5) compete for the championship, both teams in much smaller markets than the Twins. When is the last time two teams in the lower 1/3 of MLB payroll played for the Series? For that matter, when's the last time a team in the lower 1/3 of MLB payroll won a Series? Pretending that salary caps accomplish nothing is as silly as saying a salary cap is going to make the Twins into champs overnight.

So you are saying the Twins could, in the span of 1 season, turn any player on the MLB team or in their system into a great 1B. However, they actively choose not do this for some reason, instead intentionally developing all homegrown 1B into such poor players that the team is forced to spend limited resources on external MLB 1Bs on 1 year deals every year. Is that what you are saying here?

This is the saddest thing I have ever read here. The Pohlads have damaged us all, my friend. On that we agree.

1. Billy Smith. 2. They hired Billy Smith once already, didn't they? "I'm not mad, you're mad!" Seriously, it's all in good fun. Have a great Christmas.

Trade assets in order to make Lewis redundant? Why?

I am truly sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the Twins ARE the Rockies of today. The Rockies were the only team worse than the Twins after the deadline selloff - but it was close. Before the selloff happened the Rockies won the season series from the Twins. The Twins ended 2025 on a 57-win pace. Again, it cannot be stressed enough how terrible this roster is, and it all happened under Falvey's watch.

We're lucky to have a GM who is on year 10 with 1 ALDS game win to show for it and no playoffs for 4 of the past 5 years, and should never fire him because he was an external hire? This might be the hottest take I've ever heard on this site and that's saying something! Have a nice Christmas Derek!

Clubhouse presence? What does that mean? Relatively young team????? Bell has been worse than replacement level for 3 years. The Twins could have gotten this level of "performance" out of dozens of players in their system they are already paying.

Lol, it's much more likely that Falvey is breathing a sigh of relief. T3 has been in charge for a few months and Derek's job is safe. If I'm Falvey I'm thinking "ah good, another Pohlad who talks about accountability but keeps doing things the same way they've always done things. Nothing to worry about." Let's think about it. Derek has 2 jobs, baseball and business ops. We know what has happened with the baseball product. 3 different Pohlads have brought on and kept on Falvey now. It's safe to assume whatever goals the Pohlads have for Falvey, he meets or exceeds them. 3 different Pohlads like what Derek does and seem quite satisfied with his performance. Obviously it isn't about winning. What could it be?

I'm astounded at the quantity of fans who think that adding declining, replacement level players at surplus positions is suddenly going to make this team competitive. Cannot say it enough apparently: this is one of the worst rosters in baseball, and it will take multiple actual needle moving hitters - 3-5 WAR upgrades over current talent - to turn this offense into a competitor. It is a terrible, terrible use of limited resources to overspend on 0-1 WAR players.

Tom claims to have been in charge for a month now. He showed up with Joe in a press conference in September, so likely his involvement goes at least back to then. Regardless, he has been intimately involved in the strategy discussions for this offseason. Which means Mr "I Don't Do Half Measures" was on board with....hiring one of the losingest managers in MLB history....using the Rule 5 draft not to get desperately needed relief help for this year, but a high school catcher who might sniff the majors in 8 years....signing a backup catcher who is one of the worst hitters in MLB history, and will almost certainly get 60 starts.....and spending around half of the free agent budget on the 130th best free agent who has been worse than replacement level over the last 3 years. The more things change the more they stay the same.

The owner of a company individually investing his/her own money is much different than the company itself. It would be like saying Berkshire Hathaway is the investor vs. Warren Buffet investing his own money. So it's a lot more than splitting hairs. But to be fair I guess Charlie was at least in the ballpark.

Please link the piece, I'm interested in reading.

He can go big or go home. Commit to one or the other. SHOW us you don't believe in half measures. If they keep down the current "nibble at the edges" half-measure we will know nothing has changed and Tom is as untrustworthy as every other Pohlad. I think it's stupid to invest money in this roster, but Tom said what he said. Either back it up with some cash or be an adult and tell fans our core isn't good enough and we need to build for the future, we're going to follow the early 80s playbook of letting the kids play and hoping it pays off like in 87. That's one of the first things Carl did when he bought the team. Why not say you're coming fill circle and honoring Carl's legacy and we're building an organization that will compete for a World Series in 4 years just like in the 80s. We've done it once and we can do it again. He could also fire Falvey tomorrow. That would represent change.

Tom said he's not about half-measures. He's a "go big or go home guy". So far they are doing a half measure. If we are to believe Tom, who says he thinks the team will compete, he'll inject about $50m to the payroll immediately. If not, we will know he is lying and isn't actually a "go big or go home guy" at all. He has said a lot of bold things that are going to live on the internet for a long time. You cannot come out and call yourself a "go big of go home guy" and then go out and sign Josh freaking Bell and a couple scrap heap relievers.

Bingo.

Here's their league payroll in the decade after winning the last WS: 17th, 20, 21, 24, 23, 22, 24, 30, 30, 30, 28. I don't see much reinvestment happening in those numbers. They would have pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in those years, which should have been more than sufficient to run $160mil-level payrolls in many years where the team had the talent to compete (06, 10, 19, etc). The fact they spent $160mil one year (the 17th largest payroll by the way, not even league average) doesn't elicit much sympathy from me I guess.

Setting aside why the Pohlads should be believed - the entire TC business community knows the Pohlads are underwater on their commercial real estate portfolio, so it's fascinating to hear Tom continue to push the lie that it's operating debt - how many times in the past 4 decades have the Pohlads run payrolls well below what lower revenue teams spend? And of those times, how often did the Pohlads take that added profit and reinvest in the team?

I wonder if his investors are asking themselves why they just invested in a business that is failing so spectacularly.