The Great Hambino

Here's the problem: the shortest path to maximizing ROI for a team in the Twins' position isn't increasing revenues and fan support. It's cutting costs. In most businesses, you have to spend money to make money. But where the Twins sit currently, they do not. If they take measures that decrease their revenue, that decrease will be at least partially offset by increased revenue sharing, which ultimately improves their bottom-line return. Teams like the As and Pirates are proof that this is a path to profitability. I know there was a grievance against the A's, but they ran a dead-last payroll for three years before that became a thing. And none of this affects the real ROI that the limited partners get, which is the appreciation of value that MLB owners get regardless of how dysfunctionally their club is managed. The best we can hope for is silver lining #3: the Pohlads are able to sell at the number they want after the new CBA is in place. Until then? Budgetball

Ohl vs Old

Even if Joe truly has the best intentions of running the team as best he can, the fact that the Astros owner went over his head to Jim to make the Correa deal happen tells us who's really running this team. Even if he wants the Twins to win, he wants even more to prove to his uncles that he's a big boy

I can appreciate the optimism from those that think the Twins are both willing and able to compete in 2026, but there isn't a single action that they've taken since the trade deadline - really, since the end of the playoff run - that suggests an intention to be competitive next season. Duran, Jax, Stewart, and Varland all could've been key contributors in a push to be competitive in 2026. But they were all moved for returns that aren't likely to be helpful in 2026 (assuming you're keeping all of Ryan, Lopez, and Ober for this 2026 push). Abel and Bradley: They're not cracking the rotation with everyone healthy and retained, so their best bet at a 2026 contribution is making an effective transition to the bullpen immediately. Outside shot of providing 2026 value in this scenario at best. If they're in next year's rotation entering the season, it's because some or all of the vets have been traded. Tait and Rojas: not contributing to 2026 (especially Tait) Roden: Redundant at best for 2026 (he might be better than Larnach eventually, but certainly isn't right now). Most likely a reserve with younger, better prospects (ERod, Jenkins) nipping at his heels Outman: LOL These are (mostly) moves with a fair to good chance of improving the future, but not right away. Expecting them to try to compete next year is not realistic in my view. The passage from the stupid letter that says the new limited parnters align with "Pohlad family values" should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of meaningful reinvestment in 2026

That seems to get glossed over whenever people discuss extensions. Twins can't just unilaterally impose extensions on whomever they please. It has to make sense for the player as well. They would need a good reason to pull themselves out of the free agent market, which for vets close to free agency means one thing: a significant overpay. For the Twins to agree to make that overpay would be incredibly bizarre given all their other actions ever since the right-sizing. This all applies to the calls to extend Bader as well. I could see why the Twins would've wanted one, but why in the world would Bader? The Jackson Chourio-style extension for a young player that gets the player money faster while providing cost certainty and some extra years of control to the team? That I could see the Twins doing for someone like Jenkins, maybe Keaschall. But I think we can assume vet extensions are off the table until their actions prove otherwise

O Canada!

This is supposed to be a silver lining?

MLB is committed to expansion, so that removes two potential relocation sites. Plus the Rays appear to be back in play from relocation, so there goes another potential relocation site. That means there could need to be four markets more attractive than the Twin Cities for there to be a feasible move. Even if you remove the Rays and A's and their temporary parks, there are 24 teams with a stadium older than Target Field. For sure, some in that group have since extended leases or are otherwise not a relocation threat. But that still leaves plenty of teams with expiring leases between now and 2040. So there could be even more potential relocation sites off the table by the time it's even a remote possibility. Someone really itching to put a team in Nashville, for instance, isn't going to wait on the Twins when the White Sox or Pirates or Reds or any number of other teams might be in play well before then. Concerns about a move are unfounded

There's this misguided idea that cutting player salaries will lower the costs of attending a game. That's not how it works. The player labor market and the market for tickets to attend games are independent markets. Ticket prices are set at the level owners think maximizes revenue based on what people are willing to pay. They're not going to charge $30 for a seat when they already know an acceptable (by their estimation) number of fans are already willing to pay $50 for that same seat. Maybe on a long enough timeframe the lower quality of play brought on by slashing salaries diminishes demand enough to force lower prices, but at that point the sport is dying. But in practice, especially in the short term, revenue drives player costs, not the other way around

Based on the actions of their new peer group - Pirates, A's, Marlins, etc. - they will cut payroll even further, collect more revenue sharing, and maintain their profit margin that way. The A's were eventually forced to spend a little more after the threat of a union grievance, but only after three straight years of finishing dead-last in year-end 40 man payroll. If they go this route (I really hope they don't but don't see any reason other than blind faith to think they won't), then I don't see them having any real repercussions at least until the new CBA is in place. I don't think this cash infusion from the limited partners changes this, especially since Joe P himself has stated that the proceeds are being used to pay down their debt. I suppose that frees up cash that would have otherwise gone toward interest, but I'll believe that gets meaningfully reinvested in the payroll when I see it. Based on what we've learned so far, I can see it playing out like this: the Pohlads couldn't get their asking price due to, among other factors, the debt and the uncertainty surrounding the new CBA. So they took on limited partners to solve the debt issue. These limited partners aren't making this kind of investment out of charity, so they did this with the expectation of a return on investment. The easiest path to that return on investment under the current structure is to slice costs to the bone as outlined above until a new CBA is in place. Once it is in place, the two biggest factors preventing the original full sale - debt and CBA uncertainty - are now gone and they can put the team up for sale again, perhaps at an even higher valuation - or keep it, if the new CBA really works in their favor. Either way, they win. The limited partners potentially get a great return on their investment or get to partner with a new, presumably motivated ownership group, so they win. Twins fans lose, but that has never really mattered to those in charge, so why would it start to now?

I'm watching without sound due to circumstances. How are they trying to put lipstick on this pig of an announcement?

Following them on Big Inning is more fun - I at least got to watch Shohei and Julio Rodriguez each hit triples in a five minute span

That was Cerrano-esque from Royce

A lot of folks in this organization need to be fired. At the top of that list is the person that keeps telling them that these open letters to fans are a good idea

I pledge to purchase ZERO commercial real estate until the team is sold. That'll show em

Looking back, he used the phrase "a transaction will take place". He's technically right!

There is zero chance Joe Pohlad has any idea what this sentence means. Here's what I'm afraid of: now Derek "I Was Just Following Orders" Falvey has complete autonomy to run the baseball ops however he sees fit with no threat to his job as long as he adheres to the budget. If I'm reading that right, then expect to see some, let's call them avant-garde philosophies as he tries to be the next Billy Beane. Also, Rocco isn't going anywhere. His boss has no pressure to win, so why would he be replaced if he's going along with the program?

Whatever the pecking order is in determining who among the group of prospect/recent prospect starting pitcher options they have to determine the future rotation (and by exclusion, the future bullpen), Adams and Ohl are certainly at the bottom of it. There's no reason not to give them some cracks at short relief to see how their stuff plays in short bursts. If they stick, then whatever amount of pocket change that gets allocated to bringing in relievers this offseason would need to be spread out across one fewer acquisition. So they can get target 2 $1.5MM guys instead of 3 $1MM guys. That was a depressing sentence to type.

My point is it's not going to continue decreasing at that rate, and will be partially offset by revenue sharing if it does, so they're pretty near their revenue floor at this point. And they're more likely to maintain their profit margins by cutting costs than by trying to increase their revenue. Confirmation of this will come this winter with what they do to payroll. I think every action they've taken recently has been something they would do if they were planning to run a shoestring budget on payroll. I don't think they're motivated by the risk of further revenue loss to spend more.

My understanding is that those linear relationships are for much lower amounts than what had been in place with Bally's, so they're not moving the needle much one way or the other. Getting packaged together with centralized revenue certainly would help, but like you said, it's to be seen if they can get enough teams to make it viable. On top of that, how easy is it going to be shopping MLB media rights in the aftermath of a work stoppage? No wonder they couldn't find a buyer at their number

I don't think TV revenues can plummet any further. Stadium revenues I suppose could, but but that would at least partially be offset by increased revenue sharing. They're pretty close to their revenue floor. <Please turn on "Sound of Silence" by Simon & Garfunkel while reading this next passage for the full experience> Now being almost a full season with TwinsTV as the new normal, they have an idea of what future revenues they can expect. What I think and fear is happening is a gutting of payroll to levels that will maintain their profit margin. They don't need to try to increase revenue by spending more. Increased spending involves risk that they they won't increase revenues to offset the additional expense. From their cynical point of view, why risk that guaranteed profit obtained by slashing salaries? In other words, the Twins have officially adopted the Pirates' business model. I think we Twins fans now are left rooting for a complete re-shaping of baseball's economics in the next CBA. That's the only thing that could save us from budgetball in perpetuity

I dunno, other sports have been able to come to an agreement on revenue definition Getting the elites onboard is going to be a real problem, but I can think of two ways to get their buy-in: 1) Have some sort of weighted revenue distribution that distributes more revenue to the biggest revenue generators. Sorta like how the ACC got Clemson and Florida State to avoid blowing up the conference. 2) The small and mid market teams get a big enough voting bloc to ratify a proposal without the elites. The Yankees might/will throw a fit, but their value goes waaaaaay down if they don't have anyone to play against

Interesting question If I don't know the position, I'm going hit>power>field>run>arm. It gets fuzzy at the bottom since run and arm are pretty interconnected to your field tool. There's just a low ceiling on how valuable you can be if you can't hit. On the other hand, you can be Luis Arraez if your only tool is hit.

If there's that big of a spread, then the floor and cap aren't actually doing anything because they aren't meaningfully changing spending habits on either end. The NFL, NBA, and NHL all have a floor between 75%-90% of their cap. In order to make this work, they need to agree on this spread, then work backward to adjust the revenue sharing to make it work. The revenue sharing piece will be hardest to get buy-in from the large markets. And the players have to get on the same page to make gains on the bottom end of their spectrum - higher minimum salaries, shorter path to free agency, etc - in exchange for allowing a cap. Basically, both parties are going to have a hard time agreeing internally on what to propose to the other party. And caps are usually pegged to a percentage of revenue, so they have to agree both on that percentage as well as what constitutes revenue. So, yeah. It's a mess

I don't want this to come across as a criticism of the article, because I think it's very helpful to see the status quo heading into next year. But while this is a very interesting starting point, there's basically zero chance that this is the 2026 opening day roster. If the vet starters are retained, then they should be making some real investments in the roster to capitalize on the remaining Ryan/Lopez years. If they are traded away (IMO the likelier scenario), then they're embracing a full-on rebuild and any roster investment will be used to fill what they currently can't - backup CF (Outman ain't it), catching depth, live bodies for the bullpen option/DFA train (while some of the starting prospects will move to the bullpen eventually, they will need placeholders while they get their chance to audition for the rotation). I see two distinct ways they can pivot, likely dependent on the ownership situation. But continuing to straddle that line into next year I think would be the worst of both worlds. It is going to take time to sort our the rotation and bullpen pieces, and banking on several position player prospects hitting their 2026 ceilings (which is what would have to happen for this to be a competitive lineup without some real additions) doesn't seem like a super viable plan.