Cap'n Piranha

I thought all kinds of rich people take on debt? Now it's only terrible business people? Is it perhaps possible that the radio station would have failed anyways, regardless of what Joe Pohlad did? Radio doesn't exactly scream growth industry to me (so buying it in the first place probably not the best idea, but it's failure isn't for sure a Pohald thing). I didn't say going into debt is smart business. I said if a business is taking on debt, it's with the expectation of ROI. That's part of me refuting your infantile assertion that the Pohlads are in all times and places greedy. My point was that if the Pohlads are greedy, they either would ensure they maximized profit on the Twins (read; no debt), or they would ensure they were going to get a solid ROI on it. It's not a hot take, it's simple reality. Finally, my shoulders are fine. I'm lugging no water whatsoever, I'm simply trying to have a realistic conversation on why the owners of a small market team in 2025 would be spending at the level they are. It's not because they're greedy, it's because the current financial realities of MLB dictate it. You on the other hand, seem wracked with vitriol and hatred for a group of people I assume you've never met. If you let go of that poison you fill your heart with, you might actually be a happier person, but it's a free country, so if living angry and miserable is your choice, then good luck to you, I guess.

It also doesn't include anything that is not MLB payroll, which as has been pointed out in this thread, is in all likelihood a greater share of expenses than payroll. I don't think it would be all that surprising to discover that the Twins policy recently has been to use local revenue to cover payroll, and shared revenue to cover everything else. Since local revenue has significantly decline in recent years (down maybe $50M to $60M in the last two years between TV and attendance), it's not shocking that the payroll is significantly down. So to put a blunt point on it--no, the Pirates are not profitable on gate alone, as you claim. You won't ever get an independent financial audit for a couple of reasons--if the finances are strong, it gives the players leverage in the next CBA. If the finances are weak, it implodes the values of small market teams. The owners have nothing to gain, and quite a bit to lose by opening their books.

I'm glad it didn't move, because I'll actually get to watch some. I'm solo Dadding this weekend with my 3 year old, and she's been looking forward to watching the Vikings "run after them and knock 'em down!"

As broken down above, there is absolutely zero evidence or reason to believe the Twins are at $350M, much less above. I challenge you, for the first time in this entire thread, to produce a single shred of evidence for your baseless claims. I'm sure you won't, mostly because you can't.

Never said they don't go into debt. I said they don't go into debt without expecting a return on investment--and if you think it's wrong for anyone to want a return on their investment, then honestly you're just not living in reality. It's also bizarre to think the Pohlads happily went into debt because greed, when that debt directly lowered the worth of their single biggest asset, and probably torpedoed it's sale.

Where are you sourcing your numbers? They are completely off. MLB revenue is about $12B, which means you're at least $50M off in your average number. You also seem not to understand average; if the Dodgers make $800M, and the Twins $100M, then yes, the average is $450M, but that doesn't mean the Twins are getting $450M. If the top 10 teams make $7B, and the bottom 20 make $6B that's also a $450M average, but the Twins are nowhere near $450M. The Twins get nowhere near $210M in shared revenue--to get that, the shared revenue pool would need to be $6.3B, which would mean local revenue would need to be $13.2B. That's more than $1B more than MLB's total revenue in 2024. The Twins get essentially no money from local TV. They might get even less from the radio deal; TV and Radio combined might be less than $10M annually. Concessions and merch are maybe another $25M, part of which has to be shared with the operator and the licensor. Advertising in Target Field can't be massive, considering it's within the financial reach of a random lawyer. You don't seem to grasp the idea that the richest teams make multiples of the smaller teams--just in 2024, the Dodgers, Yankees, and Braves combined to make over $2B (potentially up to $2.5B). And all of this ignores the reality that no one disputes the Twins have debt; if the Twins are actually making well north of $300M, then the Pohlads are spending closer to $400M annually on the Twins--are we really supposed to be mad that an ownership group is spending $4B a decade on a sports team? Isn't it much more likely that the Twins revenue is much lower, requiring the defecit spending?

I assumed you were offended (perhaps the wrong choice of word) by bowl opt outs because you introduced it as a topic, along with a solution to fix it. Why bring it up as a problem, unless you actually think it's a problem? For the record, I'm not super annoyed that Miami got in ahead of ND (I certainly think the body of evidence, much of which I shared in this thread, points to ND being a better team right now than Miami). At the end of the day, head to head is only one metric, and when that result comes in the first week of the season, it's reasonable to ask would that result be likely to duplicate at the end of the season. I'm mostly annoyed that Alabama, who has more losses than ND and by any statistical metric is a worse team, got in. Especially because only 12 days before the final rankings were announced, ND was ranked ahead of Alabama by the committee. Somehow, Alabama moved ahead of ND 7 days later, even though no one in their right mind would agree that beating a 5-7 team that had already fired their coach should allow a team to jump another team that not only didn't lose, but beat a 4-8 team by 29. Further, no one in their right mind would agree that getting demolished by 21 points (in a game that wasn't that close) should not have resulted in said team dropping a spot or two. This idea that there's nothing for lower tier power 4 or G6 schools to play for without a meaningless bowl game is just ridiculous. Do you think the U of M would rather beat Wisconsin, or beat Duke in a bowl game? Would Cal rather beat Stanford, or beat Houston in a bowl game? There's plenty of room for programs to lift themselves into the upper tier in the world of NIL; look at Vanderbilt which has been a laughingstock forever, and this year challenged for a CFP spot. Look at Texas Tech, which has been an afterthought even in a watered down Big 12, and has now transformed themselves into a legitimate national title contender. Or the best example of all--Indiana; perennial doormat in the B1G, and is now the only undefeated team in football after going toe-to-toe with the team everyone thought was clearly the best team in college football. The bowls in no way keep fans continuing to have interest in their team--no one is saying "I'm going to switch my allegiance from Minnesota to Ohio State because I didn't get to see the Duke's Mayo Bowl". I don't think the bowls are meaningless exhibitions because I'm an ND fan--it's because they are meaningless exhibitions. It does not matter at all who wins them, and participation grants minimal advantages. Like I said, I personally think college football should be divorced from the colleges, but until that happens, the best possible system should be implemented, and I think you have to expand the playoff to do that.

Your cognitive dissonance here is totally astounding. The Pohlads care only about getting more money and are totally greedy...yet they've gone $500M in debt? If your opinion of the Pohlads is true, wouldn't they have stopped investing in Target Field, cut payroll to Rays/Marlins levels, and took an axe to the front office? They did none of those things, and you're so full of spite and hate that you can't bring yourself to admit it. They're rightsizing because they spent years deficit spending to do their best to put a winning team on the field, and despite all of it, they continued to get vilified by the fans for being cheap. My guess is finally they had enough, and decided to actually spend to what the fans are willing to pay for. Minnesotans didn't want to buy the cable packages that would have kept DSG on board. Minnesotans didn't want to show up in greater numbers at the park, and spend more when they got there. And that's fine; everyone has a right to spend their money exactly how they want to (within the bounds of the law), and no one should blame someone for how they choose to spend their money. And yes, that includes the Pohlads. I hate this tired trope that gets thrown out of "carrying water" for the Pohalds, or being a "Pohlad pocket protector". It's lazy and stupid, and doesn't even make sense--again, the Pohlads have incurred $500M in debt running the Twins; that's a full 1/8th of their estimated net worth. Just admit that you're a judgmental little tyrant who thinks you should be able to tell others what to do with their own money. Finally, I'm in no way defending the Pohlads in all things. You want to criticize them for hiring the wrong people if the FO? I agree with you. You want to criticize them for keeping those people around, even though they're making bad baseball decisions? I agree with you. But you can't in any fashion that adheres to reality call them greedy or interested only in money; were that the case, we wouldn't be talking about $500M in debt.

There is absolutely zero chance the Twins are getting $350M in revenue. Far more likely they are getting closer to $250M, and given the collapse in TV revenue, and the significant shortfall in attendance revenue, it may have been closer to $200M. Also, I can't see $350M in debt anywhere--I see an article from Baseball America from March (read: before the season) stating $425M in debt. If the Twins lost $50M last year (not a crazy number given the revenue collapse year over year), the debt could easily have grown by $25M in 6 months. I would highly recommend reading the article; unless you're determine to keep your head in the sand, it will very clearly demonstrate to you that small market teams are losing money. If people here weren't determined to hate the Pohlads, it might also help engender a different perspective--namely that the Pohlads have been burning money trying to make the Twins a competitive organization. They've failed, but that's because of poor baseball decisions, not because they're not spending. https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/what-the-pirates-twins-finances-reveal-about-mlbs-revenue-divide/

And $44M invested in a DJIA index fund in 1984 is worth $1.8B today. MLB franchises are not an outlier in asset value appreciation. In fact, they only make sense to put money in if the owners can also extract annual profit to offset the difference. You want to know why the Pohlads are so intent on rightsizing the business? Because they invested in the product, the fans continued to vilify them and didn't increase their own spending, and now the Pohlads are tired of losing money on something that underperforms the most vanilla investment strategy outside of open a free savings account at Wells Fargo. Before I get accused of being pro-Pohlad, or pro-Billionaire--I'm not. I'm just a rational guy who understands why a group of people doesn't want to lose money, even if they are collectively worth billions.

Teams aren't opting out because they're being pouty. ISU and KSU had their coaches unexpectedly leave this week, so the players are reeling, and aren't in a headspace to prep; many are probably wondering if they should jump in the portal. ND opted out because the coaches checked in on the players after the committee completely screwed them, and the players said that they knew so much of the team would opt out (due to going to the NFL, not playing through an injury like they would for the CFP, going to the portal, etc), that they didn't want to play a game that would have so much of the team missing. I can't tell you who made the Sweet 16 without googling--but I can tell you that all those teams were playing for a National Championship, unlike any team in a non-CFP bowl. The point was not that remembering who played makes a game meaningful. The point was that you seemed offended teams didn't want to play in bowls, despite the fact that the games don't count for anything, the players don't get paid, and they might suffer career-altering injuries. The bowl payouts are tiny, relatively speaking. Only two bowls pay more than $8M to the teams, while 8 pay less than $1M. When you deduct the cost of sending everyone to a game (all the players, cheerleaders, band, support staff) and putting them in hotels and feeding them for multiple days, a not insignificant portion of the payout is getting chewed up just to play the game. I would guess each school in a conference is getting maybe $1M at most, which is inconsequential (OSU supposedly spends $300M a year, and even the U of M reportedly spends $100M); no school is reliant on bowl revenue to do any of the things you mentioned above; that all comes from regular season tv contracts and revenue generated from home games. Further, it's comical to think that bowls are what drives interest in college football. No one is watching the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl unless they are already a college football fan. Bowl practices are nowhere near as important as writers want you to think. I can only speak for ND (because as an ND fan I listen to podcasts about the team, and reporters on those routinely mention that players directly tell them that the practices are not very important). I agree that if the financial system changes, players will opt out less. But it's going to need to change a lot--there are backup linemen getting high 6 figures to move to other teams in the portal; they're not going to put that at risk for a $25k game check in a game that does not matter. You'll need to start giving the players on each team something like $5M to $10M to ensure no opt-outs (other than guys for sure going to the NFL and portal, which will still be a lot of guys), and since that's more than the total payout the schools are getting right now, you can guess at the odds of that happening. I couldn't agree with you more on how stupid the calendar is; unfortunately that is a symptom of college football becoming a big business--without question the biggest minor league in all of sports--while still tied to institutions that supposedly are focused on academics. There is no way to actually create a calendar that works without also compromising the academic portion (you know, the thing that's actually supposed to matter the most) without either insisting that every school have a concurrent academic dead period in which all transfers must take place (and have that before any and all bowl games), or to simply divorce college football from actual college. Essentially, spin the athletic department into it's own entity, evict the students from school (unless they choose to retire), and charge the teams for access to the stadiums/facilities. Short of that nuclear option, I would create a calendar with 14 weekends (last Saturday in August through last Saturday in November) in which all regular season games must be played. I would abolish conference championship games, expand the playoff to 24 teams, and have 8 on campus games on the 1st Friday/Saturday in December. The third Friday/Saturday in December would feature 8 more games in mid bowl sites, with the quarterfinals on New Years Eve/Day (unless one of those fall on a Sunday, which would be a regular NFL day; in that case, the games would be on the 30th/31st or the 1st/2nd) in 4 major bowl sites. Semifinals are at least 10 days later, with the Final on the 3rd Monday of January (MLK day). The portal will open on January 1, and close the day after the semifinal games are played; I agree with you that this is when coaches can move to a new school. There will be a second portal that opens on Feb 1 and will last only 7 days; that portal is only for players who lost their head coach, coordinator, or position coach in the first window

This makes no sense to me--why do we care if players are opting out of meaningless exhibition games? If these games are so important, surely you can tell me without googling who won such amazingly consequential games as the Gasparilla Bowl, the Poptarts Bowl, or the GameAbove Sports Bowl last year? Also, you'll still get opt-outs; they'll just come in the form of "injuries" and "illnesses". Now that almost every FBS player has an agent, they'll have no trouble getting an opinion from a doctor that a player needs to rest a lingering injury right up until the day winter workouts start. In the world we live in, where players are now being paid for playing, it shouldn't shock anyone that players don't want to risk an injury that could cost them millions in future earnings for playing in a game with no importance or impact at all. Finally, if you're so adamant about stopping opt-outs from exhibition games called bowls, would you also propose that any NFL player who opts out of the Pro Bowl should miss the postseason the following year as well?

Man, if KOC won't use a running back, even though he clearly has a QB who needs a strong running game desperately...than fire him for no other reason than being pig-headed.

I don't hate going defense--other than I trust Flores' ability to create a top tier unit far more than KOC's. I don't think KOC can consistently get 90th percentile outcomes out of the players on his offense, so barring moving on from KOC, the only way to fix that is to give him a lot of players with higher 70th and 80th percentile outcomes; that means drafting a lot of offensive talent, and seeing what shakes out. Ideally, I'd let Flores run the whole thing, and get him an OC that can agree with him on how to play complementary football, I just can't see KOC being shown the door this offseason (as much as I think he probably should be).

Complete agreement. If JJM never started another game for the Vikings, I would not be upset. I don't think it's realistic to totally give up on him yet, but the path to him being a difference-making QB for the Vikings is so narrow right now, I'm already in mini-rebuild mode. Just wish the Wilfs would feel the same.

It's me being more realistic with what I think the Vikes are actually going to do. I don't think KAM and KOC are going to admit that they completely whiffed on their 1st round QB choice after 10 games of him actually playing. I shouldn't have said "I'm", as I meant that more as a sort of royal we. If the Wilfs gave me personally free reign to run the team tomorrow, I'm telling KOC he can either become the OC or resign and promoting Flores to HC. I'm trading pretty much everyone over the age of 27/28 for as much as I can get (spread across the 26 and 27 drafts), and drafting nothing but lineman (especially O-line) in 2026. I'm then committing to winning maybe 2 games in 2026, so I can draft Sayin or Carr 1st overall in 2027. I'm using the rest of my picks in 2027/2028 to build the skill corps on offense and further entrench the lines, while trusting Flores to identify FA targets on defense for 2027 and 2028. By 2029, the script flips as I start to pay my high-level picks on offense, and shift to drafting defense. To appease the fans, I'm slashing ticket prices, and offering free food/drink vouchers for anyone who maintains their season tickets.

I want JJ McDonut (no middle). Be very clearly the option to start Week 1 of 2026 (albeit with a very experienced and not injury-prone backup), or very clearly cut-bait and get what you can in a trade.

Fairness in posting act, I saw exactly zero minutes of the game yesterday. From what I can tell from the ESPN Gamecenter, it appears that KOC for once committed to running the ball, and giving JJM quick simple looks; essentially, he made the offense like what JJM ran at Michigan. It's not surprising to me that this lead to success against a bad team with a bad defense; as others have opined, seeing whether this can continue against teams who wouldn't prefer to lose will be fascinating. The defense still looks to be championship caliber--you really wonder how different the 8 losses are this year if KOC hadn't been so adamant about putting JJ McSquarePeg into the KOC Round Hole offense. I think there's a very reasonable path to a playoff spot next year with an elite defense and a grind-it-out offense that doesn't make mistakes (especially considering the Vikings schedule next year should be one of the easiest in the league). Whether that playoff team would be a true contender is another question.

Sounds maybe more like Cashman to me? I thought I remembered that when Cashman was out last year, Pace really struggled to get the defense lined up. Either way, I'm intrigued by adding a field general type linebacker who can maybe learn while playing with Cashman in 26, and then hopefully replace him in 27. If he's available in the 3rd, I'd be good with the pick.

Agreed there are myriad needs, but I don't think I would touch arguably the biggest one (QB), since I'm very leery at this point on KOC's ability to develop a young passer. My ideal draft would feature the Mauigoa kid from Miami (slot him at RG and try to either trade Fries, or release him and save $5M against the cap). I'd love to get Price from ND in the 2nd round, especially if trading Addison nets a 2nd or higher. After that I'm shotgunning the OL (first center, then the tackles). If someone wants to give me a 2nd or better for Darrisaw, or a 3rd or better for O'Neil, I do those moves as well. Essentially, I'm pseudo punting on 2026, but not really because the goal is to build a solid or better OL, and replicate the JJM Michigan offense (which seems like what happened yesterday). If that unlocks JJM, fantastic; use the 2027 draft to address the defense. If it doesn't, then hopefully the failure leads to a top 5 pick in 2027, and I give up whatever it takes to get Sayin or Carr on this squad.

I assume you mean who should have been left out instead of ND? Very easily either Alabama or Miami, and you could throw in Ole Miss, A&M, and Oklahoma as well. By Sagarin, ND is 3rd, Miami 7th, Alabama 9th (Ole Miss 10th, A&M 8th, Oklahoma 13th). By SP+, ND is 6th, Miami 9th, Alabama 13th (Ole Miss 7th, A&M 8th, Oklahoma 12th). By FPI, ND is 3rd, Miami 7th, Alabama 8th (Ole Miss 12th, A&M 10th, Oklahoma 15th). By PPG, ND is 2nd, Miami 18th, Alabama 42nd (Ole MIss 12th, A&M 15th, Oklahoma 74th). By opponent PPG, ND is 12th, Miami 5th, Alabama 15th (Ole Miss 36th, A&M 54th, Oklahoma 7th). By Strength of schedule, ND is 11th, Miami 21st, Alabama 3rd (Ole Miss 25th, A&M 9th, Oklahoma 8th). Notre Dame played 10 games against Power conference teams (6 ACC, 2 SEC, 2 B1G), and went 8-2 scoring 427 points while giving up 194 (42.7-19.4). Miami played 9 games against Power conference teams (8 ACC, 1 SEC) and 7-2 scoring 288 points while giving up 127 (32-14). Alabama played 11 games against Power conference teams (9 SEC, 1 ACC, 1 B1G, including the SEC champ game), and went 8-3 scoring 256 points while giving up 226 (23.3-20.5). Notre Dame hasn't trailed this season since 4 minutes left in the 3rd quarter against USC, all the way back on October 18th. Notre Dame lost 2 games (it's first 2 games) by 4 points to teams that finished a combined 21-3. Miami lost 2 games by 9 points to teams that finished a combined 16-8. Alabama lost 3 games by 37 points to teams that finished a combined 27-10. On November 25th, Notre Dame ranked ahead of both Miami and Alabama. Since that date, ND beat 4-8 Stanford by 29, Miami beat Pitt 8-4 38-7, and Alabama beat 5-7 Auburn (who had already fired their coach) 27-20, and then lost to 12-1 Georgia 28-7, while barely getting 200 yards of offense, including -3 yards rushing. It's a total joke that Alabama is in the CFP. As for ND being in a conference, they for all intents and purposes are. As I mentioned above, ND plays the equivalent of a full power conference slate every year, they just do it against multiple power conferences; this allows ND to continually play new and interesting opponents in every corner of the country (just this year ND played games in Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and California. Miami didn't leave the state of Florida until November, and only played 4 road games all year (Florida, Texas, Virgina, Pennsylvania). Alabama barely left the deep south (all games in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and South Carolina). Miami and Alabama both played an FCS school (Bethune and Eastern Illinois respectively), while ND's two non-power conference games came against 9-4 Boise (who won their conference championship), and 9-3 Navy. If anyone thinks ND should be in a conference, it's either because they're jealous of ND being able to fill it's own schedule, or because they don't understand the reality of ND's schedule.

Well, seeing as how the decision was made by the players, not the coaches or administration, I think your point here doesn't really make sense.

Only decision that makes sense. Notre Dame can't win a national championship in 2025. They can win a national championship in 2026, and barring massive and unexpected player/coach movement this offseason, will start the year as a top 5 team next year. Say ND plays, and their QB (who is on track to be a 1st round, potentially top 5 pick in the 2027 NFL draft) tears his ACL? That ends their 2026 season before it starts. There is nothing to be gained by playing a meaningless game that almost no one will remember or care about, but potentially everything to lose.

This is a joke right? Every team in the NFL spends money, mostly because due to the CBA it's essentially impossible to lose money on a football team. For example, last year, each team in the NFL got $432.6M in national money. That's before they sold a single PSL, ticket, jersey as sponsorship or anything else. The Vikings could probably refuse to let a single fan in for their home games, and still at worst, break even. No NFL owner is desperately trying to push the team to 10-7 because they're worried the fans won't show up--if you need proof, just look at the average attendance numbers, and you'll see the Jets, Falcons, and Panthers are all top 10 in average fans per game. In the NFL, fans show up. No matter what.

Drafting is the most important thing a GM does. Full stop. If he can't do that well, it doesn't matter how good he is at everything else. Also, the NFL made $23B in 2024, so across 32 franchises (to say nothing of the share the league takes before distribution), that's not close to a Billion. So no, he's not managing "literally" a billion dollar business. No one has said KAM needs to be breaking down college film at 4AM to identify which linebacker to take in the 7th round. But he is responsible for all of it, and if he doesn't know enough to challenge evals, that's a problem. If he thinks the evals have been good, then clearly he's as delusional as you. You'll no doubt call out here that you mentioned KAM made changes to the draft org after 2023; I find that interesting since, according to you, KAM's drafts have been good. You've specifically mentioned Ingram and Blackmon as hits, both of whom were in those drafts. So if those are hits, why did KAM fire a bunch of people who identified them? Do you see how your logic is full of holes? The same principle I applied with KAM applies with KOC. If at this point he doesn't realize that his staff is not good at developing the talent, then he's incompetent. Either that or he does realize it, and doesn't care. There is no scenario where the current disastrous state of the team doesn't full on at least one of KAM or KOC, so which would you like it to be? KAM's 38-25 record is misleading, due in large part to the fact that 2022 was done essentially completely with Spielman's players. Take out that 13-4 (which also should have been more like 8-9 anyways, since the team was outscored, and went 11-0 in 1 score games), and he's either 25-21, with a good shot at being 25-26 at year end, or 33-30 (and possibly 33-35 at year end). Again, do you want to blame KAM or KOC for this mess, because it has to be one.