jharaldson

Since Falvey and the Twins have parted ways, a narrative is starting to be shared that Falvey wanted out and that the job is no longer the one he signed up for in 2016 and that the degree of difficulty had gone up. Listening to the most recent episode of Gleeman and the Geek the guys said: “From Falvey’s perspective, the parameters of his job have kept getting worse and worse the past 3 years” The frustrating thing about this is while the payroll has decreased since 2023 and that has introduced challenges, there have been 2 significant changes in the MLB that have made his job easier. AL Central Payroll When Falvey came on in 2016 the average MLB payroll was roughly $131M and the Average AL Central Payroll was $131M. This is exactly equal and reflected the fact that the AL Central was investing at a reasonable rate. In 2026, the average MLB payroll is now $179M but the AL Central payroll average is now down to $125M. This reflects a lack of investment in more teams than the Twins and has provided easier opponents for the Twins and an easier path to the playoffs than other divisions. MLB Playoff Structure When Falvey came in after 2016 the MLB was using a playoff format where there were 5 playoff teams per league and this resulted in the Twins playing tougher teams and contributed to their playoff losing streak. In 2022 the MLB changed this to 6 teams per league and had the 4 weaker teams in the league play each other in the first round which directly resulted in the Twins playing an 89 win team in the Blue Jays and advancing in the playoffs. Under the limitations that he started with, he likely would have just played the Astros and lost the series 1-3. The streak would be broken but it would have been a lot more disheartening. Conclusion Falvey faced headwinds as he left. Payroll was down for the Twins. That doesn’t change the fact that he has the easiest division in baseball to make the playoffs in and that the playoffs are now set up for mediocre teams like the Twins to make a little noise.

Gleeman quoted Falvey saying that he doesn't know what is happening next. These are not the words of someone that "mutually" decided it was time to go, these are the shell-shocked words of someone who got fired.

I put some bold accents in the quote above where it seems judgement for the age fraud is being put on Ozuna. The way I read the above it looks like it is saying that Ozuna did the age falsification and questioned the morals of a person who falsified his age. I am not a big fan of putting the blame of the age change on a child. His age was falsified for his 16 year old playing year but was likely done prior to that year starting. Unless we have proof that a 14-16 year old child led the effort to cheat his age and defraud the MLB, I would assume it was either his parents or the academy that did it.

1. You went 12-36 (.316 Win%) this year and your replacement went 59-65 (.476 Win%) with the same team. Why did the Pirates perform so much better when you weren’t there? 2. 30% of the league speaks Spanish and 6 of the last 10 World Series winners have had managers with the ability to speak Spanish including non-native speakers like Joe Maddon and Dusty Baker who put extra effort into learning it. What have you done since you last worked with the Twins to improve your Spanish speaking skills?

Shelton went 12-36 (.316 Win%) this year and then his replacement went 59-65 (.476 Win%) with the same team. I would hope the first question he is asked at the press conference is why did the Pirates perform so much better when you weren’t there?

There are many rumors going around about the Twins managerial search right now. Will they go with a previous Twins coach like Shelton? Will they go back to the Twin’s Way and look to Punto? Will they go outside the org and get a fresh view with someone like Vázquez? With all these options and more, one thing that should be on Falvey’s mind around this is that the Twins are in some fairly poor company regarding diversity in their Manager and General Managers. Here are some comps: Current Year In 2025, 8 of the MLB teams had a diverse hire at manager: Boston Red Sox - Alex Cora Chicago White Sox - Will Venable Houston Astros - Joe Espada Los Angeles Angels - Ron Washington Los Angeles Dodgers - Dave Roberts New York Mets - Carlos Mendoza St. Louis Cardinals - Oliver Marmol Washington Nationals - Dave Martinez That isn’t that bad as they are in the 73% of teams that didn’t have a diverse hire in 2025. Let’s look a little deeper and see how they do when compared to all time: MLB History In all of MLB history, there are only 5 teams that have never had a diverse hire at Manager: Athletics Diamondbacks Phillies Twins Yankees That makes us one of the 16.66% of teams that has never had a diverse hire at manager. If you take those 5 teams and look at their General Manager as well, you come down to only 2 franchises that have never had a diverse hire in their Manager or General Manager Positions: Athletics Twins It isn’t a great look to be one of only two teams that have never hired a diverse talent at Manager or General Manager as they are in the bottom 6.66% of teams in this regard. Twins History Another thing that makes this look especially bad for the Twins is that the previous owner of the Twins stated that the reason the team in in Minnesota is because of racism: It isn’t a great look that a team that moved to it current location because of racism has never had a diverse hire in its leadership positions. Conclusion I don’t think the Pohlad family is racist and I don’t think that Falvey is racist but I am uncomfortable where the Twins are in regards to diversity in the Manager/GM positions. This is an easy problem to solve. If we are valuing having a coach from the Falvey admin come back, we can look at Rowson instead of Shelton. If we value a former Twins coming back, we can look at Hunter or Suzuki instead of Punto. If we value a voice outside the org then we can look at Vázquez or others. Let’s not risk the Twins being an answer to the following trivia question, “Who is the last team to only hire white people for their Manager/GM positions?”

As I stated in my post, it is mine and other fans' business when it impacts roster construction. The MLB Bereavement Policy was collectively bargained by the players and teams to allow for compassionate leave to players not to impact rosters by allowing for a minimum of 3 but no more than 7 days leave with the ability to be replaced on the 26-man roster. If Buxton is not available today then I think it is fair game to question the team why we have not used the bereavement policy to replace him on the 26 man roster with Austin Martin. Why are we playing short-handed? Just to confirm, I don't want to know any of his private business. I just want to know why the Twins are not using roster rules that are in place to allow him his space, but still maintain a full roster.

There are points where this does become our business. The MLB policy for bereavement leave starts at 3 games for dealing with an illness or death in the family. If he misses tomorrow as well and we don’t make a roster move then it is officially our business to know why we are playing shorthanded as that is a MLB roster decision at that point and not just personal decision for Buxton.

It is estimated that the Twins were on over 1 million households with cable last year. Sjoberg’s is 8,251, Paul Bunyan Television is 15,926, and Consolidated Telcom is 12,506 households for a total of 36,683 households or 3.6% of total households. While this is a nice start they need to announce Comcast or DirectTV before any significant amount is taken out.

Thanks for responding! I appreciate that there are different measurements for an audience and that they can fluctuate. If we look at the 2 you described above we can see that regardless of the difference in size, they are still about the same ratio to each other: The MSA of Atlanta 6,104,803 - Twin Cities 3,690,512 - MSP/ATL = 60.4% The CSA of Atlanta is 6,930,4323 - Twin Cities 4,080,232 = 58.9% When I used them in my stats I stated that the Twins could only make 60% of the non-broadcast revenue, which is a small round down from the MSA and a small round up from the CSA. I would argue that for the purpose of a high level discussion like this that CSA vs. MSA vs. Etc.... is a distinction without a difference. I don't disagree that folks outside the metro make up a good part of Twins Territory. The question is how much? If we look at the Braves statement again we can see that it is broken up into multiple revenue sources: Baseball Events - $324M - These events are going to be financed in large by local Metro companies purchasing suites and local families purchasing season tickets. Individual game sales and visits by folks outside the MSA and CSA would be measurable but would not make up a significant amount of this money. Broadcasting - $139M - This is going to be based on the equal share of national money that is pulled out and a variance in local broadcasting. My understanding is that the Twins are going to make $40M while the Braves make $68M, which puts the Twins at 58.8% of comparable revenue and in line with my 60% assumption. Retail and Licensing - $45M - This may have an outsized influence from outside the MSA but this is also the smallest source. Looking at estimates if the Twins are between 30-60% of Braves revenue in this area it only changes the overall number by $13M total. The short of this is I agree with your final statement, despite whatever gymnastics I am doing here I don't know the real numbers. What I disagree with is that despite this fact, my numbers aren't accurate enough to support my article title of whatever happened to the 50% rule. They are good enough for that and they are supported by the fact that Dave St. Peter backpedaled into the bushes like Homer Simpson when asked about this by Aaron Gleeman in the context of a $140M payroll at the time.

Aaron Gleeman did ask this at the end of 2022 and Dave St. Peter seemed to have trouble answering but he backed peddled pretty hard compared to his 2008 quote about how he wants to be competitive and competitive teams spend 50% of revenue on payroll. https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/1575549873343995905

Joe Pohald recently stated that he and his family are “just trying to right-size our business.” when he was asked about the $120M payroll for 2024, which is ranked 20 out of the 30 teams. When I think of the term “right-sizing”, I think of the promise that was made when we approved and funded the stadium for the Twins. The promise that the Pohlad family made in an 08/13/2008 Star Tribune article called “TWIN CITIES SPORTS OWNERS: the pohlads, minnesota twins BAND OF BROTHERS EXTENDS A LEGACY” In another 2008 article Dave St. Peter stated: Are the Twins in the process of “right-sizing” their payroll of $120M to match revenue of $240M? That is a laughable suggestion but let’s back that up with facts. We know as a fact from the last collective bargaining agreement that all teams get $200 million in revenue sharing. In addition, it is widely believed that the Twins are getting $40 million+ this year from BSN. So, without lifting a finger, playing a game, or even having a second to lie to its fans the Twins are making enough revenue to make the 50% rule work for the current payroll. What might a team make beyond the revenue sharing and TV deal? We can estimate that by looking at the Braves and see they made $528 million in 2023 due to their public disclosures as part of Liberty Media. We also know that the Braves TV Deal is for $68 million a year so if you subtract that and the $200 million in revenue sharing you get $260 million in stadium, licensing, merchandise, etc… revenue. With the Twin Cities metro area roughly being 60% the size of the Braves let’s assume that the Twins can only generate 60% of the same baseball revenue ($260*60%=$156 million). The Twins are looking at $396 million in revenue based on this model and are spending only 30% on payroll. There is no other way to look at this other than a broken promise made to taxpayers and a money grab by some Nepo-babies.

I think the issue here is that until Bally's is completely out of the picture for everyone that the old blackout rules are in place. That means if you sell traditional broadcast rights to them then they become the only folks you can sell streaming rights to. The Marlins, Rays, Tigers, Brewers, and Royals have included these rights at either low or no cost. The other partners have held out trying to get more money from Bally's. I would point out that the streaming rights are not an evergreen resource. The Twins holding firm in 2023 and not letting Bally's stream them for no additional cost didn't make the Twins any more money. It didn't make Bally's any more money. It only hurt fans who couldn't see games because they didn't have traditional cable or DirectTV. Some less successful teams have made the decision that more people seeing their games is better, maybe the Twins can arrive at that same conclusion.

In a recent report from The Athletic, Evan Drellich reports that under the new Amazon/Bally deal that the Bally name and app would largely go away. With Bally streaming through Prime the question is, what happens with the Twins? Evan addresses that later and states (bold emphasis is mine): I would be extremely frustrated as a fan if this entire offseason the Twins have told me that streaming would happen and it didn't happen. Cory Provus was interviewed on Gleeman and the Geek and effectively talked about it for 10-15 minutes about how it was going to happen. What are folks thoughts if this turns out to be the case?

I think the article undersells what the Twins could have done on their own this year: In 2004 the Twins were fighting with the cable companies over Victory Sports, it came out that FSN was getting $1.70 a subscriber but if they didn’t have baseball they would need to rebate the cable companies $.60 a subscriber to compensate for reduced content. In 2023 the rate is now $3.07 a month and if the percentage stays at 35% like in 2004 or has risen up to 50% cable companies would have between $1-1.50 a subscriber to pay the Twins for a new channel and still be expense neutral. 1.25 per subscriber * 12 months * 1.2M cable households gets $18M off the top. Add in the Twins made a statement in 2004 that they felt they could easily top the $40K a game FSN made in ad revenue which with inflation would be nearly $80-100K a game for $16M. Add to that some amount of streaming revenue from households (20-40K * $100 a year = $2-4M) and you have $38M with room to grow. Standing up a channel like this in 2024 and running would also prove to cable companies that it could be done and set the Twins up for signing the Wolves and Wild in 2025 and capturing the other $26M BSN is making on TV rights a year and making more ad and streaming revenue available. The biggest issue with the option above is a very passive leadership on the Twins that punted on this issue until 27 days before pitchers and catchers report and are now going to be hat in hand begging for whatever scraps they are offered instead of spending the time since April of 2023 getting a solution in place.