nicksaviking

The Twins needed a Sonny Gray replacement to do that, and they failed to do so. I don't see new ownership making that payroll change. Here's the bottom line, unlike the other pro sports leagues, the Twins and the other non-major markets are at a huge disadvantage when it come to parity. The Pohlad's are the third longest tenured ownership group in MLB, and the longest of the non-major market owners. THEY should have been the MLB's version of the Rooney family (Pittsburgh Steelers) leading the charge to modernize the league and get that parity in terms of revenue sharing, yet they sat back and watched the disparity grow. They bowed to collusion, entertained contraction, let the steroid era happen, sat careless as the league lost ground to the NFL and NBA, and watched the popularity of the sport flail. They did nothing, sitting there like spectators NEVER using their longstanding influence. They have been terrible owners and I hold them responsible and want nothing to do with them. They were in position to be leaders but instead were followers and I'm more than happy they're gone. But new owners are going to have zero sway in making the Twins competitive. None. Even if they get a Dan Rooney or Huey Long or Jimmy Hoffa it's going to be a decade before they get any kind of power. We are unlikely to see any change with this move. And that's where my apathy comes from. Good riddance, but I need a fair fight so what does it actually do for me?

GM or manager? Maybe not. As a hitting coach, I probably go where the money is and my best resume entries are. And a team full of underperforming high-end prospects may be a good spot for that. You turn around the Twins top young hitters and you're probably interviewing for manager jobs.

I'm thinking if Seattle holds here (1:14 in the 3Q) this game is going to come down to the last drive.

It's a game again all of a sudden. I think Seattle is better than people thought before the season started, but I also think SF isn't as good as everyone expected. I wouldn't be surprised to see Arizona win this division.

I know you're from Chicago, but the Bears will NEVER repeat.

To be fair, ND newspapers are already having fun with this: https://www.inforum.com/opinion/columns/port-north-dakota-should-buy-the-minnesota-twins

Seems to me new ownership is like getting a new financial advisor. They might make different moves, but the financial atmosphere is the same. I will say that replacing Dave St. Peter has been my biggest hope as he seems to be the front of all things financial. It's possible a new president will improve that and BY PROXY improve payroll. But that's still only a hope and a wish. But I don't think new owners are going to be some white knight spending in the upper echelons just because us fans are due for a winner.

No one is afraid, and it's not unlikely. Status quo is likely. Getting new ownership is nothing but a cathartic vindication for us fans who have put up with an unsatisfactory ownership group for decades. Yet, they're still going to cash out over a billion dollars and the fans are still most likely in the same spot we've always been..

Ha, that's going to be the exact first sentence of the new owner's introductory press conference!

Pittsburgh owner Bob Nutting, should have been run out of the league a decade ago. Why the other owners allow him to revenue share after getting a new stadium and doing NOTHING to improve the team has to piss the rest of the owners off. Even the owners that are just faking it.

You're kidding right? Read my first post, I don't care for the Pohlad's at all. But thinking swapping out one billionaire owner of a mid-market baseball team for another billionaire is going to improve our payroll is wishful thinking. Could happen, but the odds are against it.

You'll be sorry when you could have turned your $100 into 1M a century from now.

How is it a small chance? The Twins are currently 19th in payroll. You really think getting ownership similar to the 11 teams behind them is a small possibility? And that those fans all love their owners?

Ugh dang it. Mark Knopfler is a better 'Mark' choice: I want my MLB.TV!

That was when cable TV and it's stupid huge revenue was still a thing. And the Cubs, duh, they can lose 100 games for 100 years and make money. And he's from Pittsburgh. Also, this is supposed to be un-serious. The answer should be Mark Wahlberg: Or perhaps Mark Davidson:

You need more typos and disregarded punctuation to make this believable.

That's absolutely not true. Most fans of other pro sports clubs DO NOT like their local ownership groups. I know we like to think we are specially cursed here, but this isn't a Minnesota thing.

So speaking of, is this guy off the table if he gets a 33% discount?

Personally, I think your original response was a winner:

I think someone mentioned Kevin Seitzer for hitting coach, and now he's available. No idea if he's any good, or what his hitting philosophy is, but Atlanta swung some pretty good bats prior to this year.

Yeah long term. And someone dropping 1.5B is probably going to want decent yearly dividends short term. Those yearly dividends seem to be shrinking without the cable deals.

Tough situation. They have a bad stadium in a less desirable location now in disrepair. Normally it would seem like a time people would rally to build something sustainable. But how do you sell tax-payer funded stadiums when lots of the tax payers lost their homes and tax dollars are needed to repair the whole metro and state?

Yeah, I mean I'd take that, but that's also what they're paying Carlos Correa.

Yeah, my lack of enthusiasm isn't out of fear, it's due to the fact that we're still going to have a billionaire owner of a mid-market team either way; my franchise outlook is largely unchanged.

Yeah, but without cable TV rights, are all MLB teams going to continue to appreciate like they have the last four decades? If half the league ends up on MLB.TV while other teams have significantly more profitable TV deals, I'd be concerned that the have-nots are going to start decreasing in value. As more and more of the better talent flocks to the big markets where the money is, won't the MLB.TV markets lose more and more viewers?