Another Jim Pohlad Interview

[Loosey]

So I stumbled across a few people rerweeting an interview with Pohlad. The interview was done by a young 11 year old kid who has a cool kids website called Thatisgreat.co. The kid himself did a great job interviewing Jim Pohlad, asked some good tough questions and was getting good information in general on baseball, business, family and the baseball business. But what struck me again is Jim Pohlad's seeminglmy disinterest in the Twins.

 

At one point he was asked if enjoyed going to Twins games. His answer was "I think I have to go to the games. If I don’t, it’s hard to tell people they should go."

 

He was also asked what the worst part of owning a professional sports franchise is and said, "The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game."

 

As fan of the Twins, these two answer hurt. If I owned a Team I would love to Get to go to every game not Have to in order to do it as marketing PR thing. Also, winning Should be THE most important thing to an owner, not the worst.

 

Basically he needs to get his family out of this business. If they aren't passionate about it they never succeed. And from his interviews this year he seems far from passionate. The Twins seem like a hindrance to him.

 

Other than that, great interview by this young man, Oscar.

 

Here is the link:

 

https://thatisgreat.co/category/interviews/

[Vanimal46]

I agree that it sounds like the family needs to get out of this business Loosey. I'm not saying we need an owner like Jerry Jones who has his hand in every single part of the organization. It's just a shame that there doesn't appear to be an ounce of passion in this particular investment of theirs.

His answers make it seem like he has to take over the family butcher shop on Main Street and it's a chore to keep it going. He's in the wrong business if there's no competitive fire to win and make more intelligent decisions than the other owners in the league. 

[Loosey]

Exactly. I just want him to care as much or more than the fans do. But he doesn't seem to, at least he doesn't come across that way ever in interviews

[twinsnorth49]

 

He was also asked what the worst part of owning a professional sports franchise is and said, "The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game."
 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mad.gif

[tobi0040]

It is a second generation business. Those fail. And as noted, he has no interest whatsoever in anything that goes along with the team, the media, recognition, baseball, etc.

 

It shows.

[nokomismod]

I don't think Jim or Bill would have purchased this team if they had not inherited from their parents. That being said with the correct GM and front office staff, they would be pretty good owners.

[Vanimal46]

In reference to "the importance of winning is so highlighted in our market" - that is absolutely hilarious. Asking for a playoff caliber team is the minimum requirement of ALL sports teams. This isn't the Yankees or Red Sox market where it's world series or bust...

 

The Pohlad's would be eaten alive by any other sports market in the country.

[jimmer]

'When you look at it, they only had one winning month last year, May,'

 

Be nice if the owner of the team knew we had more than one winning month last season.

 

'One theory: the team isn’t as good as we thought it was. Maybe we’re doing something wrong in developing players. Maybe last year was just a fluke. Maybe they appeared to play better than they really did.'

 

A lot of people have said these things and said it a long time ago.  I don't think any of that is theory.

 

'One problem with the Twins: people don’t seem to leave. There isn’t a lot of turnover'

 

Well, um....

[Rosterman]

If you don't like baseball, why are you invested in the sport.

 

Well, Carl Pohlad say money in purchasing the franchise for what he paid for it waaaaaay back. He used it to borrow against and reinvest in other products, and almost enjoyed a modest windfall if major league baseball had pulled the franchise out from under him. A sports franchise, currently, continues to go up in value, what with television, promotion and marketing, advertising and any number of other things. But the radio station alone shows the interest the family has in baseball. They have a radio station that appeals to mainly folks who probably don't listen religiously to baseball (yes, they would like that audience to do so, but what is the audience on their limited waveband). They have sacrificed Twins Talk to a loss in the major metro marketplace (remember how much time CCO and KSTP gave the sport when they ahd the team...compared to now, where baseball talk is just an after thought, it seems). 

 

It is a bottom line. Right now, the team is still drawing decently, and maybe they budgeted for a 20,000-a-game average and everything will work out (but do they think what happens if 10,000 of those stay home and don't buy beer, brats and merchandise). They create a false advertising base. They just hope that a fluke might happen again, like last season, where the team performed better (at least in the division) then anyone thought.

 

But the franchise continues to pay for itself, probably increases in value. In the short-term, they have almost paid off their own investment in Target Field, and just have to figure out how the clause works that a split of sale profits have to be split with the state, or something along that line.

 

And we can only hope that someone locally will see an interest in the team and purchase it and enjoy going to the games and keepa hand in operations and go forwards...although like the players they have "for sale" I doubt that the Pohlad's would take a bargain basement price for the team.

 

There are team's in the realm of baseball that are being run by owners with a lot less capital than the Pohlad Family, which actually do operate on a tighter budget, and have been losing teams for years and years, but with the right folks in charge of the product have become winners (Pittsburgh, Kansas City), future promise (Baltimore, Houston), and continue to have ups-and-downs unrecognized by their limited fan base (Oakland). 

 

But look to the innocence of a kid to get the real answer to what is the problem with this franchise!

[HitInAPinch]

Did everyone read the same interview I did?  Because I'm seeing a lot of people taking Pohlad's answers out of context.

[Vanimal46]

Side note - did the 11 year old kid write the blog post too? If he did that is god dang impressive writing abilities for the youngster. 

[Vanimal46]

 

Did everyone read the same interview I did?  Because I'm seeing a lot of people taking Pohlad's answers out of context.

Go on?

[wsnydes]

 

In reference to "the importance of winning is so highlighted in our market" - that is absolutely hilarious. Asking for a playoff caliber team is the minimum requirement of ALL sports teams. This isn't the Yankees or Red Sox market where it's world series or bust...

The Pohlad's would be eaten alive by any other sports market in the country.

What makes little sense to me is that a winning team tends to be more financially successful as well.  It becomes more marketable.  It's kind of the old adage of "you've got to spend money to make money."  i'm not even suggesting that they spend more than the team brings in.  Simply spending more wisely would help this team.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game. I’m so worried the team is not going to win and people are going to hate the Twins and not come to the ballpark, that it takes the enjoyment out of watching the game, and it’s an enjoyable game. It takes that away. We have a lot of really passionate fans and they’ll come, no matter what. In New York, they have the same size ballpark, but they have way more passionate fans, and a much bigger population. So that’s really a bummer here. It’s not fun to watch the game for the sake of watching the game.

What exactly is he trying to say, with that comparison?  The importance of winning is highlighted more in our market than in NY?  Twins fans aren't as passionate as Yankee fans?  I don't get this at all.

[dgwills]

I think you took a few things out of context there. It's a good interview and his answers are fine. I actually appreciate how honest the answers are. You can tell the losing season is wearing on him.

If you are going to take things out of context from the interview here are a few good ones: "One problem with the Twins: people don’t seem to leave. There isn’t a lot of turnover." and "I like hot Indian."

Edit: I got a phone call while writing this reply. Looks like this was already covered.

[Loosey]

Side note - did the 11 year old kid write the blog post too? If he did that is god dang impressive writing abilities for the youngster.

That's the way it looks. I think his mom is the editor of MSP Business Journal.

[Vanimal46]

 

That's the way it looks. I think his mom is the editor of MSP Business Journal.

It's been a few years, but I'm pretty sure I was doing this at 11... 

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1LW__eE7-BA/hqdefault.jpg

[Loosey]

What makes little sense to me is that a winning team tends to be more financially successful as well. It becomes more marketable. It's kind of the old adage of "you've got to spend money to make money." i'm not even suggesting that they spend more than the team brings in. Simply spending more wisely would help this team.

It's not even spending money. He probably doesn't know how to find a baseball person to run the team if he were to fire Ryan. I would think you need some sports acumen to run a sports franchise. He seems to lack that. I wonder if he talks to others in baseball or other sports owners? You would hope he always trying to get info on who could be available in the future as GM, or any FO position to make the team better. He I would guess doesn't.

[Blake]

 

Did everyone read the same interview I did?  Because I'm seeing a lot of people taking Pohlad's answers out of context.

I see your point.

[HitInAPinch]

 

Go on?

Ok, he WAS wrong on the number of winning month.  There were exactly 2:  May 20-7 and Sept, 15-13.  Aug was 14-14.  The month of May DID carry the whole season.

 

"The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game."

 

Next sentence:  "I’m so worried the team is not going to win and people are going to hate the Twins and not come to the ballpark, that it takes the enjoyment out of watching the game, and it’s an enjoyable game. It takes that away."

 

In other words, it takes the fun out of the actual game FOR HIM.

 

'One problem with the Twins: people don’t seem to leave. There isn’t a lot of turnover'

 

The question was:  What advice do you have for kids who want to work in sports?

It was about the office people, not the team. 

 

'One theory: the team isn’t as good as we thought it was. Maybe we’re doing something wrong in developing players. Maybe last year was just a fluke. Maybe they appeared to play better than they really did.'

 

Why would a person single that out, when the first 2 sentences were:  "We’re trying to figure that out. A lot of people have looked at it. It doesn’t appear to be just one thing."

 

Pohlad's responses were legit.  Oscar did a good job:  good questions and I liked the flow.

[operation mindcrime]

If they can afford to sign crap pitchers like Nolasco and Santana for a combined $100 million, I doubt they'd ever sell. This team is an absolute cash register!

[Deduno Abides]

Jim Pohlad gave honest, up-front answers. Although his comments about enjoying the game would be easier to take if the team had been competitive instead of terrible for the last several years, at core this is correct, unless you believe sports are fun only if you win. He states concern and admits to considering hard truths. He should be applauded instead of attacked for his honesty and his courtesy to the boy.

[drivlikejehu]

The idea that Twins fans place more emphasis on winning than Yankees fans is absolutely ludicrous. It is shocking that a human being with enough brain matter to walk and talk could possibly think and say something so completely, laughably, embarrassingly opposite of reality.

[jimmer]

 

Ok, he WAS wrong on the number of winning month.  There were exactly 2:  May 20-7 and Sept, 15-13.  Aug was 14-14.  The month of May DID carry the whole season.

 

"The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game."

 

Next sentence:  "I’m so worried the team is not going to win and people are going to hate the Twins and not come to the ballpark, that it takes the enjoyment out of watching the game, and it’s an enjoyable game. It takes that away."

 

In other words, it takes the fun out of the actual game FOR HIM.

 

'One problem with the Twins: people don’t seem to leave. There isn’t a lot of turnover'

 

The question was:  What advice do you have for kids who want to work in sports?

It was about the office people, not the team. 

 

'One theory: the team isn’t as good as we thought it was. Maybe we’re doing something wrong in developing players. Maybe last year was just a fluke. Maybe they appeared to play better than they really did.'

 

Why would a person single that out, when the first 2 sentences were:  "We’re trying to figure that out. A lot of people have looked at it. It doesn’t appear to be just one thing."

 

Pohlad's responses were legit.  Oscar did a good job:  good questions and I liked the flow.

It's the second interview where he points out we only had one winning month.  There are only 6 full months in the season.  Not hard for an owner to notice how many winning months his team had, is it? But yes, it's clear May carried them, and that was clear before the offseason.  An offseason where little was done.  It was still clear before his last interview where he said it was logical to assume the team would be better this year because they won 83 games last year and he saw no flaw in that thinking.

And you really wonder why one might single out Pohald's THEORY?  Seriously? A theory that was blatantly obvious all along. He throws out this theory, as he calls it, after he said recently in another interview that he thought it was logical to believe that since we won 83 games last year that we'd be even better this year? That he found no flaw in that thinking? The fact that the team is looking into how they were so wrong on so many fronts is admirable (and kind of their job, no?)

Nothing is being taken out of context.

[nicksaviking]

 

Ok, he WAS wrong on the number of winning month.  There were exactly 2:  May 20-7 and Sept, 15-13.  Aug was 14-14.  The month of May DID carry the whole season.

 

"The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game."

 

Next sentence:  "I’m so worried the team is not going to win and people are going to hate the Twins and not come to the ballpark, that it takes the enjoyment out of watching the game, and it’s an enjoyable game. It takes that away."

 

In other words, it takes the fun out of the actual game FOR HIM.

 

'One problem with the Twins: people don’t seem to leave. There isn’t a lot of turnover'

 

The question was:  What advice do you have for kids who want to work in sports?

It was about the office people, not the team. 

 

'One theory: the team isn’t as good as we thought it was. Maybe we’re doing something wrong in developing players. Maybe last year was just a fluke. Maybe they appeared to play better than they really did.'

 

Why would a person single that out, when the first 2 sentences were:  "We’re trying to figure that out. A lot of people have looked at it. It doesn’t appear to be just one thing."

 

Pohlad's responses were legit.  Oscar did a good job:  good questions and I liked the flow.

 

I agree that his responses can easily be taken out of context. On the other hand, he did a lot of that himself by saying barely-sensical things like this:

 

The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game.

 

and this

 

It’s not fun to watch the game for the sake of watching the game.

 

Sooooo, fans wanting to win takes the fun out of the game, AND it's not fun to watch a baseball game just for the sake of watching a baseball game? Exactly what is the correct way to enjoy a baseball game, are there other options?

 

My take aways from the two recent Jim Pohlad interviews:

 

1) He may not be as bright as we might hope.

 

2) He isn't as seasoned at giving interviews as more experienced Twins personnel.

 

3) He almost certainly underestimated the journalistic skills of an 11-year-old.

[Craig Arko]

Did everyone read the same interview I did?  Because I'm seeing a lot of people taking Pohlad's answers out of context.

I'd love to say I was surprised by this.

 

It would be lying.

[HitInAPinch]

 

It's the second interview where he points out we only had one winning month.  There are only 6 full months in the season.  Not hard for an owner to notice how many winning months his team had, is it? But yes, it's clear May carried them, and that was clear before the offseason.  An offseason where little was done.  It was still clear before his last interview where he said it was logical to assume the team would be better this year because they won 83 games last year and he saw no flaw in that thinking.

And you really wonder why one might single out Pohald's THEORY?  Seriously? A theory that was blatantly obvious all along. He throws out this theory, as he calls it, after he said recently in another interview that he thought it was logical to believe that since we won 83 games last year that we'd be even better this year? That he found no flaw in that thinking? The fact that the team is looking into how they were so wrong on so many fronts is admirable (and kind of their job, no?)

Nothing is being taken out of context.

 

Seriously?  He answered the question Oscar posed.  Are you saying he was stupid to ask the question or are you upset that Oscar didn't do research on all things said by Jim Pohlad?

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I agree that his responses can easily be taken out of context. On the other hand, he did a lot of that himself by saying barely-sensical things like this:

 

The importance of winning is so highlighted in our market, it takes the fun out of the actual game.

 

and this

 

It’s not fun to watch the game for the sake of watching the game.

 

Sooooo, fans wanting to win takes the fun out of the game, AND it's not fun to watch a baseball game just for the sake of watching a baseball game? Exactly what is the correct way to enjoy a baseball game, are there other options?

I wonder if the interviewer transcribed this incorrectly.  Would be interesting to hear in podcast form.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Let's tone down on the bickering please. 

[Loosey]

Seriously? He answered the question Oscar posed. Are you saying he was stupid to ask the question or are you upset that Oscar didn't do research on all things said by Jim Pohlad?

No one is criticizing Oscar at all. His interview was fantastic. He asked direct questions and wrote piece perfectly. And like a good writer he is getting his readers talking about it. The answers given by Pohlad were not what you want to hear coming from the owner of your favorite baseball team. In my opinion Pohlad seems disinterested in the Baseball business.

 

I think questions Oscar asked were very professiinal. Pohlad's answers on the other hand seem amateurish.