They have zero contracts past 2020. Coincidence? Aversion to commitment? Lining up to sign every bargain free agent that year?

 

Or, for sale?

It's true, I got no sleep last night. Could be delusional....

It's an interesting theory, I can't dismiss it outright. Though I find it hard to believe you could shop a major league baseball team, even preliminarily, without it leaking.

 

I'd guess the FO is still in evaluation mode for one more season, as unpopular as that will be.

I doubt it. The way the Twins are run it’s pretty much a cash cow. Not there is anything wrong with that

 

They have zero contracts past 2020. Coincidence? Aversion to commitment? Lining up to sign every bargain free agent that year?

Or, for sale?

Never thought about that. It could make sense. But they have no reason to sell it when they can still put out an average team and rake in $100M a year for something that inherited.

 

 

Mark me in the "Pohlad's won't sell this team for another 20+ years camp" 

 

It's a cash cow and a toy for them. The results don't matter to them, they'll just keep making a profit 

I heard Jeffrey Loria wants back in the game!

 

I heard Jeffrey Loria wants back in the game!

 

Oh god,  worst awkward silence ever

Yes. I mean...isn’t everything for sale, for the right price?

Who knows, maybe we’re saving up for a run at Arenado next offseason?

Edited January 9, 20197 yr by ChrisKnutson

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm almost certain there was a "poison pill" in the Target Field funding bill that would cost the Pohlads a lot of cash if they sell. I dont remember how long that provision Lasts.

 

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm almost certain there was a "poison pill" in the Target Field funding bill that would cost the Pohlads a lot of cash if they sell. I dont remember how long that provision Lasts.

I seem to remember seeing something about that as well.  I did a quick search, but nothing depth.  I'm not sure if it was 10 or 20 years that they had to keep the team.  

I seem to remember seeing something about that as well. I did a quick search, but nothing depth. I'm not sure if it was 10 or 20 years that they had to keep the team.

I found this, which is short on details but confirms the thesis.

 

https://amp.mprnews.org/story/2006/04/26/stadiumvote

Talk about a dream come true.

 

They have zero contracts past 2020. Coincidence? Aversion to commitment? Lining up to sign every bargain free agent that year?

Or, for sale?

I'd vote - Aversion to commitment.  It will be interesting to see if they sign any of the young players to extensions during spring training.  During the Molitor press conference, I believe they said having all the players on 1 year contract was a mistake, and now if looks like they are repeating the error.

I seem to remember seeing something about that as well.  I did a quick search, but nothing depth.  I'm not sure if it was 10 or 20 years that they had to keep the team.

 

"Subd. 9. Public share upon sale of team. The lease or use agreement must provide that, if the team is sold after the effective date of this article, a portion of the sale price must be paid to the authority and deposited in a reserve fund for improvements to the ballpark or expended as the authority may otherwise direct. The portion required to be so paid to the authority is 18 percent of the gross sale price, declining to zero ten years after commencement of ballpark construction in increments of 1.8 percent each year. The agreement shall provide exceptions for sales to members of the owner’s family and entities and trusts benecially owned by family members, sales to employees of equity interests aggregating up to ten percent, and sales related to capital infusions not distributed to the owners."

 

Page 17

http://www.ballparkauthority.com/PDFs/MBA_Legislation.pdf

I'm sure they'd wait until two weeks into spring training to sell the team and the new owners wouldn't get any deals done because they didn't get enough time to warm up their pens.

 

 

Ten years would line up with the time they will have no one under contract.

 

Interesting.

 

When was the last time a baseball team didn't have anyone under contract beyond the current year? This could be the first time in a hundred years.

 

This team takes cheapness to an interesting level.

Edited January 9, 20197 yr by Doomtints

The Indians also have zero contracts past 2020.  Probably several other teams but I did not bother to check.   The Tigers have 1 and the Royals 2.

 

It is normal

The Indians also have zero contracts past 2020. Probably several other teams but I did not bother to check. The Tigers have 1 and the Royals 2.

 

It is normal

The Indians actually have 2 that go past 2020, Carrasco and Ramirez.

And, besides, we are talking about the fact that the Twins have nothing committed past 2019, which is a lot different than 2020.

The Indians have 5, Royals 4, Tigers and Sox 2 each. So no, not normal.

Edited January 10, 20197 yr by Mr. Brooks

 

The Indians actually have 2 that go past 2020, Carrasco and Ramirez.
And, besides, we are talking about the fact that the Twins have nothing committed past 2019, which is a lot different than 2020.
The Indians have 5, Royals 4, Tigers and Sox 2 each. So no, not normal.

And yet, the Twins will win the AL Central in 2019. Hmmmm.

I'm no expert, but existing contract obligations, unless they are exorbitant and the team is lousy, is prolly pretty small potatoes compared to the other assets and liabilities a potential buyer is weighing.

 

It's, what?..., potentially a $1.5 Billion sale?

 

Talk me down, that's a huge number. 

 

Especially if you bought in for $36 M in 1983. 

 

I'm lazy on math, but, given that they made money every year since, that's a nice ROI.

The economy won't line up with their plan, if this is the plan.