All Things 2026 Minnesota Twins In-Season Thread

Donate To GopherHole
GopherWeatherGuy said:
I really don't think the Twins will be as bad as a lot of people think they will be.

They still have a really good starting rotation and whoever doesn't make that out of the young pitchers, will likely end up in the bullpen.

I don't think the lineup is any worse, and has the potential to get a lot better if the young hitters take the next step.

There's a ton of young talent on this team.
Click to expand...
I was hopeful that ~ 85 wins might be enough to win the division. But Detroit has gone all in this week, so that seems unlikely now.
 

ESPN predicts every team:

21. Minnesota Twins​

Win average: 79.6 (Last: 80.3, 19th)
In the playoffs: 25.5% (Last: 28.0%)
Champions: 0.7% (Last: 0.9%)

Why the heck didn't the Twins get a Carlos Correa replacement?

It's a loaded question, but it's the kind that this Stock Watch concept is all about. The answer is both simple and symptomatic of an organization at something of a crossroads.

The easy answer is that the Twins have an in-house answer at shortstop in Brooks Lee. Lee, the eighth pick of the 2022 draft, logged the playing time of a regular in 2025, albeit in a utility role until Correa was traded to Houston. Lee, who turns 25 on Valentine's Day, is at minus-1.0 fWAR for his fledgling career. Thus, the Twins' team projection at shortstop ranks as the worst in the majors. The club obviously hopes that Lee, a top-50 prospect, is ready to come into his own. The backstop to that plan is veteran Orlando Arcia, a non-roster invite.

Maybe Lee will make a leap, but it's still a skinflint approach to a team not far removed from contention in a mediocre division. Cot's Contracts projects the Twins with the 23rd-ranked CBT payroll, where they finished last season after a few years of being more in the middle of the pack. Then, on the cusp of spring training, the club parted ways with its highly successful baseball chief, Derek Falvey. Nothing against replacement Jeremy Zoll, except to point out that he's unproven. But the overall picture looks more unstable than it has been for Minnesota in some time, even as the organization still has a good deal of top-to-bottom talent.

www.espn.com

MLB 2026: Why your team didn't do what you wanted this winter

Fans love a big splash but don't always get one. Here's what some non-moves mean for each team's playoff forecast.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Win Twins!!
 


Remember when they said you get us a new ballpark and we’ll keep a competitive team on the field? I do

IMG_6228.jpeg
 




Ope3 said:
I also remember when the Twins were getting $54 million in local TV Rights. From Strib Sources it's now $6 -16 million.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that #. At least $25 million still. If it was really $6 million they'd have gutted the payroll even further.
 


howeda7 said:
I don't buy that #. At least $25 million still. If it was really $6 million they'd have gutted the payroll even further.
Click to expand...

Reusse is pretty emphatic on the $6 million figure from his sources with the Twins. Stated it multiple times.

I think it's quite realistic.

Michael Rand seemed to think more likely $16 million.
 



Ope3 said:
Reusse is pretty emphatic on the $6 million figure from his sources with the Twins. Stated it multiple times.

I think it's quite realistic.

Michael Rand seemed to think more likely $16 million.
Click to expand...
No one can say for sure because they won't release any real information.

But we know Diamond got the $42 million for 2024 approved by a bankruptcy court, so presumably they showed they could break even at that $.

And the Twins are still on linear TV with about 90% of the carriers that Diamond was. There's no way they're not getting $20 million + just from Comcast/DirecTV/Midco etc. etc. unless MLB totally screwed up when they negotiated the new carriage. I don't doubt they probably only make a couple million of the streaming subscriptions.
 

Gophers1992 said:
I don’t want to speak for Ope3 but I believe his point is that there is simply less money coming in that can be spent.

By no means does that mean the Pohlads aren’t cheap pieces of garbage but it is a relevant factor.
Click to expand...
I know it’s relevant but yes they are some of cheapest owners in all of sport
 

howeda7 said:
No one can say for sure because they won't release any real information.

But we know Diamond got the $42 million for 2024 approved by a bankruptcy court, so presumably they showed they could break even at that $.

And the Twins are still on linear TV with about 90% of the carriers that Diamond was. There's no way they're not getting $20 million + just from Comcast/DirecTV/Midco etc. etc. unless MLB totally screwed up when they negotiated the new carriage. I don't doubt they probably only make a couple million of the streaming subscriptions.
Click to expand...

Rehashed, but the MLB had no leverage as a start up network. Plus they were desperate to get carriage for the sponsors.

For all we know, Diamond wound up losing another $20 - $36 Million in 2024.

Comcast/DirecTV/Midco were and are under no obligation to pay anything nearly what Diamond was getting. None.

Again, I find the Strib number totally realistic. I trust Reusse's sources.
 




Ope3 said:
Rehashed, but the MLB had no leverage as a start up network. Plus they were desperate to get carriage for the sponsors.

For all we know, Diamond wound up losing another $20 - $36 Million in 2024.

Comcast/DirecTV/Midco were and are under no obligation to pay anything nearly what Diamond was getting. None.

Again, I find the Strib number totally realistic. I trust Reusse's sources.
Click to expand...
It's simply not true that they had no leverage. Live sports is the only thing that keeps people subscribed to Comcast/DirecTV. And MLB knew exactly what they were paying Diamond. If they were giving it away for pennies, they would have reached deals with YouTube/Hulu/Mediacom and the rest that they aren't on.

What are Reusse's sources? I don't take his word on this issue. He's been saying they made somewhere between "Nothing" and "$4 million" for months. The $4 million # is what MLB disclosed that the Padres made on streaming in 2024. I think that's his "source". Just this week he seemed confused that Judd still gets it on his cable package.

The biggest indicator to me is the Pohlad's themselves. There's no way they would have allowed a $140 million Opening Day payroll last season if they were going from $42 million to $10 million in local media $$.
 
Last edited:

howeda7 said:
It's simply not true that they had no leverage. Live sports is the only thing that keeps people subscribed to Comcast/DirecTV. And MLB knew exactly what they were paying Diamond. If they were giving it away for pennies, they would have reached deals with YouTube/Hulu/Mediacom and the rest that they aren't on.

What are Reusse's sources? I don't take his word on this issue. He's been saying they made somewhere between "Nothing" and "$4 million" for months. The $4 million # is what MLB disclosed that the Padres made on streaming in 2024. I think that's his "source". Just this week he seemed confused that Judd still gets it on his cable package.

The biggest indicator to me is the Pohlad's themselves. There's no way they would have allowed a $140 million Opening Day payroll last season if they were going from $42 million to $10 million in local media $$.
Click to expand...

My hunch/speculation is that Reusse's sources are Dave St Peter and Paul Molitor. He's been covering the team for 5 decades. I think he has some connections.

I should not have said MLB has "no" leverage but much less than Diamond.

- Diamond had exclusivity in the local Twins market. No longer true in 2025. Quite possible every provider has a "take it or leave it" took as many as they did to appease TwinsTV sponsors.

- Comcast went dark on Diamond in 2024 before because they insisted that it only be on Sports Premium Tiers. That could have greatly impacted what they negotiated in 2025.

- No idea about DirectTV but it's quite possible that because it was Twins only it could have been a fraction of what it was before.

- Sure Twins payroll was $140 million to start, as they were trying to be competitive and draw subscribers/viewers. By July it was not working and they slashed big time. Would have gone even more if Buxton was willing to waive his No Trade to clause.

The Diamond dough was completely clear of any overhead costs. Let's just say your $25 million in gross revenue is accurate.

Expenses could easily have been $9-$19 million meaning the numbers that Reusse & Rand are stating is valid. Is it not at least "possible" that it's correct?
 

I get annoyed because I completely understand that the TV money changed. But unless they chose to give Progressive highlighted, exclusive sponsorship rights on every single TV broadcast for next to nothing, as well as letting Winnebago carve out a section of the stadium while also allowing Securian to put a prominent patch on the jersey for free, maybe, just maybe ownership has more money coming in than they're willing to be honest about.
 
Last edited:

Breakin' The Plane said:
I get annoyed because I completely understand that the TV money changed. But unless they chose to give Progressive highlighted, exclusive sponsorship rights on every single TV broadcast for next to nothing, as well as letting Winnebago carve out a section of the stadium while also allowing Securian to put a prominent patch on the jersey for free, maybe, just maybe ownership has more money coming in than they're willing to be honest about.
Click to expand...

I think the Progressive sponsorship could easily fall within the $16 million quoted by Michael Rand. I believe ratings/streaming numbers were a shell of what they were on Diamond-FSN/BSN, which would also greatly impact that income.

Looking at AI, the Team Patch deals average in MLB $7-10 million, so sure that will help. Seems moronic they didn't tap that stream at least a season earlier or whenever it was allowed.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom