The Pohlad family’s efforts to sell the Twins hit a major stumbling block when presumed front-runner Justin Ishbia dropped out of the process to increase his minority share of the White Sox. The Pohlads continue to evaluate the market, but there’s no longer a clear timetable for when a sale could be reached — nor is it a guarantee that they’ll sell at all.
According to a report from Dan Hayes, Ken Rosenthal and Brittany Ghiroli at The Athletic, the Pohlads are “believed” to have an asking price of at least $1.7 billion. The Athletic writes that the Pohlads viewed a $1.5 billion purchase price that was floated by one potential buyer to be “a non-starter” in discussions.
Last year, Forbes estimated the club’s value around $1.46 billion. Sportico’s 2024 valuation was more in line with the apparent asking price, as that publication valued it at approximately $1.7 billion. The Orioles, the most recent franchise sold, went for a $1.725 billion purchase price in January 2024.
Interestingly, The Athletic writes that Twins executive vice president Joe Pohlad prefers to keep control of the organization. The 42-year-old Pohlad only took over daily operations in November 2022. His grandfather Carl Pohlad purchased the team for $44MM back in 1984. After Carl Pohlad died in 2009, his son Jim (Joe’s uncle) took control. Jim Pohlad turned over operations to his nephew 13 years later. It seems there’s varying levels of interest within the family about selling the team.
It’d hardly be unprecedented if the Pohlads eventually reversed course and took the team off the market. Angels owner Arte Moreno announced in August 2022 that he was exploring a sale; he pulled the team back five months later. The Lerner family had considered selling the Nationals between 2022-23 before abandoning that process in February of last year. Twins fans are encouraged to read The Athletic column in full, as they explore the challenges (e.g. the collapse of the Twins’ previous TV deal, declining attendance figures, and the team’s higher than average debt that reportedly exceeds $425MM) in greater detail.
Let me check… I think I have a few quarters in the couch.
I’ll donate to the GoFundMe.
In other words, clear our debt for us ($425 million – insane) & we’ll give you about a quarter of the team. Good luck.
Now guess who will pay for it if they don’t snag a big fish 😉
What’s crazier, them wanting $1.7bn or John Fisher looking for investors at a $2bn valuation without a ballpark.
Why not both?
What will a Polock family do with that
much money, and why would they
sell their Twins? I guess if they had Triplets,
they would want $3 billion?
Debts of 425 million. This is a team that needed to win in the playoffs
A playoff run probably wouldn’t generate enough profit to cover the interest on $425 mill. in debt let alone start paying down principal.
Because you need a competitive product consistently. Mix in some exciting players.
In December of 2024, Apple had debt of $96.8B with $53.8B cash on hand. As long as there is incoming revenue, carrying debt is not always a bad thing when the cash can be used to make more money than debt interest paid. I’m oversimplifying for two different industry sectors but that’s the idea.
They have probably been carrying debt for ages because money has been cheap for a long time. With low interest rates they were able, for example, to put their $135m part of Target Field’s costs on the books as debt. Then they could claim that they lose money each year while using that $135m to invest elsewhere and make more than the interest cost them.
I’m sure there was other older debt from the initial team purchase, from the lost 2020 season, and God knows what else, that they could borrow at 1-2% (pre-covid rates) and then invest and hold so there was no tax burden.
If you ever wondered how a team could have $200m in revenue and spend $120m on payroll and still lose money? This is how. It’s by design.
Yep, uber rich people make more money by borrowing money and investing it in funds/real-estate that pay out more in interest than they owe on the borrowed sums. They don’t invest their own money.
Same reason well-off people buy homes with with very low interest mortgage rates than pay cash in full.
Tough times when you’re interested buyer pulls out for a larger stake of the White Sox..
The White So are bad for a couple of years, but they’re in Chicago, and they’ve recently won a World Series. Give me Chicago over Minnesota. Don’t get me wrong Minnesota is beautiful, but Chicago is a major player.
I don’t consider 2005 to be recent, but Chicago is a fantastic market
The WhiteSox have always competed for a piece of the market dominated by the Cubs. They also want a new stadium but 100% chance that doesn’t happen unless privately funded. I’d go with the Twins for a better ROI
White Sox only own 1/3 of Chicago and they lose financial leverage to the Cubs, which turns the White Sox into a mid-market team trapped in a big market, though it could change via the new stadium/future ownership.
Not really. What determines White Sox attendance and revenue is winning. When they win, they have good attendance like pretty much any other team. The Cubs are the anomaly that still draw even if they lose.
That last sentence is pretty much what I just said. A losing Cubs team out revenues a winning White Sox team.
Except it isn’t. When the White Sox consistently win they have a good attendance and generate revenue much higher than a mid-market team. No true mid-market team can get near the 3 million mark in attendance.
The Sox problem is they don’t consistently win–which isn’t the Cubs fault. Also Cubs fans are a lot larger than just the city of Chicago and the greater area. They are a national team similar to the Yankees. Almost everything about the Cubs is an anomaly.
The last time the White Sox came close to 3 million was almost 20 years ago. 2.9 in 2006.
Even the World Series year they only had 2.3. Of course fans will turn out for a winning product, but the Sox struggle to draw no matter. There is more to the vacancy than just the W/L record.
Correct. The only recent seasons they have won were in Covid effected years of 2020 and 2021 (no one drew 3 million in 2021) so they didn’t get to capitalize on winning. The last time they consistently won before that was 20 years ago.
There is almost no correlation between gate revenue and record. Lots of people wish there was, but there isn’t. Ask the Rays and Rockies.
There is mostly correlation between winning and gate revenue. It is an anomaly when there isn’t (Cubs, Rays and Rockies). Pretty much every other team’s attendance will correlate with their record, but baseball towns will keep a higher floor (i.e. St Louis). Florida teams have shown they won’t show up regardless. Admittedly their stadium locations do hinder attendance but I sitll think MLB baseball in Florida is a failure.
Just look at the White Sox attendance since they are the subject at hand (ignore the 2020 and 2021 seasons obviously for Covid reasons):
Year Winning Pct Attendance (Million)
2024 0.296 1.4
2023 0.378 1.7
2022 0.480 2.0
2019 0.427 1.65
2018 0.385 1.6
2017 0.432 1.63
2016 0.481 1.75
2015 0.446 1.75
2014 0.437 1.65
2013 0.414 1.77
2012 0.543 1.97
A perfect correlation between win percentage and attendance.
@seamaholic 2 a good example of a correlation between winning (and intentionally tearing down) and gate revenue is the A’s.
You can same the same thing for any team in any sport. Winning brings in people and money.
You can do this for any team it does not apply to only the White Sox .
I understand that Slappy Dappy Doo, that’s my point if you actually read the thread but apparently Seamaholic lives in alternate universe.
Chicago is great because there is soooo much potential for improving their revenue.
They suck but still make decent money. The stadium is old and they have a line on a new one. It’s a major metro area so they’ll be one of the last teams to get kicked off cable by the RSN. You buy them because you think you can improve the team, improve the stadium and reap the windfall.
MN is not getting a new stadium, has lost the cable money and hasn’t been drawing when they win. It’s a harder situation to improve.
CRISE,most of what you say i agree with.however, new commiskey is not old.its middle aged.most stadiums around the world last the life span of a human,not a horse.camden yards in baltimore is only 2 years younger at 33.the state of maryland just gave the orioles 600 million for renovations.and the orioles signed a 30 year lease.so my question is why would chicago or illinois give the the sox 1.3 billion for a new ball park, when 5 or 600 million could do wonders for new commiskey. i havent been to commiskey in 5 years,however it wasnt that bad, i would say it falls in the middle of the pack if i was to rate all 30 ball parks.look what they did in toronto in rogers center.they just added 25 years more life on it. the sox could also change the name of guarenteed rate field to something better.but thats a small gripe, old timers like me just call it commiskey.ive been to 22 of the current 30 ball parks.and there is much worse than where the white sox play.
The point is the opportunity to improve things so that people come and spend more. Even a $500m facelift helps remake the image of the park and thus the franchise and improve attendance. The Twins park is barely 15 years old and there is no substantial money coming from anywhere to improve or replace it any time soon.
Please tell us you are homer without telling us you are a homer. The White Sox are probably five years away from being competitive.
More like 3.5-4 years tbh.
No better investment in the United States than a big 4 sports franchise. Just assuming a 1.5Bish price, the family 34x’d their money in 40 so years, absolutely insane.
And Imagine if Carl Pohlard sold in 2001 for only a 3x of $150 million.
That was before the valuation boom. There’s better investment ROI out there for the guys with that kind of cash.
Twins have substantial debt on their books as pointed out here too.
Yeah, but Carl Pohlad didn’t take that debt to the grave, he was already a billionaire, but now his family as a whole gets another bill or so, off a purchase for less than $50 mill 40 years ago. Rather than them all taking individual investment risks.
It’s also the fact that the franchise in of itself it’s own individual portfolio asset for the family estate with guaranteed returns, regardless of management (as we’ve seen multiple times with franchise sales).
Even with the debt, the family makes off like bandits either way.
Billionaires have much better investments than sports franchises. MLB needs to let all the simpleton fans buy a team. Let them all invest their money and and run the team into the ground with signing free agents every year. Then when they’re all broke and are too busy to make comments because they’re working 2nd and 3rd jobs these narratives that owners are cheap can go away.
@thatsit have you ever heard of fantasy baseball? Lot’s of simpletons play fantasy sports- many of which have succesful careers outside of fantasy baseball. You should try the game. Plus they’re free if you choose!
John Stanton, is that you?
i like your style of thought,THATSIT.to many people listen to guys like ken rosenthal and former baseball players.most of whom no absolutely nothing about owning or running a sports franchise.
It is easy to look at that staggering dollar figure and assume those return rates are astronomical.. As reference, had they invested $44 million into the S&P 500 back in 1984, they’d have about $2.1 billion – without the $400+ million in debt to pay off.
And with instant liquidity rather than having to look for a buyer willing to meet their price.
Except that return isn’t all that they’ve made over that span. The debt exists for a reason.
It would be absurd to have a non diversified, investment portfolio in just the S&P 500 for 40 years in comparison to owning a sports franchise for 40 years.
They’re also different forms of assets when it comes to their taxation (gains and capital taxes versus the various taxes in selling a sports franchise). I’ll amend my statement and say: it’s one of the best non-diversifiable investments a wealthy *estate*, which is the important word, can make as a whole.
My intent wasn’t to say that sports teams have been bad investments. I don’t believe that.
I just think a lot of people look at those numbers and don’t realize they have very similar opportunities for growth over similar periods (though, with much smaller sums).
This ain’t the NFL or NBA bud, hardly any black players in MLB
@harrisstan
“Forced” to sell something that no one is willing to pay the asking price for? Hoo-boy…wake me up when that kind of thing ever happens. Why do we even think this kind of “inclusion” really matters? You want inclusion? Lobby for reductions in parking, concessions, and tickets. That’s the kind of “inclusion” this sport could use, not adding a different shade to a wealthy boardroom full of dunces who don’t even understand why anybody likes their sport in the first place.
Derek Jeter can own a trivial amount of this team next! Baseball was sooooo much better for it!
I hope they sell. The family seems to have no interest in winning. The team is just something on the balance sheet to manage.
Maybe Joe should pass away leaving the team to his grandson who loves the twins and stats, and he would make himself the manager of the twins and surprisingly win over all the players including the one that happened to start dating his mom.
It happened once for the twins. There is a documentary about it. It can happen again.
You can be like the Jets and have an owner make his picks based on Maddon 2025, and have his grandsons bring their friends to the locker room.
I’m not a fan of Aaron Rodgers, but it was pretty funny when he said he reported to an 18 year old.
Juan Soto, New York Mets – $765M (15 years)
Years: 2024-38; Average Annual Salary: $51,000,000;
Mookie Betts, Los Angeles Dodgers – $365M (12 years)
Years: 2021-32; Average Annual Salary: $30,416,667
I’d say looking at just the very very tip of the iceberg the black man is doing okay in the major leagues. And frankly I don’t care if this site Banned Me or not but this black entitlement crap got to go. at this level these people see one color it ain’t black it ain’t white it’s green.
And not that I have to prove anything to anyone or really care what anyone thinks but before you assume anyone is racist calling you out my favorite all time not just baseball player but celebrity role model is Elston Howard I met him in person and he had an impact on my life so there
Elston Howard would be 95 if he were still living, but he died in 1980. Do you even know what Google is???
Elston Howard was a 100% class act.
What a stupid suggestion
The inverse of your idea is that the very finite number of black people with $1.7b are now being tapped to buy a baseball team, apparently without any regard for their interest in baseball.
Seriously, how many people are there out there with even $1b would you allow to buy, like ten? Does it get better with only requiring $0.5b and letting them front a bunch of folks with real money? ARod doesn’t even meet that standard to act as the face of the deal.
Scott Boras could buy the team and then he could negotiate with himself and the buy all the Astronauts he needs to go to the Moon aka World Series by paying TOP DOLLAR and show all of us as to how it is DONE!!!
Put simply, the team is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. And the idea that any owner should be “forced to sell” is so very Chinese or Russian communistic.
I’m sure that moving to one of those countries is fairly easy. If that is the system that you want to live under, then please go. And don’t let the door hit you on the backside.
you’re making “Chinese or Russian” communism sound real good right now dude lmao
Good luck to them. I doubt anyone will pay that for a small market team with that kind of debt.
Does it include the Roger Beshens Football Slider?
That will cost ya extra.
How does Rob Manfred have a job? While other sports leagues have seen their values soar due to expanding business models, MLB has a third of its teams actively not competing to win and mediocre cashflow. Most MLB franchises are worth less than the stadiums they would like to build.
Yup. Same guy who wants to keep two teams in Florida or even add a third because… reasons? Florida has proved that the people there do not come out for MLB. They have zero business having any teams let alone three yet that seems to be what Manfred wants. Rays move to Oakland. Marlins move to Charlotte or Nashville and change names. Expand with new teams in Portland or anywhere else that isn’t Florida. Florida can have the Grapefruit League spring training, that’s all they want or deserve to have.
Enrico for President!
harrisstan, congrats! You get the “Dumbest post of 2025” award. But the year is still young.
That’s a lot of debt. When the Mets were sold to Cohen they had $350M n debt–but the team’s old owners, the Wilpons, had lost a huge amount of money in connection to the Madoff collapse. If I were a buyer I’d want to know whether the debt level was mostly related to actual operating loss, or was a big chunk incurred to pay out to the Pohlads. Either you have a viable operating business that just had an couple of tough hits (COVID and RSN problems) or you have a perennial money-loser.
This isn’t about selling the Twins—it’s about weaponizing the sale process as a valuation discovery mechanism and a leverage play against future creditors or partners. The $425 million debt, unusually high for MLB, suggests cash flow pressure, yet the Pohlads aren’t behaving like desperate sellers. By floating $1.7 billion, they’re signaling confidence in the franchise’s latent value (e.g., potential new TV deals, market recovery) while simultaneously gathering data on how the market prices their distressed asset. If they walk away, they’ve lost nothing but gained critical intelligence to restructure debt or negotiate with MLB— a move no one’s discussing because the narrative fixates on the sale’s surface drama, not its strategic subtext.
Agree with most of your comment, but the “valuation discovery mechanism” could backfire–they could find a ceiling lower than their ask. That would delay the process further. The franchise itself, by virtue of being an MLB franchise, has significant latent value–so creditors might not be eager to make concessions if there’s enough of that latent value to get paid–and the same goes for negotiating with MLB. Sooner or later they will sell, because the family wants the money.
A lower ceiling doesn’t backfire—it’s just data. The $1.7B ask is a Bayesian signal, not a desperate target, mapping market value under uncertainty. With $425M debt, creditors won’t budge—they know MLB’s monopoly floor (e.g., Orioles’ $1.725B) covers it. No sale? They restructure, using bids like $1.5B as leverage. Plus, this pressures MLB—TV and attendance woes are league problems. A non-sale forces MLB to offset risks (e.g., streaming cash), not the Pohlads. It’s not about selling; it’s a recursive play for control, debt, and league dynamics. They win either way.
@Old York, This is a huge post, great points. Seriously, send it to Ken Rosenthal for real reporting.
This is the first real salvo in the next CBA fight between large and small markets. By showing how the revenue disparity is driving down team valuations small revenue teams can fight back against the ultra-rich teams with weapons that actually hurt them.
Y’all are reacting like this is a serious suggestion and not just an exasperated comment. A man can lament the lack of black owners without having a sensible plan to fix the problem.
Hell, have you looked at American politics? This is how we make all our important decisions in 2025: by theatrical impulsiveness.
Looks like they want above top dollar for a mismanaged asset. It is possible they only want to sell if they get the price they want but are more than happy to go on. Turning down 1.5 billion and, assuming, the 425 million in debt goes with it, you just turned down a 1.9 billion deal.
Baltimore is in a much more lucrative market so comparing the Minnesota market is not apples to apples. Factor in the amount of debt.
They have been living off the 1987 and 1991 World Series. They remind me of the Boston Bruins of late 70’s and 80’s. They put together a good enough team to tease but they can’t get it over the top. Meanwhile they have the resources and potential revenue to do what they need to . They just are resting on their laurels.
Meh. Or the $1.7b is actually a $1.3b and they pay off their own debt. Or they split the difference at $1.5b. There are a lot of ways for this to go and just as many ways of presenting it to the public.
Karl Marx approves of your foolishness.
he should be forced to sell it to a bl@ck investor
======================
Or how about forcing a black billionaire to buy the team?
Buy it and move it.
Let’s all chip in and have an MLBTR-owned team!
2 1/4 Juan sotos could buy that team
what are we doing man lmao
I think the Twins just retiled the bathroom so they might be worth it.
For any buyer… knowing that they could have bought the Orioles for $1.725 Billion. To now spend $1.7B on the Twins is like spending the same thing on a used Ford Explorer this year that you could have bought a New Benz for last year.
If and when the team ever gets sold. Getting a beautiful ballpark.