Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Forums

Article: Official Rule 5 Draft Day Thread

Twins Minor League Talk Today, 02:00 AM
The Winter Meetings in Las Vegas have been fairly quiet against in 2018. Certainly there are meetings, but there haven't been a lot of si...
Full topic ›

Buxton: "Pissed" at Twins for No Call-Up Decision...

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 01:29 AM
According to the Star Tribune, Byron Buxton is displeased with the Twins after not being called up in September of 2018. According to Byr...
Full topic ›

Article: Twins Trying to Sustain Excellence

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 02:00 AM
If you’re feeling a bit underwhelmed at the close of the Winter Meetings in Las Vegas, I’m sure you’re not the only Minnesota Twins fan i...
Full topic ›

Non-Twins Off-season news, tidbits and transactions

Other Baseball Yesterday, 11:03 PM
We had a thread for items around the baseball world that were worth sharing but not worth a thread of their own. Now that the 2018 season...
Full topic ›

Derek Falvey Interview on 1500 ESPN

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 02:00 AM
Falvey discusses Sano, payroll, etc. http://www.1500espn....an-mackey-judd/
Full topic ›

Emptying the Notebook: Happ, Dipoto, Boras and Blueprints

The Twins are reportedly interested in J.A. Happ, which may or not really mean anything at all. We can assume the Twins are interested in a lot of guys, right? Welcome to the offseason!

There are some other rumblings coming out of the GM Meetings, as well as other happenings in the baseball world that are worth turning your attention to. Let’s get to it ...
Image courtesy of © Brad Mills-USA TODAY Sports
What are your thoughts on J.A. Happ?

Happ has been a great starting pitcher over the past four seasons, posting a 3.48 ERA (121 ERA+) and 1.21 WHIP for the Mariners, Pirates, Blue Jays and Yankees. The problem is that means he’s good enough to command a multi-year deal, though he’s already 36-years-old. The Twins could use a left-handed starting pitcher, and Happ would also add some experience and leadership.

MLB Trade Rumors had Happ has their No. 9 free agent and predicted he'll receive a three-year, $48 million deal (from the Angels) while FanGraphs had him ranked 21st and projected a two-year $28 million.

There were some rumblings of a Seattle fire sale brewing, but GM Jerry Dipoto downplayed that possibility, telling MLB.com “we're not looking to rip our club down. We're just too talented to do that.” Dipoto being Dipoto, he went ahead and made a deal tonight, sending catcher Mike Zunino to Tampa Bay for outfielder Mallex Smith. This is a situation worth keeping an eye on, a the M’s have pieces on their pitching staff and infield that could represent upgrades for the Twins.

High-profile agent Scott Boras name dropped the Twins, and not in a favorable manner.

OK. The Twins are a lower-market payroll team and attendance isn’t booming, but of all the teams you’re gonna take a cheap shot at Minnesota? Really? Per USA Today, the Twins had the 16th-highest Opening Day payroll and per ESPN they were 20th in attendance. Maybe Scott should stick to marketing his clients instead of shooting off super lame jokes.

Of course, it’s when his clients arrive when Twins fans are really gonna show up.


Earlier this week, Nick shared his offseason blueprint that envisioned the Twins as big spenders. The site has been booming with blueprints, as both the forums and the blog section have been active. Grab a copy of the Offseason Handbook for whatever price you feel is appropriate and put together your own blueprint today.

Matt Eddy of Baseball America shared a list of 520 minor league free agents. One name that really jumped out to me was Dilson Herrera. He’s a 24-year-old second baseman who has some MLB time (108 games) with the Mets and Reds. Herrera has a .290/.349/.461 (.809 OPS) batting line in 1,305 plate appearances in Triple A. The Twins will certainly aim higher in their search for a second baseman, but Herrera is an interesting fallback option.

Dan Hayes of The Athletic reported that it won’t be too long before the Twins hear final word on Joe Mauer’s future.

Also over at The Athletic, Jim Bowdenshared five potential landing spots for J.T. Realmuto, should the Marlins decide to deal him. Spoiler alert! Twins are not listed.

Kennys Vargas signed with Japan’s Chiba Lotte Marines.

  • Cory Engelhardt, dbminn and nclahammer like this

  • Share:
  • submit to reddit
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

79 Comments

Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 09 2018 08:50 AM

 

I also have no interest in winning the WAR/$ spent championship. I want to watch the Twins win the World Series championship.

 

You obviously don’t understand the correlation. The Red Sox had a phenomenal 108 win season. What if we were equally as effective per dollar spent? They spent 1.91M/win. Well …. That would equate to 68 wins in a year when the Twins had record spending.

 

What if we were as effective as Colorado or Atlanta. Both examples would equate to 102 wins. How about if our payroll dollar/win was as good as the Brewers. That would have been 137 wins. That sounds great until we put it in the context you used. That being “winning the payroll/win championship”. In that case we win all 162 games. Why does this not interest you, Chief or the people who liked the comment?

 

The necessity for teams with less revenue to produce more wins per payroll dollar is a very simple concept and it is absolute. Why anyone would argue against such a clear cut concept leaves me wondering exactly why. It makes zero sense.

 

You obviously don’t understand the correlation. The Red Sox had a phenomenal 108 win season. What if we were equally as effective per dollar spent? They spent 1.91M/win. Well …. That would equate to 68 wins in a year when the Twins had record spending.

 

What if we were as effective as Colorado or Atlanta. Both examples would equate to 102 wins. How about if our payroll dollar/win was as good as the Brewers. That would have been 137 wins. That sounds great until we put it in the context you used. That being “winning the payroll/win championship”. In that case we win all 162 games. Why does this not interest you, Chief or the people who liked the comment?

 

The necessity for teams with less revenue to produce more wins per payroll dollar is a very simple concept and it is absolute. Why anyone would argue against such a clear cut concept leaves me wondering exactly why. It makes zero sense.

 

because it is often used as an excuse not to get better, in the name of efficiency over effectiveness. If a team is 1 player away, and that player costs more $/WAR than is "right", they should or should not sign him? Because I don't care if they win 84 games efficiently, nor do most fans.

 

And, let's be honest, you have a bias for capital over labor. That's cool, but not everyone shares that bias. The value of teams is rising faster than payrolls are, and I'm not cool with that. Old, formerly interesting, people on the east coast might be, but I don't think everyone shares James' opinion. 

    • Carole Keller likes this
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 09 2018 11:44 AM

 

because it is often used as an excuse not to get better, in the name of efficiency over effectiveness. If a team is 1 player away, and that player costs more $/WAR than is "right", they should or should not sign him? Because I don't care if they win 84 games efficiently, nor do most fans.

 

And, let's be honest, you have a bias for capital over labor. That's cool, but not everyone shares that bias. The value of teams is rising faster than payrolls are, and I'm not cool with that. Old, formerly interesting, people on the east coast might be, but I don't think everyone shares James' opinion. 

 

You keep changing the scenario completely. Are the Minnesota Twins even remotely near a one player away scenario. It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion if you insist on using scenarios that don’t remotely resemble our current state. We are not even arguing the same point. We can’t possibly get to a point where we are one player away without being efficient with payroll. We produced a win for ever $1.7M in payroll and we were badly off the pace AND we max payroll. To suggest the solution is adding players that cost $10M/win is horribly ill-conceived and that is a very polite choice of words.

 

 

You keep changing the scenario completely. Are the Minnesota Twins even remotely near a one player away scenario. It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion if you insist on using scenarios that don’t remotely resemble our current state. We are not even arguing the same point. We can’t possibly get to a point where we are one player away without being efficient with payroll. We produced a win for ever $1.7M in payroll and we were badly off the pace AND we max payroll. To suggest the solution is adding players that cost $10M/win is horribly ill-conceived and that is a very polite choice of words.

 

I'd suggest last year they didn't spend wisely.....that was the issue (and Sano and Buxton being bad, not stars.....nothing matters if those to are bad, no amount of spending or better decision making). They went cheap, 1 year deals, and didn't sign legit players to multi year deals. Now, they need to fill those same holes again, because they literally didn't try to fill them for this year. Hopefully two things change:

 

Buxton and Sano are stars again

They FO chooses actual good players for their deals

 

You keep changing the scenario completely. Are the Minnesota Twins even remotely near a one player away scenario. It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion if you insist on using scenarios that don’t remotely resemble our current state. We are not even arguing the same point. We can’t possibly get to a point where we are one player away without being efficient with payroll. We produced a win for ever $1.7M in payroll and we were badly off the pace AND we max payroll. To suggest the solution is adding players that cost $10M/win is horribly ill-conceived and that is a very polite choice of words.

So...hope that the cheap stars develop, and then add expensive talent.

 

How is that different from adding expensive talent, and hoping the cheap stars develop?

 

 

    • Mike Sixel and Twins33 like this
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 09 2018 12:50 PM

 

So...hope that the cheap stars develop, and then add expensive talent.

 

How is that different from adding expensive talent, and hoping the cheap stars develop?

 

The answer is extremely obvious for anyone who has ever had P&L responsibility of a 9 figure entity. Is it a better business practice to invest 50/60 or 70M on the low probability that the prospects that have struggled becomes stars or do you suppose the people who are investing that money would elect to invest once the prospects are proving to pan out? You know this how any team outside the top 10 in revenue operate so why would you ask such a silly question? 

Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 09 2018 12:57 PM

 

I'd suggest last year they didn't spend wisely.....that was the issue (and Sano and Buxton being bad, not stars.....nothing matters if those to are bad, no amount of spending or better decision making). They went cheap, 1 year deals, and didn't sign legit players to multi year deals. Now, they need to fill those same holes again, because they literally didn't try to fill them for this year. Hopefully two things change:

 

Buxton and Sano are stars again

They FO chooses actual good players for their deals

 

What was I thinking ... Had they only signed Darvish and Hosmer instead of Lynn and Morrison. 

 

What was I thinking ... Had they only signed Darvish and Hosmer instead of Lynn and Morrison. 

 

As if I suggested they do both of those things.....Darvish got hurt. The Twins supposedly bid the 2nd most for him, so clearly they thought they should sign him......

Photo
diehardtwinsfan
Nov 09 2018 01:41 PM

 

 

When you go to a game in Tampa, they don't even need to recount the attendance.

 

For what it's worth, I had the privilege at being at the lowest attended game in Ray's history against the Twins in 2017 less than a week before Irma hit. 

    • USAFChief likes this
Photo
diehardtwinsfan
Nov 09 2018 01:47 PM

 

I'd suggest last year they didn't spend wisely.....that was the issue (and Sano and Buxton being bad, not stars.....nothing matters if those to are bad, no amount of spending or better decision making). They went cheap, 1 year deals, and didn't sign legit players to multi year deals. Now, they need to fill those same holes again, because they literally didn't try to fill them for this year. Hopefully two things change:

 

Buxton and Sano are stars again

They FO chooses actual good players for their deals

 

With the exception of LoMo, most of the guys they spent money on lived up to their expectations. It was Sano, Buxton, Santana, Dozier, and Polanco that sunk the team. 

    • Carole Keller, birdwatcher, Jerr and 3 others like this

 

The answer is extremely obvious for anyone who has ever had P&L responsibility of a 9 figure entity. Is it a better business practice to invest 50/60 or 70M on the low probability that the prospects that have struggled becomes stars or do you suppose the people who are investing that money would elect to invest once the prospects are proving to pan out? You know this how any team outside the top 10 in revenue operate so why would you ask such a silly question? 

How does spending $10 now and $70 next year, or $60 now and $20 next year, change P&L?

 

Are you one of those failed businessmen who focused solely on the quarterly report, and ignored the yearly and long term reports?

 

If anything, In terms of a baseball team's business side--one in desperate need of some buzz to generate interest--you might be better off spending now. At the least, no worse.

 

And in baseball terms, the guys you need might not be available if you wait to sign them until you don't really need them, in addition to which by then your prospects are getting more expensive.

 

And if your prospects don't pan out, at least you'll have the players you signed to trade for more prospects to sell to your fanbase.

 

A baseball team isn't measured by normal methods anyway. No owner gets into baseball expecting to expand his riches. He eventually makes his money by franchise value increase, but his goal is (or should be) to watch his toy win a world championship. It's not a P&L business. It's a Ws&Ls business. That's how his ownership will be viewed by his customers.

 

 

    • Carole Keller, Jerr, Ben Noble and 1 other like this
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 09 2018 02:30 PM

How does spending $10 now and $70 next year, or $60 now and $20 next year, change P&L?

Are you one of those failed businessmen who focused solely on the quarterly report, and ignored the yearly and long term reports?



Would LOVE to compare resumes.

 

Would love to compare resumes.

 

I'd settle for an answer to the question.

    • birdwatcher, nicksaviking and Rigby like this
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 09 2018 03:47 PM

 

I'd settle for an answer to the question.

 

You are kidding right. There is no difference I never suggested nor would I suggest now that the Twins only invest $10M now. You are making up scenarios just like Mike which is a useless exercise. Financial metrics have to be compared against like variables or the exercise is useless.

 

My primary argument is not even how much they spend now but how effectively they do it. $10M/win frees agents are counter productive for a team with less than average income. Instead of changing the argument show me a scenario with our current team where using $10M/WAR players is advantageous. Keep in mind 90 win teams are considering tearing down because there are 4 AL teams with 97+ wins. Show me how you build a 97 win team from where we are today were you spend $30M or more on $10M/WAR players.

 

The impact is much greater on lesser revenue teams. Boston can spend 8.92M per player on the 25 man roster. MN can spend 5.2M or 58% on a per player basis.If Boston spends 60M on three 10M/WAR players they still can spend 7.41M per player on the 22 remaining roster spots. If the Twins do the same they have 3.18M per player available or 43% of Boston. In other words, it becomes increasing difficult for lesser revenue teams to field a competitive team if they sign players producing 1WAR/10M.

Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 09 2018 03:48 PM

 

You are kidding right. There is no difference I never suggested nor would I suggest now that the Twins only invest $10M now. You are making up scenarios just like Mike which is a useless exercise. Financial metrics have to be compared against like variables or the exercise is useless.

 

My primary argument is not even how much they spend now but how effectively they do it. $10M/win frees agents are counter productive for a team with less than average income. Instead of changing the argument show me a scenario with our current team where using $10M/WAR players is advantageous. Keep in mind 90 win teams are considering tearing down because there are 4 AL teams with 97+ wins. Show me how you build a 97 win team from where we are today were you spend $30M or more on $10M/WAR players.

 

The impact is much greater on lesser revenue teams. Boston can spend 8.92M per player on the 25 man roster. MN can spend 5.2M or 58% on a per player basis.If Boston spends 60M on three 10M/WAR players they still can spend 7.41M per player on the 22 remaining roster spots. If the Twins do the same they have 3.18M per player available or 43% of Boston. In other words, it becomes increasing difficult for lesser revenue teams to field a competitive team if they sign players producing 1WAR/10M. This is not theoretical. It's fact.

 

With the exception of LoMo, most of the guys they spent money on lived up to their expectations. It was Sano, Buxton, Santana, Dozier, and Polanco that sunk the team.


Maybe... But if one war was the expectation, then they had the wrong expectation..... And now they need to fill those exact holes again, since they went one year mostly.

You are kidding right. There is no difference I never suggested nor would I suggest now that the Twins only invest $10M now. You are making up scenarios just like Mike which is a useless exercise. Financial metrics have to be compared against like variables or the exercise is useless.

My primary argument is not even how much they spend now but how effectively they do it. $10M/win frees agents are counter productive for a team with less than average income. Instead of changing the argument show me a scenario with our current team where using $10M/WAR players is advantageous. Keep in mind 90 win teams are considering tearing down because there are 4 AL teams with 97+ wins. Show me how you build a 97 win team from where we are today were you spend $30M or more on $10M/WAR players.

The impact is much greater on lesser revenue teams. Boston can spend 8.92M per player on the 25 man roster. MN can spend 5.2M or 58% on a per player basis. If Boston spends 60M on three 10M/WAR players they still can spend 7.41M per player on the 22 remaining roster spots. If the Twins do the same they have 3.18M per player available or 43% of Boston. In other words, it becomes increasing difficult for lesser revenue teams to field a competitive team if they sign players producing 1WAR/10M.


If i am reading this correctly, you don't think they should try to compete next year? If true, what should they do?

If i am reading this correctly, you don't think they should try to compete next year? If true, what should they do?


There is more competition not to be competitive than trying to compete next season... Ironic, don't you think?
    • Rigby likes this
Twins could spend up to $206 MILLION on payroll without running afoul of Baseball's Luxury Tax. Pohlad family just doesn’t like to have a business enterprise that does not fund itself. Fact of the matter is that you have to spend money to make money. The novelty of the new stadium has worn off. The local hero has retired. Time to start putting a good product out onto the field. Kiss up to an agent and make him an offer he can't refuse for a couple of big buck clients. Trade for a couple of high profile players. The only reason everyone got down on Joe is because ownership continually preached the payroll limit. The Pohlad's NEVER opened up the war chest they have built up at the expense of the citizens of the Twin Cities and used the money to surround Mauer with the additional talent he deserved to forge a truly competitive team. Who could be added to the 2019 team if an additional $80 Million were made available to be spent? Machado? Corbin? Kuetchel? Familia? Kelly? The Pohlads DO know they can leverage the operating losses of one business to offset (for tax purposes) the profits of others. They just choose not to.
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 10 2018 07:58 AM

 

If i am reading this correctly, you don't think they should try to compete next year? If true, what should they do?

 

If you reach a bit you could make that inference but that is not remotely the point being made here. The point is that 10M/WAR free agents are counterproductive to building a contender for teams with less than average revenue. That pointed was highlighted by the fact I provided mathematical proof. I would think people would either contest the math or acknowledge the production/dollar spent is crucial to below average revenue teams building a contender. Even the large market teams have come to appreciate the importance but as I have shown in the previous post it’s not as critical to teams with the highest revenue.. This has been a huge point of contention here. Most will just ignore the proof I just offered and continue to complain about the organization won’t do something because they are cheap when the motivation is much more likely they believe for good reason the move would be counterproductive. 

 

Instead of refuting the proof or acknowledging the conclusion on what was clearly the point you jumped to the conclusion that I “don't think they should try to compete next year?” I wrote show me a scenario where this is achieved using $10M/WAR free agents which is completely consistent with the main point I just described. The fact that I reject a specific strategy / approach does not mean I reject the objective of trying to win. The reference to other teams retooling was defining “win” and setting the bar for # of wins because a 90 win team is not really a contender and I am not interested in a plan where the likely outcome is get our a$$e$ kicked in the playoffs. Every blueprint presented here makes us better but none of them (including the $150M plan) construct a team that is realistically close to Boston / Houston / NY. Part of the point is that if we can’t construct a true contender, what’s the difference between 86 and 88 or even 90 wins. I certainly am not trading any good prospects to get from 84 to 87 wins. I will trade them when I get to 87 wins (see Milwaukee)

Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 10 2018 08:11 AM

 

Twins could spend up to $206 MILLION on payroll without running afoul of Baseball's Luxury Tax. Pohlad family just doesn’t like to have a business enterprise that does not fund itself. Fact of the matter is that you have to spend money to make money. The novelty of the new stadium has worn off. The local hero has retired. Time to start putting a good product out onto the field. Kiss up to an agent and make him an offer he can't refuse for a couple of big buck clients. Trade for a couple of high profile players. The only reason everyone got down on Joe is because ownership continually preached the payroll limit. The Pohlad's NEVER opened up the war chest they have built up at the expense of the citizens of the Twin Cities and used the money to surround Mauer with the additional talent he deserved to forge a truly competitive team. Who could be added to the 2019 team if an additional $80 Million were made available to be spent? Machado? Corbin? Kuetchel? Familia? Kelly? The Pohlads DO know they can leverage the operating losses of one business to offset (for tax purposes) the profits of others. They just choose not to.

 

Apple made 48B in 2017 (the Twins made $23M) By your logic Apple should give $100B worth of product to their customers.What do you suppose the odds of that happening are?

If someone could somehow summarize the discussion between MLBReady vs. the Others, and let me know if it is really interesting and edifying, I might go back and read all those posts, if my coffee doesn't run out.  Not being all that snarky; seems like some interesting stuff, maybe.

 

In the meantime, there are more dead limbs on Boras' Mockery Tree to address:

 

In a way, Boras was actually complementing the Twins.  Bear with me, as I am about to do maths.  And keep in mind that old axiom about statistics being lies and damn lies.

 

If one Twin attends a baseball game, 50% of Twins are at the game.  Extrapolating this line of reasoning out to other teams, we can make the following statistical confunderies (made up that word just now.)

 

If only one Astro showed up for a game, say, Buzz Aldrin, that would mean 532 Astros didn't show up, although that number accounts for ALL humans who have ever been to space, living or dead.  Some fans are dead inside, to be sure, but probably not Astros fans right now.  1 out of the 533 people who have been in space is not good.  Doing slightly better is San Diego, depending on how you slice it--

 

If only one Padre showed up for a game, maybe Father Mulcahey, that would represent about 1 of the 200 or so Catholic Military Chaplains currently serving in the military were at the game.  If you expanded the meaning of 'padre' to its literal Spanish definition, but confined it to just actual Spanish speakers, it would mean that only 1 out of approximately 150 million Spanish-speaking males that have children (a guess, at best) in the world--el mundo--made it to the game.  Pathetic.

 

Lastly, if only one Indian showed up for a game in Cleveland, that would mean 1,338,999,999 Indians did not attend the game, as they were presumably more interested in a cricket match.

 

I would say that having half of your fans at the game is the highest percentage any team is capable of producing using this turn of phrase-- depending on how you define "socks"--one pair of socks, or all of the socks of a certain color in the entire world?  By the latter definition, I'd have to surmise the the Chicago White Sox have the worst fans in the entire world.

 

 

    • Carole Keller, USAFChief and nicksaviking like this

I mostly agree with MLR... maybe a slight disagreement with him on how close we are but... I mostly agree with him. 

 

The money isn't endless no matter how much the Pohlad's have in their pocket. Even the Dodgers are trying to roll back on their spending trying to attract investors. 

 

The money has to be spent sensibly. 

 

That isn't to say that I wouldn't love to have Machado or Harper on the team. I'd be real excited to have them in a Twins uniform but you could probably sign 3 decent players for the price of one Machado and we need at least 3 decent players.  

 

If we sign Machado... how does it make us different than the 2018 Orioles, who finished with the worst record in baseball?.

 

Machado and Sano last year was the equivalent of Machado and Chris Davis last year. Machado, Sano and Dozier was the equivalent of Machado, Davis and Schoop last year. Add on Adam Jones, Mark Trumbo, Trey Mancini and the Orioles had a team full of people who could hit but didn't hit and they didn't have anybody else to turn to. 

 

The Twins have the money to sign Machado but in my opinion they need to take that money and sign three players instead. 

 

I'd rather have Marwin, Murphy and Miller for the same price as Machado. 

 

Disclaimer: It was on purpose that I only chose players whose last names started with "M" for an example.  

 

 

 

 

 

    • Han Joelo likes this
Photo
ashburyjohn
Nov 10 2018 09:27 AM

 

By the latter any and every definition, I'd have to surmise the the Chicago White Sox have the worst fans in the entire world.

FTFY. :)

    • USAFChief and Han Joelo like this

I mostly agree with MLR... maybe a slight disagreement with him on how close we are but... I mostly agree with him.

The money isn't endless no matter how much the Pohlad's have in their pocket. Even the Dodgers are trying to roll back on their spending trying to attract investors.

The money has to be spent sensibly.

That isn't to say that I wouldn't love to have Machado or Harper on the team. I'd be real excited to have them in a Twins uniform but you could probably sign 3 decent players for the price of one Machado and we need at least 3 decent players.

If we sign Machado... how does it make us different than the 2018 Orioles, who finished with the worst record in baseball?.

Machado and Sano last year was the equivalent of Machado and Chris Davis last year. Machado, Sano and Dozier was the equivalent of Machado, Davis and Schoop last year. Add on Adam Jones, Mark Trumbo, Trey Mancini and the Orioles had a team full of people who could hit but didn't hit and they didn't have anybody else to turn to.

The Twins have the money to sign Machado but in my opinion they need to take that money and sign three players instead.

I'd rather have Marwin, Murphy and Miller for the same price as Machado.

Disclaimer: It was on purpose that I only chose players whose last names started with "M" for an example.

The Twins don’t have to choose between signing Machado, or Marwin, Murphy and Miller.

They can do all four.
    • Carole Keller, Twins33, Riverbrian and 1 other like this

Similar Articles


by Tom Froemming , 20 Nov 2018
Photo