I don't think a new owner will magically solve all monetary issues.  I know new ownership offers the possibility of positive change whereas the Pohlad's offer the certainty of continuing on the same path. 

I'm on team possibility which is easy because it's not my money.

I actually like the Pohlads.  While their message doesn’t come through well at all,  they are consistent and do spend some on payroll.  They have done what they said they would do if we built the stadium.  That being said I would be happy if the Twins could get their payroll up to 180-190 million range. But that has more with broadcasting revenue and I put that on the owners for their failure to creatively work through the revenue issues. 

BAL has had a super farm & now most of them are in the MLB. IMO, BAL's problem is a quality rotation & veteran leaders. They spent good prospect stock to trade for Corbin Burns w/o assurance of extending him (big mistake). IMO, they had the making of a perennial powerhouse team but because of lack of planning, they have squandered their opportunity.

My main problem with Pohlads is their lack of understanding & love for baseball. Therefore, they ignorantly believe that Falvey knows what he doing & has the ability to get the job done. As long the Pohlads are owners, Falvey & Co. aren't going anywhere. 

4 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

BAL has had a super farm & now most of them are in the MLB. IMO, BAL's problem is a quality rotation & veteran leaders. They spent good prospect stock to trade for Corbin Burns w/o assurance of extending him (big mistake). IMO, they had the making of a perennial powerhouse team but because of lack of planning, they have squandered their opportunity.

My main problem with Pohlads is their lack of understanding & love for baseball. Therefore, they ignorantly believe that Falvey knows what he doing & has the ability to get the job done. As long the Pohlads are owners, Falvey & Co. aren't going anywhere. 

 But the Orioles replaced Burnes with Kyle Gibson. Love the guy, but at this point of his career he’s not even close to Chris Paddack. Even if you lose Burnes, there are dozens of better guys out there. And their brand new owners set the budget to replace Burnes at 38 year old Gibby

13 hours ago, William Malone said:

 But the Orioles replaced Burnes with Kyle Gibson. Love the guy, but at this point of his career he’s not even close to Chris Paddack. Even if you lose Burnes, there are dozens of better guys out there. And their brand new owners set the budget to replace Burnes at 38 year old Gibby

The Orioles are at $165MM of payroll, up from $109MM last year, and up from $69MM the year before. They offered Burnes more money than Arizona, but Burnes wanted to play close to his home in Scottsdale. They tried to replace Corbin Burnes with Morton and Sugano. 

Sorry your guys are hurt. If the Twins lost Lopez to another team last year and watched Ryan and Ober go down with injuries, I'm pretty sure they'd be struggling this year.

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

The Orioles are at $165MM of payroll, up from $109MM last year, and up from $69MM the year before. They offered Burnes more money than Arizona, but Burnes wanted to play close to his home in Scottsdale. They tried to replace Corbin Burnes with Morton and Sugano. 

Sorry your guys are hurt. If the Twins lost Lopez to another team last year and watched Ryan and Ober go down with injuries, I'm pretty sure they'd be struggling this year.

That’s cool that they offered more. But why was the pivot Kyle Gibson? A dude who isn’t even on same level of Chris Paddack. I’m not saying they needed to go get another proven stud. Look at how the big money Mets filled out rotation with Griffin Canning and career reliever Clay Holmes. Both incredibly better options than Kyle Gibson and neither costs that much 

1 hour ago, William Malone said:

That’s cool that they offered more. But why was the pivot Kyle Gibson? A dude who isn’t even on same level of Chris Paddack. I’m not saying they needed to go get another proven stud. Look at how the big money Mets filled out rotation with Griffin Canning and career reliever Clay Holmes. Both incredibly better options than Kyle Gibson and neither costs that much 

Name a better free agent on the market on March 21st. Canning and Holmes were signed in December, and as you point out, Holmes was a reliever, not a starter.

Canning has a career 4.60 ERA and 5.2 fWAR with a season best 1.8 fWAR. Last year he pitched to a 5.19 ERA in 171.2 innings producing a miserable 0.2 fWAR.

Gibson has a career 4.57 ERA and 21.4 fWAR with a season best 3.1 fWAR and was elected to an All Star game. Last year, Gibson pitched to a 4.24 ERA in 169.2 innings where he generated 8x the value of Canning. Gibson has qualified for championship trophies for the last 5 seasons in a row. That's besides the point, which is Gibson wasn't signed to replace Burnes. Again, Morton and Sugano were brought in to replace Burnes. Not Gibson.

There are plenty of reasons you could rag on Orioles ownership. Payroll and Kyle Gibson signed as a solid back end rotation member in an emergency when Grayson Rodriguez was going to be unable to start the season in the rotation are not two of them.

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Name a better free agent on the market on March 21st. Canning and Holmes were signed in December, and as you point out, Holmes was a reliever, not a starter.

Canning has a career 4.60 ERA and 5.2 fWAR with a season best 1.8 fWAR. Last year he pitched to a 5.19 ERA in 171.2 innings producing a miserable 0.2 fWAR.

Gibson has a career 4.57 ERA and 21.4 fWAR with a season best 3.1 fWAR and was elected to an All Star game. Last year, Gibson pitched to a 4.24 ERA in 169.2 innings where he generated 8x the value of Canning. Gibson has qualified for championship trophies for the last 5 seasons in a row. That's besides the point, which is Gibson wasn't signed to replace Burnes. Again, Morton and Sugano were brought in to replace Burnes. Not Gibson.

There are plenty of reasons you could rag on Orioles ownership. Payroll and Kyle Gibson signed as a solid back end rotation member in an emergency when Grayson Rodriguez was going to be unable to start the season in the rotation are not two of them.

Corbin Burned also signed in December. where did the money they offered him go? Twins have on occasion been accused of making fake offers for PR. What if they knew after having Burnes for a year that his heart was out west, so they made a big offer to look cool. But never planned on actually spending that cash

The difference is whether he was making mistakes or not is that he was willing to cough up the money. That is a substantially different playbook.......

I did not remember having the impression that the Orioles deal for Burnes was better. According to MLBTR and a quote by Burnes the Orioles offer was not better. There offer was two years short of the DBacks offer and a little deceptive because of the differed money. The DBacks offered the 6 years and the Orioles would not go past 4.

It kind of reminds me when we would hear reports of the Twins being involved in negotiation for free agent pitchers like Wheeler only to not go far enough to get them. I thought at the time the Twins weren’t really serious and part of them making those offers was PR while knowing all along it wasn’t going to be quite enough. It kind of feels like that with the Orioles offer. They knew 4 years wasn’t going to do it and the deferred money makes the offer seem better than it was.

I think Burnes and Boras took the better offer with the DBacks.

All the same, I would be pretty disappointed Orioles fan when I see that the only multiyear commitment was a moderate contract to O’Neill with the rest to aging veterans in Morton, Sugano, Sanchez and Kittredge. They also added Gibson and Carlson. Thus far those Orioles off season have combined for -1.9 fWAR.

I still don’t think I need to be too careful for what I wish for related to the Twins ownership. I appreciate what the Pohlad’s have contributed to the community but it is time for new owners. I get that the new owners will likely come in setting the same payroll constraints as the Pohlad family.

 

Corbin Burned also signed in December. where did the money they offered him go? Twins have on occasion been accused of making fake offers for PR. What if they knew after having Burnes for a year that his heart was out west, so they made a big offer to look cool. But never planned on actually spending that cash

Charlie Morton is making 15 million this year. Tomoyuki Sugano is making 13 million this year. There's 28 million of the Burnes money. You add in Zach Eflin who was only there for the end of 2024 and his $18 million deal this year and you're well over the 35 million Burnes is getting before Gibson is even in the discussion. They also added Tyler O'Neill to their roster for 16.5 million. Those are their top 4 paid players. None of which were on their roster to start 2024 and they paid Eflin less than 4 mil after they got him at the trade deadline last year. They spent the cash.

 

Charlie Morton is making 15 million this year. Tomoyuki Sugano is making 13 million this year. There's 28 million of the Burnes money. You add in Zach Eflin who was only there for the end of 2024 and his $18 million deal this year and you're well over the 35 million Burnes is getting before Gibson is even in the discussion. They also added Tyler O'Neill to their roster for 16.5 million. Those are their top 4 paid players. None of which were on their roster to start 2024 and they paid Eflin less than 4 mil after they got him at the trade deadline last year. They spent the cash.

So if it's not the owners then they're just stupid? Is it a bad front office? That's an argument I'm open to.  Because they don't seem to be spending money well, and a lot of their "top prospects" were top 50 draft picks. Anyone can draft in the top 50. Can you find a Bailey Ober in round 12 or a Griffin Jax in round five? Even Joe Ryan was a lower draft pick who wasn't even that highly touted when the Cruz trade happened. Never really rose to being a top five prospect in Rays system or a top 100 guy league wide. Twins just saw something and got the most out of it.

 

So if it's not the owners then they're just stupid? Is it a bad front office? That's an argument I'm open to.  Because they don't seem to be spending money well, and a lot of their "top prospects" were top 50 draft picks. Anyone can draft in the top 50. Can you find a Bailey Ober in round 12 or a Griffin Jax in round five? Even Joe Ryan was a lower draft pick who wasn't even that highly touted when the Cruz trade happened. Never really rose to being a top five prospect in Rays system or a top 100 guy league wide. Twins just saw something and got the most out of it.

I mean the Orioles have a 56.6% winning percentage over the last 3 full seasons. That's a 91-win pace. In the AL East. Many people questioned their offseason and have been questioning their hoarding of all their top prospects, but it's not like they've been awful. Real rough start to the year for them, but it's still May. Just like it's too early to declare what the Twins are going to end the year as, it's too early to bury the O's. 

Losing Cowser, Westburg, and Rodriguez to start the year is no joke. I don't think Elias has nailed things as well as people thought he had the last few years, and this offseason started showing the cracks, but I don't think we should let their first 40ish games this year outweigh what they've done the last 3 years. I think they missed some opportunities to use their prospects in trades and they're in trouble if they don't hit on them, but they've also made the playoffs in back-to-back years and mixed in a 101-win season.

I don't disagree with the idea that new owners shouldn't be viewed as some saviors that are going to come in and automatically lead to crazy changes in on-field results, but I don't think the O's should be used as the example based on the first 40 games of this season.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I mean the Orioles have a 56.6% winning percentage over the last 3 full seasons. That's a 91-win pace. In the AL East. Many people questioned their offseason and have been questioning their hoarding of all their top prospects, but it's not like they've been awful. Real rough start to the year for them, but it's still May. Just like it's too early to declare what the Twins are going to end the year as, it's too early to bury the O's. 

Losing Cowser, Westburg, and Rodriguez to start the year is no joke. I don't think Elias has nailed things as well as people thought he had the last few years, and this offseason started showing the cracks, but I don't think we should let their first 40ish games this year outweigh what they've done the last 3 years. I think they missed some opportunities to use their prospects in trades and they're in trouble if they don't hit on them, but they've also made the playoffs in back-to-back years and mixed in a 101-win season.

I don't disagree with the idea that new owners shouldn't be viewed as some saviors that are going to come in and automatically lead to crazy changes in on-field results, but I don't think the O's should be used as the example based on the first 40 games of this season.

But if we start making it about the front office and not ownership, you can’t just cherry pick “last three years.” I don’t think the division matters. The AL central was better than the AL East last year. It’s also better this year. you can’t just sit back on the Yankees. They are just 1/5th of their division. just like how the White Sox are only 1/5th of their division. The twins right now are in a tougher division if you look at the entire divisions.

34 minutes ago, William Malone said:

But if we start making it about the front office and not ownership, you can’t just cherry pick “last three years.” I don’t think the division matters. The AL central was better than the AL East last year. It’s also better this year. you can’t just sit back on the Yankees. They are just 1/5th of their division. just like how the White Sox are only 1/5th of their division. The twins right now are in a tougher division if you look at the entire divisions.

They had a rebuild. A very intentional, blow it all up, bottom out and build it back rebuild. That's why I made it about the last three years when their rebuild was finished. You didn't even look at their payroll this year when making it about their first 40ish games of this year so I'm not sure you should be talking about cherry picking.

Because, as has already been pointed out to you on here, their payroll under new ownership has gone up significantly. To $165 million this year (according to spotrac). Which is well above the Twins. It is also well up from the 110ish million it was in 2024 when the new owner took over much too close to the season to have a real impact. And up more than double the 69ish million it was in 2023. But you didn't mention any of that when claiming the new owner wasn't spending more. But those 2 years should also have notes next to them that they were part of the rebuild as they we breaking in their prospects so it made sense that the payroll was lower. Lots of missing context in a lot of this that was either cherry picked out or just unknown. I didn't "cherry pick" the last three years, I chose them because the context of their rebuild made sense to talk about them that way. Using the seasons where they were trying to be bad as proof of them not knowing how to build a team that could win wouldn't make a lot of sense. They were actively trying to lose during those other seasons so their record doesn't really apply.

Division matters less now than it ever has because of the more balanced schedule. But what is your claim that the central was better than the east based on? Because my statement absolutely wasn't based on just the Yankees. The central was 387-422 last year. The east was 410-390. If you take the White Sox and Yankees out of it. So, take the worst team in MLB history out of the central and the best team out of the east the central only beats the east by 20 games. 346-301 to 326-322. That's partly because the Orioles finished second in that division with 91 wins. The central (with Chicago) won 40% of their games against teams over .500. The east won 47% of theirs. Take Chicago out and the central still was worse than the east at just a 46% win percentage. And to top it off, the AL central went 72-88 against the AL east. Take Chicago out and the AL central went 62-66 against the AL east. So, I disagree that the central was better than the east last year. And, just like I said in the last post, it's May, I'm not saying who's better or worse this year. Far too early to make any declarations about any player or team. They have nearly 120 games to play. A whole lot can change in the next 4.5 months.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

They had a rebuild. A very intentional, blow it all up, bottom out and build it back rebuild. That's why I made it about the last three years when their rebuild was finished. You didn't even look at their payroll this year when making it about their first 40ish games of this year so I'm not sure you should be talking about cherry picking.

Because, as has already been pointed out to you on here, their payroll under new ownership has gone up significantly. To $165 million this year (according to spotrac). Which is well above the Twins. It is also well up from the 110ish million it was in 2024 when the new owner took over much too close to the season to have a real impact. And up more than double the 69ish million it was in 2023. But you didn't mention any of that when claiming the new owner wasn't spending more. But those 2 years should also have notes next to them that they were part of the rebuild as they we breaking in their prospects so it made sense that the payroll was lower. Lots of missing context in a lot of this that was either cherry picked out or just unknown. I didn't "cherry pick" the last three years, I chose them because the context of their rebuild made sense to talk about them that way. Using the seasons where they were trying to be bad as proof of them not knowing how to build a team that could win wouldn't make a lot of sense. They were actively trying to lose during those other seasons so their record doesn't really apply.

Division matters less now than it ever has because of the more balanced schedule. But what is your claim that the central was better than the east based on? Because my statement absolutely wasn't based on just the Yankees. The central was 387-422 last year. The east was 410-390. If you take the White Sox and Yankees out of it. So, take the worst team in MLB history out of the central and the best team out of the east the central only beats the east by 20 games. 346-301 to 326-322. That's partly because the Orioles finished second in that division with 91 wins. The central (with Chicago) won 40% of their games against teams over .500. The east won 47% of theirs. Take Chicago out and the central still was worse than the east at just a 46% win percentage. And to top it off, the AL central went 72-88 against the AL east. Take Chicago out and the AL central went 62-66 against the AL east. So, I disagree that the central was better than the east last year. And, just like I said in the last post, it's May, I'm not saying who's better or worse this year. Far too early to make any declarations about any player or team. They have nearly 120 games to play. A whole lot can change in the next 4.5 months.

Having a rebuild doesn’t mean they rebuilt correctly. What if they’re just like the White Sox? Everybody got all excited for their future. They made the playoffs and 2020 and 2021. That was as good as it got. What has their front office ever shown your to make you confident they rebuilt correctly?

2 hours ago, William Malone said:

Having a rebuild doesn’t mean they rebuilt correctly. What if they’re just like the White Sox? Everybody got all excited for their future. They made the playoffs and 2020 and 2021. That was as good as it got. What has their front office ever shown your to make you confident they rebuilt correctly?

The last 3 years were an awfully nice start. The question is if they can finish their rebuild. 

I'm not sure what your argument is here. First it was that new ownership may not spend like the new Orioles owners didn't. But that was wrong. Now its that their front office isn't good because this year is off to a bad start even though their last 3 years were good?

I don't think their front office is great. But they've been a good team in a tough division for 3 years. I'm not going to let a rough 40 game stretch outweigh that. But to each their own.

15 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The last 3 years were an awfully nice start. The question is if they can finish their rebuild. 

I'm not sure what your argument is here. First it was that new ownership may not spend like the new Orioles owners didn't. But that was wrong. Now its that their front office isn't good because this year is off to a bad start even though their last 3 years were good?

I don't think their front office is great. But they've been a good team in a tough division for 3 years. I'm not going to let a rough 40 game stretch outweigh that. But to each their own.

What is your basis for saying they play in a "tough" division? Maybe it was tough in 2023. It was a bad division last year. Worse than the AL Central. 

49 minutes ago, William Malone said:

What is your basis for saying they play in a "tough" division? Maybe it was tough in 2023. It was a bad division last year. Worse than the AL Central. 

I already gave you the numbers for those divisions last year. The last place team in that division had 74 wins. It not being as dominant as it usually is doesn't mean it was bad. The NL Central is the only division in baseball who's last place team had more wins than the last place team in the AL east last year. The NL west is the only other division that had two 90 win teams. 

There's a difference between being an down year for the expectations of that division and being a bad division. 

23 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I already gave you the numbers for those divisions last year. The last place team in that division had 74 wins. It not being as dominant as it usually is doesn't mean it was bad. The NL Central is the only division in baseball who's last place team had more wins than the last place team in the AL east last year. The NL west is the only other division that had two 90 win teams. 

There's a difference between being an down year for the expectations of that division and being a bad division. 

I don't care what the last place team did. That's just one of five teams. Someone could go 0-162. It doesn't make the other four teams better or worse. Can you show your work that the AL East was good last year? Cool. The Yankees and Orioles were good. The others were not. Twins went 10-9 vs Red Sox, Blue Jays and Rays. They could've been third in that division. They were fourth in a much better AL Central. 

2 minutes ago, William Malone said:

I don't care what the last place team did. That's just one of five teams. Someone could go 0-162. It doesn't make the other four teams better or worse. Can you show your work that the AL East was good last year? Cool. The Yankees and Orioles were good. The others were not. Twins went 10-9 vs Red Sox, Blue Jays and Rays. They could've been third in that division. They were fourth in a much better AL Central. 

I did show my work a few comments up and you ignored it because you can't refute it with real number covering the entire divisions. But here's the simple numbers again: the central went 72-88 against the east. You can take Chicago out and the other 4 still went just 62-66. 

You can't show your work on anything. You were wrong about the new owner not spending in Baltimore. You have to take the 2 best teams in the east out and just show the Twins record against the 3 other teams to get them to be 1 game above .500 against that division. But not actually the division, just the "bad teams." I've provided numerous stats. This conversation is pointless because you don't actually care about the numbers on any of this. Have a good rest of your day.

Just now, chpettit19 said:

I did show my work a few comments up and you ignored it because you can't refute it with real number covering the entire divisions. But here's the simple numbers again: the central went 72-88 against the east. You can take Chicago out and the other 4 still went just 62-66. 

You can't show your work on anything. You were wrong about the new owner not spending in Baltimore. You have to take the 2 best teams in the east out and just show the Twins record against the 3 other teams to get them to be 1 game above .500 against that division. But not actually the division, just the "bad teams." I've provided numerous stats. This conversation is pointless because you don't actually care about the numbers on any of this. Have a good rest of your day.

That's cool! What did they do in the other games? You can't just go off of head-to-head. The other games count too. Can you show you work that the AL East was better than the AL Central last year? Prediction: you won't. You will cherry pick things that do not matter.

21 minutes ago, William Malone said:

That's cool! What did they do in the other games? You can't just go off of head-to-head. The other games count too. Can you show you work that the AL East was better than the AL Central last year? Prediction: you won't. You will cherry pick things that do not matter.

This will be my last comment because I've already provided you with these numbers but you're going to cherry pick out the last place team even though you claim you don't care about just 1 team.

The AL east record last year: 410-390

You'll notice that is more wins than losses.

The AL central record last year: 387-422

You'll now notice that is more losses than wins.

Your prediction was wrong before you even made it because I've already provided you with these numbers. You are the one who can't back up any of the claims you're making without cherry picking out stats. If you're going to stick with your claim that you care about the entire division and not just certain teams that fit your narrative then the discussion is over and you can just admit you're wrong because one division was easily over .500 while the other was well under it. 

Thanks for playing. I'm done. Because, again, you don't actually care about the numbers on any of this. 

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

This will be my last comment because I've already provided you with these numbers but you're going to cherry pick out the last place team even though you claim you don't care about just 1 team.

The AL east record last year: 410-390

You'll notice that is more wins than losses.

The AL central record last year: 387-422

You'll now notice that is more losses than wins.

Your prediction was wrong before you even made it because I've already provided you with these numbers. You are the one who can't back up any of the claims you're making without cherry picking out stats. If you're going to stick with your claim that you care about the entire division and not just certain teams that fit your narrative then the discussion is over and you can just admit you're wrong because one division was easily over .500 while the other was well under it. 

Thanks for playing. I'm done. Because, again, you don't actually care about the numbers on any of this. 

How many of those losses are the White Sox? Or wins for the Yankees? You can't let one team weigh too much. I will ask you for a seventh time!!! Can you show your work that the AL East was better than the AL Central last year? Prediction: you will not!