The Twins Payroll Meltdown: Six Crummy Ways It Affects Their Future

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Who is saying they should not bring in free agents.  This whole discussion is exceptionally exaggerated.  You are not your normal rational self when it comes to spending.  Defending a position that the twins won't spend on elite talent with Cleveland and Tampa as examples makes zero sense.  Tampa and Cleveland literally never go after that type of free agent EVER.  

I didn't say anyone is saying they shouldn't bring in free agents. What you asked me was if I think spending on free agents was the "most pivotal aspect of developing a strategy/plan to get to the next level," and I said yes, right now I think it's the most pivotal part for where they're at. The suggestions around here, including from you, are that they can just trade away Polanco and/or Kepler (yes, I know you didn't say Kepler, but in general people are saying that) and that's how they can bring in free agents. My point is that trading away guys who reasonably hit at the top of your order in the playoffs last year in order to add guys who can hit at the top of your order in the playoffs isn't increasing the overall talent, and thus you're just changing the names like that somehow means the team will be better. 

Not 30 million, but they're in the 15-20 mil AAV range from time to time. And I'm not even asking for 30 mil guys (even though I'd like Yamamoto for close to 30 if that's what it took). Cleveland just signed Josh Bell to a 16.5 mil AAV deal last year. I think 16.5 probably can get you Jung Hoo Lee or Rhys Hoskins this year. If the Twins had 35 mil to spend on FA like they would if they were just maintaining payroll they can sign either of those guys without thinking twice and still have 15-20 mil to spend. Instead they're at 5-20 (according to Hayes) total. The Rays gave Morton 15 mil. Shoot, they gave a washed up Kluber 13 mil a year. If the Twins had 35 mil to spend they could get a Lee or Hoskins plus a Giolito, Wacha, maybe Rodriguez, Imanaga, maybe Stroman.

I will admit I've been extreme today, but going from 35 to possibly 5 mil to spend this offseason when your team is in a contention window is a brutal thing to leak to fans. I'm generally not a "cheap Pohlads" screamer (I think you know that), especially not recently when they've been spending to their market score as compared to the rest of the league. But a $30 million payroll cut at this point of your team building cycle is absolutely, 100% a "cheap Pohlads" moment (maybe it's only 15 mil cut and I look like a jerk later on). And, no, I don't care what their revenues were, or what the new TV deal is, or any of that. The Pohlads raked in money while building cheap teams all throughout the 2010s and it's more than reasonable to expect them to invest in the team now. So I'm going to be a little exaggerated about this absolute slap in the face to fans who've watched their ticket prices continue to rise, concessions and merch prices continue to rise, and found it incredibly hard to even get the games on TV for years.

[Fatbat]

If only they would not sign guys like Gallo, Archer, et al…. Going young is going to have some painful moments but we have some guys that are close to making the jump to varsity. If ever there was a time that playing money ball could work, its this year. The central division isn’t going to be any better in 2024. 

[rv78]

11 hours ago, Whitey333 said:

I'm not surprised at all that the Twins are cutting payroll.  But I am disappointed.  After having a good year and even some playoff success, it is deflating.  Won't be the usual off-season of hoping we add a good player.  It will revert back to the  go as cheap as we can route and sign has-been players.  Kind of a slap in the face to loyal twins fans like me.  In a way it shows that they never did plan this payroll out.  Because now you have two guys, Correa and Buxton that will make well over 40% of the Twins payroll.  Not much left to build your team on.  We got a good shortstop out of it and a professional injured list performer.  And we are stuck with that for the next several years.  Great planning.

  

I have said this from the beginning of the Buxton and Correa contracts. Both huge over-pays that most others here said they were worth every penny. Those 2 contracts will all but force the FO to consider any offer for Kepler and Polanco this year which would cut $20M in payroll if they are both traded. The 2 that need to be traded are Buxton and Correa but they both have no trade clause contracts so the FO will pay that price for the next 5 years. I wonder when it was, the last time, 2 players, I mean one and a half players, led their team to a WS title.

[Fatbat]

7 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm going to do something irresponsible here and something I hate doing because it is irresponsible.

I'm going to float a plausible theory that exists in my head (Maybe my head alone) with no inside information at all. 

Take it all with a grain of salt but I can't help but wonder if the club didn't sail over budget last year and a correction was coming regardless of the TV revenue situation.  

Here are the clues that lead to my theory: 

1. The team from the beginning was always in on signing Correa as a free agent. 

2. For a team like the Twins... the money for a free agent in this price range would have to be part of budget plans... Perhaps 35M AAV. He ended up signing for 33.3M AAV but at the time... 35M AAV would have to be part of budget plans if you are trying to sign him and they were trying to sign him by all reports. 

3. December 13, 2022 - Correa signs with the Giants for 13 years.  

4. December 16, 2022 - 3 Days later... The Twins sign Christian Vazquez for 10 Million AAV and Joey Gallo for 11 Million. This takes 21M out of the 35M that they were using to get Correa signed. I find it interesting that Vazquez and Gallo were signed very quickly once Correa was off the table. 

5. December 22, 2022 - Giants have concerns with his medical and back out of the deal. 

6. January 11, 2023 - After the Mets signed him to a deal and attempted to lower his contract because of the same medical concerns. Carlos Signs with the Twins... AAV 33.3.  

7. Assuming that the twins spent Carlos Correa ear marked money to sign Vazquez and Gallo. His sudden availability may have required an over budget conversation with ownership which of course was approved because he is here.  

8. August 1, 2023 - The Twins do not acquire ANYONE at the trade deadline. Is it OK to assume... over budget was a consideration. 

Irresponsible food for thought from me. Take it for what it's worth. 

 

I think you are spot on. There is probably on going dialogue mgmnt/ownership about how close some minor league prospects are to being ready and if the team can win the division with a payroll around $130M 

[Nashvilletwin]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

That is very likely what is going to happen, yes. The point is that relying on Lewis and Kirilloff to stay healthy for an entire year while also maintaining heart-of-the-order type production is quite a gamble. Expecting Julien (I believe in him) and Wallner to maintain their production over a full season after the league makes adjustments to them is quite a gamble. Expecting Martin, Lee, Severino, Rodriguez, and maybe Rosario to be average, let alone above average, or star, MLB players is quite a gamble. Yes, we have young guys coming that look like they could be very nice players, but a team coming off an ALDS appearance shouldn't be jettisoning veterans while also not bringing in any above average veterans because they hope they'll get another historic (for the Twins) rookie class again in the next handful of years. The truth is that most prospects fail. Even the top 100 guys. Forcing this "significant transition" is not the best bet for improving on an ALDS team, and no FO would make that decision if it wasn't forced upon them with a payroll cut.

I have great hopes for the young guys, too. But you talk (type) like these kids are sure things. They aren't. Yes, if they all hit their ceiling the Twins will be absolutely loaded and many of us will look like cry baby fools. But the far more likely outcome is that most of those young guys don't even touch their potential. Very few turn into stars, and only some turn into everyday players. Relying almost completely on prospects to not only maintain an ALDS run, but build on it, is a massive bet that almost never pays off. It's not all doom and gloom, but frustration is certainly warranted.

You are 100% correct  - the likelihood that all of these players pan out is incredibly low.  But there are 8-10 of them, and given Correa, Castro, Buxton, and a couple others whom will be sure to join the club (internal or external additions), not all of them need to.  But, moving on from Taylor, Solano, Gallo, Polanco, Kepler, and Farmer is going to happen between now and the end of next season at one point or another.  That is happening. Not one of those players sees opening day in ‘25 as a Twin.

But the good news, IMHO, is that the opportunity exists to replace the current and expected level of production from all of those really, really good ballplayers (other than Gallo, each was a huge contributor to our team this season) with mostly some combination of internal talent.

I’ve written this on this site for years - and it’s even more relevant today given the news about lower expected payroll: the ability of a small - mid market team like the Twins to truly be competitive for a championship year in and year out comes down to developing highly performing minor league prospects and continuing that development through their introduction and early tenure in the big leagues.  Simply put: we have to have a higher success rate with players like Kiriloff, Wallner, Larnach, Miranda, Julien, Jeffers, Lewis, Lee, etc. etc. etc  If I were the Pohlads, figuring that out is where I’d be spending significant resources.

[TNtwins85]

Well, this is quite disappointing to say the least. Just after I read that the braves are increasing payroll. Once again this fan base will be hamstrung by a family that obviously values profits as opposed to loyalty of a fan base. When they should be pushing another $20M out ownership has instead decided to take $20M off the table. All while A.) they knew this was coming. This didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. Cable has been in decline for years. B.) they did nothing to avoid it and failed miserably to get out in front of it. So the question is one of 2 things. Either the people running this organization are completely inept and it’s by pure chance that the billionaire Pohlads have turned the twins into a billion dollar franchise or this was simply always going to happen and just like every other major corporation in this country they’re completely content pulling the wool over fans, customers and consumers eyes. And just like always we’ll complain about it for awhile but once the season starts we’ll all watch, listen and attend games. Buy merchandise. And say, “well shucks! Maybe next year.” All as the Pohlads turn another profit. Count the money and wait for us all to just do it again.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Nashvilletwin said:

You are 100% correct  - the likelihood that all of these players pan out is incredibly low.  But there are 8-10 of them, and given Correa, Castro, Buxton, and a couple others whom will be sure to join the club (internal or external additions), not all of them need to.  But, moving on from Taylor, Solano, Gallo, Polanco, Kepler, and Farmer is going to happen between now and the end of next season at one point or another.  That is happening. Not one of those players sees opening day in ‘25 as a Twin.

But the good news, IMHO, is that the opportunity exists to replace the current and expected level of production from all of those really, really good ballplayers (other than Gallo, each was a huge contributor to our team this season) with mostly some combination of internal talent.

I’ve written this on this site for years - and it’s even more relevant today given the news about lower expected payroll: the ability of a small - mid market team like the Twins to truly be competitive for a championship year in and year out comes down to developing highly performing minor league prospects and continuing that development through their introduction and early tenure in the big leagues.  Simply put: we have to have a higher success rate with players like Kiriloff, Wallner, Larnach, Miranda, Julien, Jeffers, Lewis, Lee, etc. etc. etc  If I were the Pohlads, figuring that out is where I’d be spending significant resources.

Polanco is the only guy with even a slight chance of being on the 2025 roster, I agree. Castro doesn't belong anywhere near Correa and Buxton in terms of providing hope for the future, and Buxton really doesn't even belong there either at this point in time. My point is absolutely not that we shouldn't have hope for the young guys, or that they aren't the absolute key to any team being a sustained winner. My point is that Correa, Lopez and a whole bunch of kids is nowhere near your best chance at not just sustaining winning, but having a truly legitimate chance at winning a World Series. 

Being upset about the team announcing (through sources or Falvey himself) a payroll cut isn't because I don't have faith that they can produce a handful of MLB players from their system, it's because they need more than that to win a title. Winning this horrid division for 5 more years doesn't impress me. It's certainly better than losing, but it's an incredibly weak goal. They have talent coming, no doubt. I'm not sold that the internal options can replace the guys leaving. I won't be shocked, but I wouldn't bet on it. But my real complaint isn't in replacing the talent it's that self-inducing a step back as your window opens significantly reduces your chances to improve on the talent you have. 

Maybe you, and others, think the 2023 talent level was enough for a real shot at the WS. I don't. I think they need 2 more bats to plug in at the top of the order while losing nothing from the rest of the lineup, and they not only need to add a Gray replacement, but also a 3rd playoff starter. Totally fine banking on Paddack, Ryan, or Ober becoming that 3rd playoff starter, but I have no faith that any internal option can replace Gray or become a true top of the lineup bat. I don't want replacing of the players leaving, I want improving on. And spending money is the most likely way to do that while also maintaining some depth in the system over the next few years.

Maybe Lee is a star. Maybe Lewis can stay healthy. Maybe Kirilloff can. Heck, maybe Buxton can. Maybe Julien gets even better. Maybe Wallner cuts his Ks. Maybe ERod has everything click next year and he's a star. They need multiple of these things to be true to truly contend, in my opinion. I don't like those odds. Maybe they have more surprise moves up their sleeves and they can improve the talent while cutting payroll, while also maintaining the top of the system for depth and sustained success. But that sure doesn't sound realistic to me. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd bet there's been very few WS Champs who went from LDS team that couldn't score more then 3 runs in 66% of their playoff games to cutting their payroll by 20% (if it really does go down to the 120s) and then winning the World Series. 

There's a difference, to me, between this transition to youth happening naturally while still supplementing with veterans and forcing the transition to happen immediately. I know fans were upset with how long it took to get the young guys into everyday roles (I was one of them who was upset), but we can't let that blind us into thinking it's realistic to back up this historic rookie class with another one. And that's what it'd take to just maintain the success, let alone build on it. The Twins are in the building stage at the opening of a window, and the report from this morning is what a team at the rebuilding stage at the closing of a window announces.

[Fatbat]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Polanco is the only guy with even a slight chance of being on the 2025 roster, I agree. Castro doesn't belong anywhere near Correa and Buxton in terms of providing hope for the future, and Buxton really doesn't even belong there either at this point in time. My point is absolutely not that we shouldn't have hope for the young guys, or that they aren't the absolute key to any team being a sustained winner. My point is that Correa, Lopez and a whole bunch of kids is nowhere near your best chance at not just sustaining winning, but having a truly legitimate chance at winning a World Series. 

Being upset about the team announcing (through sources or Falvey himself) isn't because I don't have faith that they can produce a handful of MLB players from their system, it's because they need more than that to win a title. Winning this horrid division for 5 more years doesn't impress me. It's certainly better than losing, but it's an incredibly weak goal. They have talent coming, no doubt. I'm not sold that the internal options can replace the guys leaving. I won't be shocked, but I wouldn't bet on it. But my real complaint isn't in replacing the talent it's that self-inducing a step back as your window opens significantly reduces your chances to improve on the talent you have. 

Maybe you, and others, think the 2023 talent level was enough for a real shot at the WS. I don't. I think they need 2 more bats to plug in at the top of the order while losing nothing from the rest of the lineup, and they not only need to add a Gray replacement, but also a 3rd playoff starter. Totally fine banking on Paddack, Ryan, or Ober becoming that 3rd playoff starter, but I have no faith that any internal option can replace Gray or become a true top of the lineup bat. I don't want replacing of the players leaving, I want improving on. And spending money is the most likely way to do that while also maintaining some depth in the system over the next few years.

Maybe Lee is a star. Maybe Lewis can stay healthy. Maybe Kirilloff can. Heck, maybe Buxton can. Maybe Julien gets even better. Maybe Wallner cuts his Ks. Maybe ERod has everything click next year and he's a star. They need multiple of these things to be true to truly contend, in my opinion. I don't like those odds. Maybe they have more surprise moves up their sleeves and they can improve the talent while cutting payroll, but maintaining the top of the system for depth and sustained success. But that sure doesn't sound realistic to me. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd bet there's been very few WS Champs who went from LDS team that couldn't score more then 3 runs in 66% of their playoff games to cutting their payroll by 20% (if it really does go down to the 120s) and then winning the World Series. 

There's a difference, to me, between this transition to youth happening naturally while still supplementing with veterans and forcing the transition to happen immediately. I know fans were upset with how long it took to get the young guys into everyday roles (I was one of them who was upset), but we can't let that blind us into thinking it's realistic to back up this historic rookie class with another one. And that's what it'd take to just maintain the success, let alone build on it. The Twins are in the building stage at the opening of a window, and the report from this morning is what a team at the rebuilding stage at the closing of a window announces.

Huge payrolls bought the Mets, Yankees, Dodgers et al what??? Nothing but disappointment.  The Twins are lacking 2 things for 2024, Grays replacement and Buxtons replacement. What is Buxton actually plays and play’s well??? Thats like a freebie. $15M freebie.  What if Varland/Festa et al finish with 3WAR.  Not out of the realm of possibility.  Todays news is going to be long forgotten when the team is winning another central division crown.  

[chpettit19]

23 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Huge payrolls bought the Mets, Yankees, Dodgers et al what??? Nothing but disappointment.  The Twins are lacking 2 things for 2024, Grays replacement and Buxtons replacement. What is Buxton actually plays and play’s well??? Thats like a freebie. $15M freebie.  What if Varland/Festa et al finish with 3WAR.  Not out of the realm of possibility.  Todays news is going to be long forgotten when the team is winning another central division crown.  

If your comment was sarcastic you can skip reading the following, FYI. Hard to tell over written text.

It won the Rangers a World Series title a couple weeks ago. The Yankees haven't had a losing season since 1995. The Dodgers have won 90+ games for 10 straight years. Bought the Astros a title last year. Braves one the year before that. Dodgers one the year before that. Nationals one the year before that. You get the idea.

Did you know there's been 8 teams outside the top 10 in payroll to win a title since 1992? That's the same number of titles as the #1 payroll has won in the same timespan. That's 8 titles for the #1 spot, and 8 titles for the 11-30 spots combined. 2 of those 8 outside the top 10 went to the 11th highest payroll. 2 more to the 13th. There have been 2 titles since 1992 that went to teams with payrolls below the 17th best in baseball (that's the Twins market score rank, and about where they've ranked the last handful of years in payroll). The 2017 Astros were 18th, and the '03 Marlins were 25th. Even the 2015 Royals jumped up to 16th to win their title. Spending money absolutely doesn't guarantee you anything, but not spending certainly gets you pretty darn close to guaranteeing that you don't win.

I disagree that that's all they're lacking. This team won 87 games in a historically bad division while playing almost nobody with a winning record the entire last 2 months of the season. They scored 3 runs or fewer in 4 of 6 playoff games, and only 4 runs in one of the other 2. Yes, it is possible Byron stays healthy for the 2nd time in his 10th year as a major leaguer. Why would we be upset with them cutting payroll when all the offense needs is Buxton to play over even 100 games for just the 2nd time in the last decade? Yes, Varland/Festa et al could possibly replace a top 3 Cy Young finalist while Bailey Ober stays healthy for the 2nd time in his professional career, Paddack comes back from basically 2 years off of starting and can be a fulltime starter for the year, Ryan can get back to his first half self and not his horrid 2nd half self, and Lopez can repeat his career year. Come on. I'm all good with still having faith that they'll win the central (I think they'll win the division), but acting like there's clear and obvious replacements in place to simply maintain an 87 win pace in the worst division in MLB history, let alone actually improve on that win total is not something you're going to sell me on. 

[Mike Sixel]

45 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Huge payrolls bought the Mets, Yankees, Dodgers et al what??? Nothing but disappointment.  The Twins are lacking 2 things for 2024, Grays replacement and Buxtons replacement. What is Buxton actually plays and play’s well??? Thats like a freebie. $15M freebie.  What if Varland/Festa et al finish with 3WAR.  Not out of the realm of possibility.  Todays news is going to be long forgotten when the team is winning another central division crown.  

I'd be happy if the Twins were in the playoffs every year like the dodgers. The Yankees have also been there nearly every year. How did not spending work for KC, Detroit, and all the other bottom dwellers? We can play this game all day.

The Twins have a great starting pitcher and some real talent.... But it's unlikely they'll be as healthy in pitching next year. They have no one to replace Gray. And they weren't good enough last year. I think most people expect this team to win the division again, but is that the goal?

Do people think cutting spending and not replacing Gray is a great idea?

[Mike Sixel]

31 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If your comment was sarcastic you can skip reading the following, FYI. Hard to tell over written text.

It won the Rangers a World Series title a couple weeks ago. The Yankees haven't had a losing season since 1995. The Dodgers have won 90+ games for 10 straight years. Bought the Astros a title last year. Braves one the year before that. Dodgers one the year before that. Nationals one the year before that. You get the idea.

Did you know there's been 8 teams outside the top 10 in payroll to win a title since 1992? That's the same number of titles as the #1 payroll has won in the same timespan. That's 8 titles for the #1 spot, and 8 titles for the 11-30 spots combined. 2 of those 8 outside the top 10 went to the 11th highest payroll. 2 more to the 13th. There have been 2 titles since 1992 that went to teams with payrolls below the 17th best in baseball (that's the Twins market score rank, and about where they've ranked the last handful of years in payroll). The 2017 Astros were 18th, and the '03 Marlins were 25th. Even the 2015 Royals jumped up to 16th to win their title. Spending money absolutely doesn't guarantee you anything, but not spending certainly gets you pretty darn close to guaranteeing that you don't win.

I disagree that that's all they're lacking. This team won 87 games in a historically bad division while playing almost nobody with a winning record the entire last 2 months of the season. They scored 3 runs or fewer in 4 of 6 playoff games, and only 4 runs in one of the other 2. Yes, it is possible Byron stays healthy for the 2nd time in his 10th year as a major leaguer. Why would we be upset with them cutting payroll when all the offense needs is Buxton to play over even 100 games for just the 2nd time in the last decade? Yes, Varland/Festa et al could possibly replace a top 3 Cy Young finalist while Bailey Ober stays healthy for the 2nd time in his professional career, Paddack comes back from basically 2 years off of starting and can be a fulltime starter for the year, Ryan can get back to his first half self and not his horrid 2nd half self, and Lopez can repeat his career year. Come on. I'm all good with still having faith that they'll win the central (I think they'll win the division), but acting like there's clear and obvious replacements in place to simply maintain an 87 win pace in the worst division in MLB history, let alone actually improve on that win total is not something you're going to sell me on. 

Some great facts here.....

[DocBauer]

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I just don't get why he didn't do what everyone always does and say some bland PR nonsense about building the best team they can with the resources given to them by the great team owners. It's what he's done every other year even as they increased payroll. Weird to finally get honest now.

But perhaps it was his way of putting public pressure on the Pohlads to increase the payroll? Maybe he's being sly. Maybe he knows the Pohlads are on the fence about the payroll and if they see the fanbase threatening to burn down Target Field they'll hand him another 10 mil? I'm going to hope that's the case.

I've been thinking about this part of the conversation all day. And I have a thought, but first, I have to repeat the basic math I posted earlier: 

If we consider the approximation of 52% of income is spent on payroll as generally accurate, losing $55M from Bally means a loss of $28M from the $155M payroll of 2023. Now, WHATEVER new TV/streaming type of deal/deals they come up with, should be anywhere from $25M to $35M. I think that's feasible. So let's split the difference and say they come up with a total of $30M via HOWEVER/WHATEVER they come up with. Based on the 52% principle, they get back $15M back. Simple math says they would "lose" $13M. Now, IMO, that isn't and shouldn't be devastating. (Especially for a team coming off an exciting season that shouldn't be cutting, but that's a different discussion at the moment).

So, in theory, that leaves a $140-142M payroll to work with, which is in keeping with the numbers Falvey stated.

SO, with NOTHING set in stone yet, no deal inked yet, Falvey publicly speaks about worst case scenario. Why do so this early? Because it not only buffers public perception early, BUT, when a deal/deals come to fruition, and the payroll "only" dips to $140-142M ish, suddenly the FO looks almost like heroes as they STILL had $ to work with as today they sit around $117M with a playback of 2023 as the roster stands today.

So that's approximately $23M to spend, BEFORE, Farmer or Polanco or anyone was moved to free up any additional dollars. Any move of such opens up another $6-10M to work with. That's more $ for FA, or even open up payroll for a trade acquisition, PLUS additional FA possibilities. NOTHING that is earth shattering, but WAY better perception and reality of $125M.

So while I will lead the stampede that says ownership should be stepping forward to AT LEAST keep payroll the same, if not add at least a little bit, based on opportunity and open window, I'm just wondering if the comments made were to just set a floor for public opinion that will change the emotional and intellectual perspective when it turns out they will actually cut much less than expected, OR, a SUDDEN announcement that ownership will keep payroll the same.

I'm just NOT a conspiracy guy. And I don't think there is some secret agenda here. I'm just wondering if this might have been a "get in front of it" scenario and prepare people for the worst while we're still trying to figure out how to make this work for the better???

[1985Fan]

Now is the time to use the resources they do have to improve the team. If the payroll won’t support spending money, use their prospect capital to fill holes via trades. They’ve invested in development and now they reap the rewards. This is where the FO earns their keep. They made good trades getting Lopez and Gray here, so no reason to think they can’t get good returns on prospects. Every prospect except for Festa should be available for the right return. I prefer they keep veterans like Polanco and Kepler, but if the return is there, they have to consider it. Vazquez should be on the trade block. Camargo is ready to step up to MLB. 
FO should know the value of their own prospects and which ones to keep and which to sell. I agree that if the team has aspirations for a deep playoff run, it can’t rely on rookies and sophomores to carry the load. It will have to be a mix of young controllable players and veterans. 
There aren’t that many holes to fill, so a couple of trades and a FA relief arm signing should do the trick. Or, swing for the home run with a big name trade to impact the roster. 

 

 

[chpettit19]

22 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

I've been thinking about this part of the conversation all day. And I have a thought, but first, I have to repeat the basic math I posted earlier: 

If we consider the approximation of 52% of income is spent on payroll as generally accurate, losing $55M from Bally means a loss of $28M from the $155M payroll of 2023. Now, WHATEVER new TV/streaming type of deal/deals they come up with, should be anywhere from $25M to $35M. I think that's feasible. So let's split the difference and say they come up with a total of $30M via HOWEVER/WHATEVER they come up with. Based on the 52% principle, they get back $15M back. Simple math says they would "lose" $13M. Now, IMO, that isn't and shouldn't be devastating. (Especially for a team coming off an exciting season that shouldn't be cutting, but that's a different discussion at the moment).

So, in theory, that leaves a $140-142M payroll to work with, which is in keeping with the numbers Falvey stated.

SO, with NOTHING set in stone yet, no deal inked yet, Falvey publicly speaks about worst case scenario. Why do so this early? Because it not only buffers public perception early, BUT, when a deal/deals come to fruition, and the payroll "only" dips to $140-142M ish, suddenly the FO looks almost like heroes as they STILL had $ to work with as today they sit around $117M with a playback of 2023 as the roster stands today.

So that's approximately $23M to spend, BEFORE, Farmer or Polanco or anyone was moved to free up any additional dollars. Any move of such opens up another $6-10M to work with. That's more $ for FA, or even open up payroll for a trade acquisition, PLUS additional FA possibilities. NOTHING that is earth shattering, but WAY better perception and reality of $125M.

So while I will lead the stampede that says ownership should be stepping forward to AT LEAST keep payroll the same, if not add at least a little bit, based on opportunity and open window, I'm just wondering if the comments made were to just set a floor for public opinion that will change the emotional and intellectual perspective when it turns out they will actually cut much less than expected, OR, a SUDDEN announcement that ownership will keep payroll the same.

I'm just NOT a conspiracy guy. And I don't think there is some secret agenda here. I'm just wondering if this might have been a "get in front of it" scenario and prepare people for the worst while we're still trying to figure out how to make this work for the better???

It absolutely could be that, but I still don't understand the timing of it. Falvey has to know the fanbase is flying high off the playoff wins. He has to know that season ticket sales are an important part of their revenue. He has to know keeping fan moral high throughout the offseason only helps his payroll situation. They've already established that they're not quick workers in the offseason (shoot, there was just an article on TD about it) so they could've slow played the payroll decrease until March as them still working on things, and allowed their season ticket folks the chance to lock up a bunch of deposits.

I just don't get what good can come from saying this now. Fans aren't exactly rational folks. I can't imagine many casual fans (TD skews are view on how in tune most fans are) are going to turn around in March and say "well, shoot, I was expecting a 125 payroll and they only cut it 15 instead so now I'll go buy season tickets!" Maybe they will and I'm just out of touch with casual fans. I just don't get why he'd say anything now. Even if the backlash is coming eventually at least let your people sell some tickets first. Last year it was Dave St Peter questioning why fans wouldn't show up to a team that struggled to stay above .500 before collapsing (due to injuries) and now it's Falvey admitting they're cutting payroll as free agency opens. Just really bizarre things for team execs to be saying out loud.

[Steve75]

Some of you will not approve of this plan at all but we have plenty of answers in house. With the glut of infielders on the roster and looking for ideal spots for Julien, Martin, a resurgent Miranda ( we hope) and where do we put Lee, I think the answer for center field who is right handed and allows for us to keep Farmer, Castro, maybe even Polanco is none other than ROYCE LEWIS. 

Yes, I realize he did get hurt playing the outfield and maybe he is more likely to get injured diving for a ball in CF than at third base, but I was all in favor of doing this during the last half of the season so we could play Farmer, Castro and Solano, who were more than clutch for this club. This makes room for Lee then at 3rd base (or Correa in a few years) because where is Lee going to play when he comes up?   Do we jettison Julien (or move him to 1st) or do we jettison Kiriloff or move him to the OF, too?  

We project Martin now as more as an OF rather than SS, Gordon has done OK making the position switch and could Lee actually play the OF if we think Lewis can stick at 3rd base?   A move to CF worked out pretty well for Hall of famers Robin Yount and Craig Biggio! Being one of the better athletes on the team and playing the OF some in the minors could work out well until Jenkins and others are ready.  We're not talking Migual Sano out there!

This might be heresy to most of you on TD but if Buxton can't come back as Plan A, we have a major league talent in Lewis we can put out there. 

 

 

 

[Schmoeman5]

If the experts on MLB are scratching their heads over the Falvey statements about reducing payroll, and somehow being able to improve on last season. I would say all the critical remarks on TD seem warranted. The cost of doing business it would seem should at least stay where it was in 2023. How the FO wants to put together a better team while cutting costs will make for an interesting watch to be sure. Because to win it all, which we're told is the yearly goal. The Twins have to get better. Maybe it's just a smokescreen. We'll see. At this point I'm not overly optimistic. Jmtc. 

[tony&rodney]

16 minutes ago, Steve75 said:

Some of you will not approve of this plan at all but we have plenty of answers in house. With the glut of infielders on the roster and looking for ideal spots for Julien, Martin, a resurgent Miranda ( we hope) and where do we put Lee, I think the answer for center field who is right handed and allows for us to keep Farmer, Castro, maybe even Polanco is none other than ROYCE LEWIS. 

Yes, I realize he did get hurt playing the outfield and maybe he is more likely to get injured diving for a ball in CF than at third base, but I was all in favor of doing this during the last half of the season so we could play Farmer, Castro and Solano, who were more than clutch for this club. This makes room for Lee then at 3rd base (or Correa in a few years) because where is Lee going to play when he comes up?   Do we jettison Julien (or move him to 1st) or do we jettison Kiriloff or move him to the OF, too?  

We project Martin now as more as an OF rather than SS, Gordon has done OK making the position switch and could Lee actually play the OF if we think Lewis can stick at 3rd base?   A move to CF worked out pretty well for Hall of famers Robin Yount and Craig Biggio! Being one of the better athletes on the team and playing the OF some in the minors could work out well until Jenkins and others are ready.  We're not talking Migual Sano out there!

This might be heresy to most of you on TD but if Buxton can't come back as Plan A, we have a major league talent in Lewis we can put out there. 

 

 

 

Welcome to Twins Daily. This has been discussed endlessly. Short version - after being asked/bugged a number of times about whether Royce Lewis would or could be used as a centerfielder in the future, Falvey and Baldelli pointedly stated that Lewis is a third baseman now, he will work in the offseason as a third baseman, and he will be a third baseman going forward next season and beyond. Take that for whatever you think. Additionally, Lewis prefers playing in the infield and his agent, Scott Boras, has specifically stated that Lewis is going to be a superstar .... "on the dirt" and the outfield is not in his future. Again, many will take that with a grain of salt. Just remember that too much salt is bad for your diet.

FWIW, I don't care where he plays.

[JYTwinsFan]

I haven't read every comment here yet, so forgive me if this sentiment has been stated already. Like most I'm not thrilled to see payroll go down, they have a real chance to build a knockout punch with even modest additions. But I'm also not seeing it as dire for the same reason. The real problem as I see it, is that the FO has constructed a world class spine to this team of superstars at at least four (or five) of the most valuable/critical positions: Buxton in Center, Correa at Short, Lopez an ace on the mound, Jeffers emergence as a top tier catcher, and Duran as a shut down closer...but the most established superstars of that group who need to play most regularly are not contributing like superstars. If they were, we'd be talking about how the Twins can best overpay this offseason for some high octane reliever or other nice-to-haves. We'd be less worried about replacing Gray w/ Giolito or even Maeda because our offense would be top shelf. On paper they have exactly what they need and no free agent or trade candidate necessarily represents any added guarantee of performance better than what Correa or Buxton are capable of. This year's FA class in particular is weak or risky beyond Ohtani.

But their plan for 2024 seems to be echoing their plan for the second half of 2023. We have the pieces, we have the superstars, we have balance, we have flexibility, we have long term control, we have MLB ready prospect depth, and we can deploy our strategy in game...but the players have to be on the field and execute. So our focus is on that.

They do need to replace Gray in some form and should have the payroll options to do that to an acceptable degree. And I'm reasonably confident they have enough trade bait to improve the roster in some key spots without mortgaging the future, but neither of those offseason boxes to check will alleviate the fact that they seem to be stuck with (or stubbornly sticking to) relying on their superstars to make good on the investment they made. It's hard to argue with that. It's also painful to watch when it doesn't work.

[Major League Ready]

13 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I didn't say anyone is saying they shouldn't bring in free agents. What you asked me was if I think spending on free agents was the "most pivotal aspect of developing a strategy/plan to get to the next level," and I said yes, right now I think it's the most pivotal part for where they're at. 

This is where we differ and that's OK.  We know that on average the additional $10M believe is absolutely critical will on average return 1.2 WAR.  I just don’t see this aspect of roster development and the 1.2 WAR it would project to bring as being critical.  

The decisions / startegies that make or break mid market teams are drafting and trading for prospects as opposed to trading prospects.  I am still pissed about them taking Cavaco when Stott and Carroll were on the board and were widely considered the best available. Those are the decisions that truly impact a franchise, especially one outside the top 10 in revenue.  We would have a better / younger / healthier shortstop than Correa had we picked Stott and also have another $30M to spend.  Of course, we all know what Carroll has become and we would not have to spend money on a back-up CF.

Trading for prospects as opposed to trading them away is far more important for a mid market team. Take our current situation with Polanco as an example.   While the return is uncertain, trading Polanco has the potential to have a huge impact on the next several years and the sustainability of the team. 

If we trade Polanco, and use the dollars for a top SP, that move alone has more potential than keeping Polanco given Julien, Lewis, and Correa are the primary players at the positions he can play and he plays two of those positions very poorly.  Sure, the SP we trade for could produce nothing like Mahle and Polanco could return to 2019 form or the reverse is possible.  However, the far greater potential impact is the difference in trading away a couple top prospects for pitching as opposed to getting a couple prospects back for Polanco.  The net difference is several prospects including one of two elite prospects.  The difference in this strategy not only costs us the kind of top prospects needed to acquire a front of the rotation SP, it also cost us a couple prospects that would come back from trading Polanco.  This enormous swing in prospect capital is something that Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have understood and utilized to be better than all the other teams outside the top 10 in revenue.

Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have also been very good at getting MLB ready players or players that have already debuted but not yet produced.  Therefore, the impact is not 4 years off like it would be if we were talking about trading for A Ball players.  Trading Polanco could hurt for a year.  However, he produced just over 1 WAR last year and spending the money elsewhere could have a greater short or even long-term gain if it allows us to bring in a good free agent.  It’s also remotely possible none of the players we would have traded away for pitching or the players we got back from trading Polanco will turn out.   However, teams trading front line SPs are not looking for a slightly above average guy with two years remaining.  They want elite prospects not the packages for Polanco / Larnach etc that have been floated here.  They want the  kind of prospects that profile to become great players.  Polanco would not return that type of prospect but he would return decent prospects that change the ceiling when trading Polanco vs trading for pitching or any other position.  These decisions and strategy are far more important to sustained winning than spending an extra $10M this season.

Bottom line is trading Polanco has a far higher ceiling than keeping him.  We can afford the SP that is arguably our most important need and we will make room for Lee / Severino / Miranda.  Developing those players into ML assets is also important and you can’t do that and keep all the Vets.
 

[rv78]

I truely expect this FO to make a trade that no one sees coming. We all expect Polanco or Kepler or both to be traded, when in fact it will likely be someone else. No one saw Arraez leaving after a batting title but it happened. We all agree that the infield has a lot of depth to use as trade bait. Pick a player you don't want to see leave and that is who it probably will be.

[saviking]

20 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

It is important to understand that in consideration of the contract that he signed with us. He no longer has the type of trade value that will return "a couple of top 50 minor league prospects. 

When a free agent like Correa signs a large contract like he did with us. He is (typically) signing for more money than other teams are willing to pay him. That fact... immediately takes his trade value to zero because nobody else is willing to pay that contract... that's why we got him in the first place. 

Once you consider the contract... you need to consider the medical reports (Mets/Giants) which will further decrease long term contract interest. After you consider both of those things... you need to consider that Correa had a really really down year offensively so now you have to drop your trade value down even further below zero. 

The only way the Twins can get "a couple of top 50 prospects" in exchange for Carlos Correa is if the Twins were willing to EAT a large portion of the contract. In other words... send money to the acquiring team to bring his financial obligations down to a level that the acquiring team is comfortable with and therefore willing to give up two top 50 prospects. I have no idea how much money that would take but I assume... A LOT. 

So your next consideration is this: If the Twins need to commit a lot of money to make a trade happen. The club will be without a SS with dead money taking up payroll needed for other areas of improvement. This is not going to happen. 

I hope this helps.

A trade of Carlos Correa is not going to happen and when making plans you can write down Carlos Correa at SS. Lock it and throw away the key.    

And that's my point of consternation. We paid way to much for damaged goods that other teams were passing on. The fact we would have to throw in money to get him off our hands confirms he'd not worth what we are paying him and that has been my point all along. Especially when we had two very promising young short stops very close to the Bigs. It made no sense to me at the time and makes no sense to me now. Especially when we are cash strapped. 

It's too risky for mid market teams to try and play with the big boys by signing a top tier contract. You are betting the farm. We were very lucky to escape the Donaldson trade. And in essence what you are telling me us stop complaining about Correa because noone else wants him and we are married to him through thick and then. 

Sorry, that doesn't make me feel any better.

[chpettit19]

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is where we differ and that's OK.  We know that on average the additional $10M believe is absolutely critical will on average return 1.2 WAR.  I just don’t see this aspect of roster development and the 1.2 WAR it would project to bring as being critical.  

The decisions / startegies that make or break mid market teams are drafting and trading for prospects as opposed to trading prospects.  I am still pissed about them taking Cavaco when Stott and Carroll were on the board and were widely considered the best available. Those are the decisions that truly impact a franchise, especially one outside the top 10 in revenue.  We would have a better / younger / healthier shortstop than Correa had we picked Stott and also have another $30M to spend.  Of course, we all know what Carroll has become and we would not have to spend money on a back-up CF.

Trading for prospects as opposed to trading them away is far more important for a mid market team. Take our current situation with Polanco as an example.   While the return is uncertain, trading Polanco has the potential to have a huge impact on the next several years and the sustainability of the team. 

If we trade Polanco, and use the dollars for a top SP, that move alone has more potential than keeping Polanco given Julien, Lewis, and Correa are the primary players at the positions he can play and he plays two of those positions very poorly.  Sure, the SP we trade for could produce nothing like Mahle and Polanco could return to 2019 form or the reverse is possible.  However, the far greater potential impact is the difference in trading away a couple top prospects for pitching as opposed to getting a couple prospects back for Polanco.  The net difference is several prospects including one of two elite prospects.  The difference in this strategy not only costs us the kind of top prospects needed to acquire a front of the rotation SP, it also cost us a couple prospects that would come back from trading Polanco.  This enormous swing in prospect capital is something that Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have understood and utilized to be better than all the other teams outside the top 10 in revenue.

Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have also been very good at getting MLB ready players or players that have already debuted but not yet produced.  Therefore, the impact is not 4 years off like it would be if we were talking about trading for A Ball players.  Trading Polanco could hurt for a year.  However, he produced just over 1 WAR last year and spending the money elsewhere could have a greater short or even long-term gain if it allows us to bring in a good free agent.  It’s also remotely possible none of the players we would have traded away for pitching or the players we got back from trading Polanco will turn out.   However, teams trading front line SPs are not looking for a slightly above average guy with two years remaining.  They want elite prospects not the packages for Polanco / Larnach etc that have been floated here.  They want the  kind of prospects that profile to become great players.  Polanco would not return that type of prospect but he would return decent prospects that change the ceiling when trading Polanco vs trading for pitching or any other position.  These decisions and strategy are far more important to sustained winning than spending an extra $10M this season.

Bottom line is trading Polanco has a far higher ceiling than keeping him.  We can afford the SP that is arguably our most important need and we will make room for Lee / Severino / Miranda.  Developing those players into ML assets is also important and you can’t do that and keep all the Vets.
 

Let me know the last World Series champ that didn't spend on free agents, or trade for an expensive veteran, or have someone on an expensive extension. You have to pay. Prospects are your life blood, and vital to success, but they don't win championships. I don't want to be Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland. They don't win titles.

The plan you're laying out is best for winning the central division for a bunch of years while never winning the World Series. I'm just not interested in that goal. Of course I'd rather win the central a bunch than lose a bunch, but I want a World Series. I know people don't like to hear it, but teams that spend win titles, and teams that don't don't. You can go look up the numbers. I posted them earlier for your convenience. Top 10 payrolls have won all but 8 World Series going back to 1992. Top 11 payrolls have won all but 6. Only 2 teams that have come in below the Twins 17th ranked market score and typical payroll slot recently have won the World Series since 1992. 2. The #1 payroll has won as many titles in that timeframe as the #11-30 slots combined. This idea that never spending is actually the right strategy is wrong. Unless the goal is just to dominate the central. I'm not interested in that goal.

Trade Polanco. Trade Kepler. Trade Correa. Trade Buxton. Trade Lopez. Trade whoever you want. But that's not going to win you the World Series. Sorry. They already have a ton of prospects the level that Polanco is likely to bring back. Yes, prospects are a numbers game, but continually playing for the future means you're never playing for the now. Even if the future you're playing for is only 2 years away and not 4. If you're always playing for 2 years away you're never playing for this year. There's a reason the teams you name never win titles. If they weren't slashing payroll, which is what this whole discussion is about, the Twins would have the dollars for a top SP anyways, and still keep a guy who's one of their 4 best hitters right now. The teams that win at the level I want to win at don't trade their veterans away every time and are still able to produce young players to replace the ones that leave for comp picks or nothing. If you can develop well, like we agree is the real key, you don't need to be constantly trading guys away. And if you're willing to spend in your key windows where your team is loaded with cheap talent (like right now for the Twins) you have an actual chance at a title.

Side note: Bryson Stott is absolutely not a better SS than Carlos Correa. Obviously the Cavaco pick was out of left field, and terrible, but Bryson Stott is not a better player than Carlos Correa. He is younger, and cheaper, though. But that actually proves my point. The Phillies are good because they pay the star SS while letting the cheap, league average to this point, talent grow and eventually take the star's spot. They don't force it and rely on the young guy to be the star before they are.

[Major League Ready]

14 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Let me know the last World Series champ that didn't spend on free agents, or trade for an expensive veteran, or have someone on an expensive extension. You have to pay. Prospects are your life blood, and vital to success, but they don't win championships. I don't want to be Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland. They don't win titles.

The plan you're laying out is best for winning the central division for a bunch of years while never winning the World Series. I'm just not interested in that goal. Of course I'd rather win the central a bunch than lose a bunch, but I want a World Series. I know people don't like to hear it, but teams that spend win titles, and teams that don't don't. You can go look up the numbers. I posted them earlier for your convenience. Top 10 payrolls have won all but 8 World Series going back to 1992. Top 11 payrolls have won all but 6. Only 2 teams that have come in below the Twins 17th ranked market score and typical payroll slot recently have won the World Series since 1992. 2. The #1 payroll has won as many titles in that timeframe as the #11-30 slots combined. This idea that never spending is actually the right strategy is wrong. Unless the goal is just to dominate the central. I'm not interested in that goal.

Trade Polanco. Trade Kepler. Trade Correa. Trade Buxton. Trade Lopez. Trade whoever you want. But that's not going to win you the World Series. Sorry. They already have a ton of prospects the level that Polanco is likely to bring back. Yes, prospects are a numbers game, but continually playing for the future means you're never playing for the now. Even if the future you're playing for is only 2 years away and not 4. If you're always playing for 2 years away you're never playing for this year. There's a reason the teams you name never win titles. If they weren't slashing payroll, which is what this whole discussion is about, the Twins would have the dollars for a top SP anyways, and still keep a guy who's one of their 4 best hitters right now. The teams that win at the level I want to win at don't trade their veterans away every time and are still able to produce young players to replace the ones that leave for comp picks or nothing. If you can develop well, like we agree is the real key, you don't need to be constantly trading guys away. And if you're willing to spend in your key windows where your team is loaded with cheap talent (like right now for the Twins) you have an actual chance at a title.

Side note: Bryson Stott is absolutely not a better SS than Carlos Correa. Obviously the Cavaco pick was out of left field, and terrible, but Bryson Stott is not a better player than Carlos Correa. He is younger, and cheaper, though. But that actually proves my point. The Phillies are good because they pay the star SS while letting the cheap, league average to this point, talent grow and eventually take the star's spot. They don't force it and rely on the young guy to be the star before they are.

You are chasing a model that works for top 10 revenue teams.  We are not one of them and chasing a model that you can't possibly execute is a horrendously poor strategy.  Get over it.  There are 10 teams that produce $100M or $200M or $300M more in revenue.  Guess what, they are going to get those free agents.  

I will take year after year of 90 win teams and take my chances winning the WS.  If we win our share, we win a title every 30 years.  The Rangers had never won.  I watch 120 games/year and want to see a good product as often as possible.  That's the model I want them to follow, especially when the model you insist upon is simply not a model a team with below average revenue can possibly execute.

BTW ... Bryon Stott produce 3.9 WAR this year vs 1.1 for Correa and Stott won a GG at 2B.   I will take him at SS and $30M that would buy me a top SP without a shadow of a doubt.

[chpettit19]

29 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You are chasing a model that works for top 10 revenue teams.  We are not one of them and chasing a model that you can't possibly execute is a horrendously poor strategy.  Get over it.  There are 10 teams that produce $100M or $200M or $300M more in revenue.  Guess what, they are going to get those free agents.  

I will take year after year of 90 win teams and take my chances winning the WS.  If we win our share, we win a title every 30 years.  The Rangers had never won.  I watch 120 games/year and want to see a good product as often as possible.  That's the model I want them to follow, especially when the model you insist upon is simply not a model a team with below average revenue can possibly execute.

BTW ... Bryon Stott produce 3.9 WAR this year vs 1.1 for Correa and Stott won a GG at 2B.   I will take him at SS and $30M that would buy me a top SP without a shadow of a doubt.

Well the Twins didn't even win 90 games this year in maybe the worst division in MLB history, and you're talking about trading their 2 hole hitter so that they're better in 2 years. Good luck with the year after year of 90 win teams strategy that way. I mean so far it's gotten them one 90 win season in the last 13 years. 6 total since the start of the 21st century. Oakland has three 90 win seasons in the last 10 years. Cleveland has been quite good with five 90 win seasons over the last 10. Your precious Rays have four 90 win seasons in the last 10 years. Your strategy doesn't even work to get you the "year after year of 90 win teams" you want as the team you want to model the Twins after doesn't even win 90 games half the time.

They can execute my model. If they weren't slashing payroll right now they could afford another $30 million contract to go with Correa's for the next 5 years. They have Lopez for 21.5 a year after next year and they can afford that, too. It's absolutely false that they can't execute the strategy of paying high priced guys during the window that they have a wave of young talent coming. If the Pohlads really wanted to get crazy they could even jump their payroll up to 170 mil which would be in line with their MLB provided market score and then they could afford another $20 million deal without much problem. That's 4 deals over 20 million that they could easily afford for the next 5 years, but your strategy is instead to trade Polanco and his 10 mil so they can maybe get a prospect that's ready in 2 years when they'll have to trade Jeffers because now he's expensive and running out of contract. 

My strategy is that you marry your expensive guys with the cheap guys. When Buxton, Correa, Lopez, my dream 30 mil player, and 20 mil player come off the books in 5 years you replace their salaries with whichever internal guys have earned their paydays, or external guys if not enough of the internal guys have earned that money. Then you supplement them with the new guys you're developing on cheap deals. Rinse and repeat. If the Twins spent to the level MLB's own data suggests they should spend to they can absolutely afford multiple expensive contracts while developing well and not having to trade away their 2 hole hitter in hopes it improves their team 2 years down the road. My strategy gives them 5 more seasons to develop players to keep the cycle going. If they can't develop a handful of guys in the next 5 years without trading their veterans they're not going to succeed anyways.

Yeah, I'll take the bet that Correa out performs Stott in 2024.

[Dman]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

This is where we differ and that's OK.  We know that on average the additional $10M believe is absolutely critical will on average return 1.2 WAR.  I just don’t see this aspect of roster development and the 1.2 WAR it would project to bring as being critical.  

The decisions / startegies that make or break mid market teams are drafting and trading for prospects as opposed to trading prospects.  I am still pissed about them taking Cavaco when Stott and Carroll were on the board and were widely considered the best available. Those are the decisions that truly impact a franchise, especially one outside the top 10 in revenue.  We would have a better / younger / healthier shortstop than Correa had we picked Stott and also have another $30M to spend.  Of course, we all know what Carroll has become and we would not have to spend money on a back-up CF.

Trading for prospects as opposed to trading them away is far more important for a mid market team. Take our current situation with Polanco as an example.   While the return is uncertain, trading Polanco has the potential to have a huge impact on the next several years and the sustainability of the team. 

If we trade Polanco, and use the dollars for a top SP, that move alone has more potential than keeping Polanco given Julien, Lewis, and Correa are the primary players at the positions he can play and he plays two of those positions very poorly.  Sure, the SP we trade for could produce nothing like Mahle and Polanco could return to 2019 form or the reverse is possible.  However, the far greater potential impact is the difference in trading away a couple top prospects for pitching as opposed to getting a couple prospects back for Polanco.  The net difference is several prospects including one of two elite prospects.  The difference in this strategy not only costs us the kind of top prospects needed to acquire a front of the rotation SP, it also cost us a couple prospects that would come back from trading Polanco.  This enormous swing in prospect capital is something that Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have understood and utilized to be better than all the other teams outside the top 10 in revenue.

Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland have also been very good at getting MLB ready players or players that have already debuted but not yet produced.  Therefore, the impact is not 4 years off like it would be if we were talking about trading for A Ball players.  Trading Polanco could hurt for a year.  However, he produced just over 1 WAR last year and spending the money elsewhere could have a greater short or even long-term gain if it allows us to bring in a good free agent.  It’s also remotely possible none of the players we would have traded away for pitching or the players we got back from trading Polanco will turn out.   However, teams trading front line SPs are not looking for a slightly above average guy with two years remaining.  They want elite prospects not the packages for Polanco / Larnach etc that have been floated here.  They want the  kind of prospects that profile to become great players.  Polanco would not return that type of prospect but he would return decent prospects that change the ceiling when trading Polanco vs trading for pitching or any other position.  These decisions and strategy are far more important to sustained winning than spending an extra $10M this season.

Bottom line is trading Polanco has a far higher ceiling than keeping him.  We can afford the SP that is arguably our most important need and we will make room for Lee / Severino / Miranda.  Developing those players into ML assets is also important and you can’t do that and keep all the Vets.
 

I believe this is my line of thinking as well.  You have a good player but capable replacements in line for his position.  Said player is getting older but has good trade value and you need pitching help this year.  Payroll appears to be shrinking.  Just like with Arraez try and better balance the roster by strengthening an area of weakness by moving an area of perceived surplus to an area that needs more help.

I don't completely disagree with @chpettit19.  I really get what he is saying and agree we come up short in the lineup as constructed when looking at teams in contention for a world series.  I agree with him that the risk of young players is real and I have my concerns about sophomore slumps for Lewis, Jullien and especially Wallner who played most of his games against under 500 competition\lessor teams.

Still I also don't think we can buy our way to where we would "need" to be without approaching the 200M level.  The other issue\risk not addressed by @chpettit19 is there is also risk with older players as they get injured easier and generally take longer to heal.  Even though they are good they don't always contribute the same year to year either.

Honestly I don't think this team as currently constructed has much of a chance at a world series and personally I think the core needs more refinement or serious growth from the younger players to get there. Will have to see what the FO comes up with before getting too far ahead of myself, but like @chpettit19 mentioned, it is hard to see how this team gets better by subtracting good players.

Call me overly optimistic but I think this team is close to being something special.  I am not sure it all comes together in 2024, but I am bullish on 2025 and beyond if they don't trade the farm away.

 

[Major League Ready]

47 minutes ago, Dman said:

I believe this is my line of thinking as well.  You have a good player but capable replacements in line for his position.  Said player is getting older but has good trade value and you need pitching help this year.  Payroll appears to be shrinking.  Just like with Arraez try and better balance the roster by strengthening an area of weakness by moving an area of perceived surplus to an area that needs more help.

I don't completely disagree with @chpettit19.  I really get what he is saying and agree we come up short in the lineup as constructed when looking at teams in contention for a world series.  I agree with him that the risk of young players is real and I have my concerns about sophomore slumps for Lewis, Jullien and especially Wallner who played most of his games against under 500 competition\lessor teams.

Still I also don't think we can buy our way to where we would "need" to be without approaching the 200M level.  The other issue\risk not addressed by @chpettit19 is there is also risk with older players as they get injured easier and generally take longer to heal.  Even though they are good they don't always contribute the same year to year either.

Honestly I don't think this team as currently constructed has much of a chance at a world series and personally I think the core needs more refinement or serious growth from the younger players to get there. Will have to see what the FO comes up with before getting too far ahead of myself, but like @chpettit19 mentioned, it is hard to see how this team gets better by subtracting good players.

Call me overly optimistic but I think this team is close to being something special.  I am not sure it all comes together in 2024, but I am bullish on 2025 and beyond if they don't trade the farm away.

 

Really well-balanced thoughts here, Doc.  I also don't think they are poised to win the WS as constructed.  However, I also don't think spending an extra $10M or even $20M or even $30M is likely to get us there.  We need the new Young core that is replacing the old core to be better than what Buxton / Polanco / Kepler / Rosario etc produced.  

The twist that does not get much attention is that trading prospects for vets diminishes the supply of cheap talent that enables us to spend on free agency.  The reason we were able to sign Correa regardless of if we think it's a good investment is because we had so much young talent.  The current situation with Polanco is a great example.  I would require trading a great deal of prospect capital to get a true front of the rotation SP.  Whereas trading Polanco frees up payroll and also brings in prospects.  That an uncertain but potentially incredibly impactful swing between those two strategies.  Perhaps more importantly, the prospects offer the potential of 6-7 years of service where the trading for established players in usually for 2 years.  

No doubt spending enhances the chances of winning.  However, the source of the Twins relatively lower spending is not that they don't spend.  It's that they don't generate as much revenue as many other teams.  Being disappointed that they don't spend like teams generating a $100M or more in revenue makes little sense to me.  However, I hope they stretch the payroll as a far as possible too.

[tony&rodney]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

If we trade Polanco, and use the dollars for a top SP,

MLR, as much as one might agree with the general premise of your argument for building a sustainable decent roster, there seems to be one big over-riding question.  The Twins seem to be in position to sign a top free agent pitcher (Nola, Snell, Monty, etc.) and a trade of Polanco for prospects would even allow for a signing to fit within a newly formed reduced budget. 

The question is whether you or others believe that the Twins will actually seriously sign one of the top guys? This question is based on a complete avoidance of entering that market. I'm not going to entertain a thought that the Twins were ever in on Wheeler or Darvish as some have argued because making a low offer that is never even looked over doesn't meet the mark of serious. So I (we/others) may be hoping or thinking and rationalizing that the Twins can add one of the top pitchers this offseason, but is it a realistic thought or fan rationalizing? If it is, go for it - I'm in. I just don't see it.

What about another crack at a trade similar to the Lopez-Arraez deal? How about a trade of a solid pitcher with years of control for a guy with one year left like Burnes? How about a trade of a top prospects along with Polanco plus a few others for a solid #2-3 starting pitcher? Somehow it seems the options are narrow unless there is a venture into taking an outsized risk.

[1985Fan]

5 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

MLR, as much as one might agree with the general premise of your argument for building a sustainable decent roster, there seems to be one big over-riding question.  The Twins seem to be in position to sign a top free agent pitcher (Nola, Snell, Monty, etc.) and a trade of Polanco for prospects would even allow for a signing to fit within a newly formed reduced budget. 

The question is whether you or others believe that the Twins will actually seriously sign one of the top guys? This question is based on a complete avoidance of entering that market. I'm not going to entertain a thought that the Twins were ever in on Wheeler or Darvish as some have argued because making a low offer that is never even looked over doesn't meet the mark of serious. So I (we/others) may be hoping or thinking and rationalizing that the Twins can add one of the top pitchers this offseason, but is it a realistic thought or fan rationalizing? If it is, go for it - I'm in. I just don't see it.

What about another crack at a trade similar to the Lopez-Arraez deal? How about a trade of a solid pitcher with years of control for a guy with one year left like Burnes? How about a trade of a top prospects along with Polanco plus a few others for a solid #2-3 starting pitcher? Somehow it seems the options are narrow unless there is a venture into taking an outsized risk.

This is the type of trade that the Twins will need to make. They will have to give up valuable assets to get a valuable starter or bat in return. It will be painful, but necessary. The alternatives are to stand pat and fill Grays spot from within. Varland is probably the prime candidate to step up. Or they can add on the fringes by signing low dollar free agents and/ or under the radar trades. 
I think the major impact type of trade is the route to improve the roster. Not sure what the FO thinks, but we will soon find out. 

[tony&rodney]

11 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Call me overly optimistic but I think this team is close to being something special.  I am not sure it all comes together in 2024, but I am bullish on 2025 and beyond if they don't trade the farm away.

 

I feel like this as well. However, I also stop and remember that this may just be a typical thought when one is a fan of a team. People tend to see stars emerging within the prospects .... on every team.

The Twins are not ranked very highly in neutral or national sites for their farm system.  I also wonder if it isn't worthwhile to see how other teams value players within the Twins system. There are potentially a few players with 4-6 years of control remaining who are worth acquiring for some of our prospects. I do agree that the Twins should not be looking to trade 3-4 good prospects for Juan Soto or a similar deal.

I also didn't really think the Twins traded the farm away for Tyler Mahle, despite the fact that I never was interested in Mahle at all and really enjoyed watching CES hit. The Twins have been pretty conservative about trading prospects. There may be some examples, but I'm struggling to think of when the Twins traded off their best prospects for a disappointing return. I'm sure there must be some. There should be conversations with any number of teams searching for agreeable exchanges of players.

[Major League Ready]

On 11/9/2023 at 10:40 AM, tony&rodney said:

MLR, as much as one might agree with the general premise of your argument for building a sustainable decent roster, there seems to be one big over-riding question.  The Twins seem to be in position to sign a top free agent pitcher (Nola, Snell, Monty, etc.) and a trade of Polanco for prospects would even allow for a signing to fit within a newly formed reduced budget. 

The question is whether you or others believe that the Twins will actually seriously sign one of the top guys? This question is based on a complete avoidance of entering that market. I'm not going to entertain a thought that the Twins were ever in on Wheeler or Darvish as some have argued because making a low offer that is never even looked over doesn't meet the mark of serious. So I (we/others) may be hoping or thinking and rationalizing that the Twins can add one of the top pitchers this offseason, but is it a realistic thought or fan rationalizing? If it is, go for it - I'm in. I just don't see it.

What about another crack at a trade similar to the Lopez-Arraez deal? How about a trade of a solid pitcher with years of control for a guy with one year left like Burnes? How about a trade of a top prospects along with Polanco plus a few others for a solid #2-3 starting pitcher? Somehow it seems the options are narrow unless there is a venture into taking an outsized risk.

Fair question.  Let me start by saying I am advocating for what I would do.  Will they be willing?  IDK but some here will recall that a few years ago I was dead set against that type of free agent.  My position has changed because the team is in a different position.  The FO position could be different than the past as well although the reduced payroll does throw some cold water on the whole thing.

Even if they are willing, their willingness might get trampled where the top guys are concerned by all the big market teams that are looking for pitching this year.  A lot of the top guys are targeting pitching not to mention the position player side is much weaker than pitching.  That said freeing up funds to be spent elsewhere is still a good idea.  That might mean Giolitto instead of Montgomery but I would still trade both Polanco and Farmer if I could turn that payroll into a good SP.

I am not trading top prospects.  The team’s ceiling as I illustrated in a previous post is much higher keeping them so if we are looking to build a true contender trading top prospects is a bad idea.  

They might be able to trade Julien for pitching but team’s that trade top pitching are generally looking for prospects because they are rebuilding.  It’s just really rare / almost unheard of for a true contender to trade a true top of the rotation player for another established player.  Seattle for example could keep their pitching and easily acquire a Polanco type player for prospects. However, I would not be at all surprised if they acquire pitching via trade.  I just don't think it will be the big name everyone wants.  It will be a guy they believe has upside.