The Twins Chose This Payroll Path

[Ted Schwerzler]

When the Minnesota Twins take the field at Kauffman Stadium on March 28, their payroll will be close to $30 million less than on Opening Day a year ago. Ownership has blamed declining television revenues, but in reality, things didn’t have to work out this way.

Image courtesy of Jordan Johnson-USA TODAY Sports

Coming off of their best season in three decades, the Minnesota Twins had plenty of momentum to take into the offseason. Having swept the Toronto Blue Jays during the Wild Card round and stolen a road game from the Houston Astros, the core of Rocco Baldelli’s team was set to return for another run. Youth litters the active roster, and injured stars Carlos Correa and Byron Buxton had ample time for healing over the winter.

Rather than ride that wave, the organization let it push them under.

Before the first free agent had even been signed, Sonny Gray had departed for a bigger payday, and the dust had even settled on the postseason excitement the Twins ran to the presses. Payroll was going to decrease, sizably even. There was no reason or benefit to announce this so publicly, and baseball reasons would have facilitated some of it, but the organization wanted the reality to sink in.

With players like Alex Kirilloff, Royce Lewis, Edouard Julien, Matt Wallner, Joe Ryan, Bailey Ober, and the bulk of the bullpen making the major league minimum, the payroll could have logically decreased. Last season, the Opening Day roster had ten players making the major league minimum. That same number looks reachable this year but includes a veteran group that could consist of six contracts below $3.5 million.

Uncertainty surrounding Bally Sports and what would happen with a television contract was the reason, but that has now seemingly fallen flat. Not only did Minnesota fail to put together any other alternatives, but the one-year deal is expected to be a more modest hit and keep streamers at bay. With revenues from broadcast rights and revenue sharing pouring in before any gate fees are collected, the 2024 doom and gloom could be largely unfounded.

Of course, the Twins still needed to play it smart in free agency. Paying Gray at this stage of his career could go horribly wrong. Kenta Maeda's production could be replaced, and even Jorge Polanco had redundancy in his roster spot. Alternatively, they needed willing parties to entertain them as well. While Carlos Correa shocked the world twice, those realities aren’t typical for the Twins. Shohei Ohtani wasn’t going anywhere but the Dodgers, and even with Blake Snell or Cody Bellinger twisting in the wind, Minnesota is not their preferred destination.

However, they didn’t need to wait out the bottom of the market either. Josh Staumont may have a nice resurgence with a clean bill of health. Maybe Jay Jackson is a late-bloomer who can be lightning in a bottle. The front office has never spent on relief help, but Carlos Santana didn’t need to be the choice at first base, and the starting rotation is where things hurt the most. Anthony DeSclafani doesn’t represent the most imperative addition the Twins needed to make this offseason, and they kneecapped themselves from the get-go.

Pitching comes with significant costs, and as Minnesota has seen in recent seasons, those additions can be made in deals rather than just dollars. The Twins got great value in trading Polanco, but how far did they shy away from parting with the pieces that would have acquired Tyler Glasnow or Corbin Burnes because of the cost? They could have easily done the two-year deals for Lucas Giolito or Marcus Stroman. Looking at their preferred one-year pacts, playing in the Frankie Montas, Jack Flaherty, or even James Paxton pools would have been up their alley. All that is true had ownership not self-imposed a cap on the spending.

Major League Baseball is an uncapped sport, and while there will never be a level playing field when it comes to spending, thresholds should be adjusted while windows of opportunity are present. The Pohlad’s committed to increasing payrolls each of the past few seasons, with a franchise record in 2023, and then they reversed course in the ugliest way when the team could have used it most. Spending doesn’t guarantee victories, and we’ll see the Royals reflective of that in 2024. Still, additions enhance an overall chance, and Minnesota is rolling the dice when the only voice that told them to was themselves.

A year from now, the payroll should increase. Correa, Pablo Lopez, and Chris Paddack each see sizable bumps. There will be more handed to pre-arb guys, and those reaching a second year of arbitration will command more. Still, we have even less television uncertainty a year from now and more mouths to feed in that regard across the sport; it seems the time was now and logic went out the window.

Minnesota remains the favorite to win the division, but what could have been is a few pieces short and something that only ownership can shoulder the blame if that would have made a difference.

 

View full article

[tony&rodney]

They certainly did choose their limits. They also chose who they wanted to trade and trade for. Season starts soon enough and a host of players will need to meet their expectations for the Twins to win the AL Central. I think they will too. Strange choices by management but that is how it goes.

[Karbo]

I'm still hoping they get a RH hitting OF'er that can play CF as Buxton's backup in the next week. I also think they'll look to add (probably a starter) at or near the trade deadline. By then they should know what they really need.

[Brandon]

Really the Twins fortified their depth.  And really fortified it at this point.  My complaints are why didn’t we offer JD Martinez a contract to add a major bat to the lineup and I get it a lineup of 80 RBI guys that is deep is cheaper then paying for thump.  With the spike in salaries for 2025 I am not surprised we didn’t sign a starter because there aren’t many good ones looking for a 1 year deal.  We are well positioned to trade for one at the deadline.  Lots of depth in our system and we added a top 100 prospect.  The Rangers will have pitching to trade this deadline, especially if they sign a starter still in free agency.  Let’s see how this plays out but it’s not a bad situation for the Twins to be in.  They can add salary in season and have assets to trade.  

[DocBauer]

I am certainly not going to defend ownership on lowering the payroll for this upcoming season. I am, however, going to say that as much as I listen to and read about the whole TV situation for 2024, the more confusing and frustrating it all is. Bally is out, and the Twins don't know what direction they are going to go. Does MLB step in to rescue them as they have already done for a handful of teams? No, Amazon steps in and Bally suddenly gets new life in the BK hearings to proceed forward with options to go 1 more year. You KNOW MLB is kicking rocks over not seeing that coming and possibly messing up their grand plan of uniting most of the league in 2025 under an umbrella with SOMEONE'S platform.

It's all a weird, confusing and confounding mess. And maybe the Twins really were concerned they might be looking at only a $20M deal for 2024. That's debilitating. Maybe they had no clue things would come out where they are going to get $40-45M this season. Maybe they should have just anticipated it would all work out in the end and they'd have more $ coming in a TV deal than expected. Maybe they should have just ante'd up out of their own pockets to have done more and wiped their brows in relief when this new deal came across the desk.

But with so many unknowns and twists and turns, I can't completely fault ownership for their conservative efforts this offseason, much as I'm disappointed and don't like it.

But as a fan, IMO, ownership SHOULD have taken on the financial risk/burden of expectation/hope that a decent sized deal would be coming from somewhere and shot higher. At least in regard to the rotation. There's some guys out there that I'm not crazy about, but weren't signed for huge, long term deals that I think would have been better than DeSclafani.

I don't think the Twins were caught with their pants down. The whole TV situation is a mess, and might be one for a few more years until everything continues down the path of change. But I do think they are guilty of being TOO risk adverse.

[Fatbat]

They are waay below even their self imposed upper limit. Even by their standards, there is a path to paying for a front line SP. They simply choose not to.

[Oldgoat_MN]

Unfortunately the Bally deal, at about 85% of last year's revenue, is the best they could do.

Surely they had people working on this for months. What did they have going on that was more important?

This suggests that revenue will fall again next year. This does not look good for the future of our favorite team. 

If you see something different please enlighteni me. I'd love to hear a different tune.

Edited February 10, 2024 by Oldgoat_MN
Clarification

[JD-TWINS]

36 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Really the Twins fortified their depth.  And really fortified it at this point.  My complaints are why didn’t we offer JD Martinez a contract to add a major bat to the lineup and I get it a lineup of 80 RBI guys that is deep is cheaper then paying for thump.  With the spike in salaries for 2025 I am not surprised we didn’t sign a starter because there aren’t many good ones looking for a 1 year deal.  We are well positioned to trade for one at the deadline.  Lots of depth in our system and we added a top 100 prospect.  The Rangers will have pitching to trade this deadline, especially if they sign a starter still in free agency.  Let’s see how this plays out but it’s not a bad situation for the Twins to be in.  They can add salary in season and have assets to trade.  

Buxton will have to DH a bunch……..potentially, if Lee is good early and is moved up, either Lewis or Julien have to DH as well. No place for J.D. Martinez……..particularly at $20M. Same with Soler.

The Rangers aren’t going to trade any extra pitching they may have to the Twins. We probably don’t want to supplement their roster with any position players that could contribute either.

[Brandon]

17 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

They are waay below even their self imposed upper limit. Even by their standards, there is a path to paying for a front line SP. They simply choose not to.

This season they can afford the salary. But in 2025 payroll spikes up quite a bit.  Only Kepler is coming off the books and Lopez’s increase in salary alone more than swallows up the savings there. And the arbitration class and I think Correa is at top salary that year too.  35 million.  So I think the bigger concern is next year.  I’m just surprised we didn’t try harder for Burnes.  But the trade deadline could be a factor for us this year.  We have more to trade.  Texas will have extra starters as they come back from injury.  Someone else may have a starter available too.  We can acquire someone on an expiring contract for the post season run.  There will be fewer starts for the new ace to get injured before the playoffs and we will know how likely we are to be in and if we are going to be competitive.

[Guest]

I'm optimistic.  The FO generally have drafted and invested well.  That's starting to swell the prospect pipeline at the same time pressure on revenue is increasing.  I've never believed that more spending correlates to better team results in MLB.  Methinks they'll continue on a performance upswing in 2024.

[Jocko87]

Can we stop with the doomer crap?  At least maybe a pause?  A self-imposed pause, one could say.

They have chosen a path for the regular season.  The postseason is 6+ months away.  Things can still happen.

The doom and gloom could certainly be largely unfounded, but lets write about it endlessly anyway. 

Quote

A year from now, the payroll should increase. Correa, Pablo Lopez, and Chris Paddack each see sizable bumps. There will be more handed to pre-arb guys, and those reaching a second year of arbitration will command more. Still, we have even less television uncertainty a year from now and more mouths to feed in that regard across the sport; it seems the time was now and logic went out the window.

What the heck does this even mean?  This paragraph basically explains completely why they aren't making it rain despite a one year unknown TV payment.  Fanboy and editorial logic is what went out the window.

[DocBauer]

9 minutes ago, Oldgoat_MN said:

Unfortunately the Bally deal, at about 85% of last year's revenue, is the best they could do.

Surely they had people working on this for months. What did they have going on that was more important?

This suggests that revenue will fall again next year. This does not look good for the future of our favorite team. 

If you see something different please enlighteni me. I'd love to hear a different tune.

Certainly not going to make excuses or apologize for ownership and the 2024 budget. I believe they should have been daring, take a risk, and hoped they'd get a deal like the one they just got. 

Buuuuuuut.....here's the problem with being frustrated with the Twins. Of course they knew the deal with Bally was going to expire. And from what I understand, part of them was excited about that as the deal with Bally/Diamond Sports, restricted the Twins from selling streaming rights. And you can understand that from Bally's perspective as they didn't want the competition. Now, the whole idea of blacking out multiple nearby states from watching the Twins on the MLB app is completely beyond me.

But where should the Twins have gone instead of back to Bally for 2024? And I'm just asking out loud to everyone, including myself. Cable TV is dying, and quickly. To my immediate knowledge, there is no independent cable TV channel in the Cities that A} Wants the Twins for 162 games a year, and B} Could offer anything remotely acceptable to the Twins and ownership.

MLB has national deals in place that benefit the league. And the MLB app is pretty fantastic...again, no explanation for the ridiculous blackouts. But just because the Twins knew this deal was ending doesn't mean there was an easy, ready, and obvious move to channel X who would cough up $50M per year, give or take. And even if there was someone who could/would offer up $30M and the Twins could sell streaming rights to company Y, TV station X might not take too kindly for them doing that.

What would SEEM to make the most sense is the rumored idea of MLB taking over control of as many team's broadcast rights as possible, and partner with companies like Amazon, who just stuck their toe in to everything with their recent deal with Diamond. That idea works best the more teams you have. MLB is already control the broadcasts of a handful of teams. In 2025, the Twins will again have an expiring deal, as will other teams, and MLB might have a better, larger product to offer to Amazon, or anyone else, in a streaming deal. 

Unfortunately, such a deal might take a few years to produce the kind of financial fruit wanted as it would take time for more and more teams to come on board. Further, there's going to be a handful of teams like the Dodgers or Yankees that might not ever leave their own, local deals. But cable will continue to die for them as well.

I think, ideally, the solution is all, or as many teams as possible on a streaming deal that will almost certainly grow over time, while still having the MLB app as an option, and HOPEFULLY, the freedom for a small local deal available to all teams so that local TV can have the right/ability to broadcast a few "free games" over the air on weekends and holidays and the such so that, even on a very limited basis, local fans can still watch a few games on the year without subscribing to any service. 

But it's really not as easy as "Hello channel 10, we'd like you to bump all of your other programming for 162 Twins games a year. Oh, by the way, we need about $55M from you to do so." And that's what's so frustrating and confusing. It's about as big a mess as the whole revenue sharing, income disparity that exists in baseball. 

[JD-TWINS]

Their payroll was at $154M in ‘23 & the “norm” in the game is that most organizations increase payroll 5% - 10% annually under normal conditions. Twins were #17 in baseball in ‘23 and spending commensurate to their local market size.

With no interruptions in TV revenue going into ‘24, the baseline total would have normally been $162M, at a minimum. TV deal in ‘23 was $54M, I believe - this year it’s 85% of that, proclaimed here somewhere. That’s $48.5M instead of $54M.

There’s a difference between the two TV total’s of $5.5M less, that is to remain level in ‘24, to the spending in ‘23.

Typical conditions payroll should/would have been $162M - the ‘24 payroll with TV revenue adjusted for reduced TV $$ ($5.5M) should be $156M.

Currently, most agree that the payroll for ‘24 sits at $124M. I understand the organization decided to reduce spending “due to TV $$ uncertainty”.

Seems there is room for J. Montgomery at $26M/year OR Clevinger/Duvall for total of $25M/year and the total payroll stays at $150M maximum. If either of these spending moves are made the Twins would be the favorite in the AL or at least a strong contender!

I have never been critical of the FO (supportive) - organization’s level of spending - managing  of Baldelli - etc……..don’t understand how the ownership/FO would not NOW act on solidifying this team as a Pennant favorite.

[Brandon]

13 minutes ago, JD-TWINS said:

Buxton will have to DH a bunch……..potentially, if Lee is good early and is moved up, either Lewis or Julien have to DH as well. No place for J.D. Martinez……..particularly at $20M. Same with Soler.

The Rangers aren’t going to trade any extra pitching they may have to the Twins. We probably don’t want to supplement their roster with any position players that could contribute either.

I can see your first point.  but the Rangers have 7 starting pitchers on their roster and 6 of them cost money.  and the Rangers are still a possible landing spot for Montgomery.  If they sign him, I am sure they would like to shed salary and one of Heaney, Gray or maybe Dunning would be made available for a trade.  Heaney will be a free agent after the season and is someone we could target.  Gray is still on the books for 2025 and he doesn't make too much but we would probably want some cash to offset a part of his salary next year or include Vazquez in the trade.  

Rangers starters:

Scherzer 43.333 million with 20.83 million paid by Mets

DeGrom 40 million with 4 total more years guarenteed

Eovaldi  16 million with 3 million incentives and 2 million buyout of 20 million option.

Heaney  13 million

Gray 13 million in each or 24 and 25

Mahle signed a 2 year 20 million and not sure how that breaks out.  I think its 5/15 but I dont know for sure.  

Dunning is 1rst year arbitration he is the value starter here.  

Thats around 110 million for their rotation.  Are you sure they won't want to trade a starter as their starters return from injury?  

 

[terrydactyls]

For me, what the Twins haven't done so far this off-season doesn't matter.  With the TV revenue now a reality, they should be on the phone right now with Montgomery's agent and finalizing a deal.  Revenues are probably going to increase in 2024 and there is a strong possibility of additional playoff games so they should be able to handle the payroll increase in 2025.

[Guest]

To make this even more interesting: Disney, FOX, and Warner Bros. are joining up and are going to be getting into the act too. So, who knows how convoluted it will be in the next couple years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2024/02/07/disney-warner-bros-discovery--fox-combine-to-offer-streaming-sports/?sh=c892e6c396b4

[Cris E]

The chaos in revenue streams is real, and wide-spread.  Even if they know they only had to take a 15% haircut for this year there's still no certainty about 2025 and beyond, Chances are good that cable money will be even lower then so the next deal they get from Diamond could be lower still. This question is still open for the long term, and it's not clear that streaming money will completely fill that gap. I don't expect any answer for this until they open up the CBA after the 2026 season and work it out then, and that could be very messy.  Consider this:  no one has suggested a model that will replace all the lost cable money that's even remotely realistic. The best bet might be expansion fees, but that's a one-time cash infusion. Where is this magic 10% a year money coming from?

Also, the deals people want to sign are mostly not for a single season, so they extend into these coming years of confusion.  On top of that you need to start extending some guys like Ryan, Duran, Jax et al and you'll want to save some headroom for them on the 2026 payroll.

Listen I know that it's frustrating to watch, but give credit to Joe Pohlad for the risks he's taken in the past year or two. They didn't predict spending that much in 2023, but they did it even though they were in the last year of their TV deal, even as this money question was not getting answered, even as their entire roster went on the DL in 2022.  When Correa was available they wrote the check. They wrote the check for Buxton. They traded cheap young players to get expensive starting pitchers. It's not Carl Pohlad running this team anymore, so acknowledge the progress before dragging out your old Calvin Griffith hair shirt. The lamentations are tired.

 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

1 question for everyone,  do you believe ownership allowed the Twins to skyrocket payroll for 1 year last year after they had already pivoted away from Correa and then were able to sign him.  I fully think last year was a one off.  Add in the RSN issues and its a 1 off the other way.   Even still the team is in my opinion having better health and depth than last year, especially in the bullpen and then at this point with Buxton (knock on wood).  Yes I would rather have Gray than Paddack,  but with that being said Paddack may have even a higher ceiling than Gray especially in a playoff scenario (even though he hasn't shown it accept in fleeting moments).

For me a lot comes down to the health of Desclafani.  Is he even a pitcher we can count on this year or not.  If he is I feel a lot better on this season.  If not then we need to make another move at some point and may still need to make a move on the SP market even if he is healthy.    

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

1 hour ago, terrydactyls said:

For me, what the Twins haven't done so far this off-season doesn't matter.  With the TV revenue now a reality, they should be on the phone right now with Montgomery's agent and finalizing a deal.  Revenues are probably going to increase in 2024 and there is a strong possibility of additional playoff games so they should be able to handle the payroll increase in 2025.

Do you trust Montgomery to perform like  he did for a 1/2 season for the next 5-6 years?  I don't.  The Twins don't spend big on pitchers for free agency.  Yes if he wanted a 1 year 20 mil contract I think the Twins would jump on it.  I don't see it happening.   

[Blyleven2011]

It didn't have to be this way ...

I was saddened when I heard Joe Pohlad say they aren't selling the team ,  ...

I would really like an owner to go for it when it's in your grasp  , yes they increased payroll the past couple of seasons  , but this was not the season  to cut payroll  when a window of opportunity  is building towards a goal of the world series  ...

Next year we might be in the same  situation  with the TV revenue  , might be less than the what the judge just awarded bally to free up some money for the Twins  ( could be 40 million this year , could be only 30 million TV REVENUE FOR 2025 ... 

Cutting the payroll is fine  but not as substantial  as they may go , I could see cutting it 15 million  because of TV revenue  , still at a 140 million payroll  the Twins could have found some players to help , and with the Twins getting into the playoffs  , wildcard , and ALDS  and Quite possibly  the ALCS and WORLD SERIES  ...

You make a good run in the playoffs  and teams make more money  , seems like the pohlads don't like taking risks  ...

They don't believe like us diehard Twins  do .

It didn't have to be this way 

 

[DocBauer]

1 hour ago, Verified Member said:

To make this even more interesting: Disney, FOX, and Warner Bros. are joining up and are going to be getting into the act too. So, who knows how convoluted it will be in the next couple years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2024/02/07/disney-warner-bros-discovery--fox-combine-to-offer-streaming-sports/?sh=c892e6c396b4

Mobile phone companies now sell internet, and internet companies sell mobile. Cable TV is dying a quick and horrible death and streaming is growing, evolving, adding content, dropping content, merging, and always raising prices.

Yeah, it's going to take a few years for all of this to sort itself out. Just another example of how bizarre the MLB situation has become in regard to broadcast rights and expiring deals.

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

22 minutes ago, Blyleven2011 said:

It didn't have to be this way ...

I was saddened when I heard Joe Pohlad say they aren't selling the team ,  ...

I would really like an owner to go for it when it's in your grasp  , yes they increased payroll the past couple of seasons  , but this was not the season  to cut payroll  when a window of opportunity  is building towards a goal of the world series  ...

Next year we might be in the same  situation  with the TV revenue  , might be less than the what the judge just awarded bally to free up some money for the Twins  ( could be 40 million this year , could be only 30 million TV REVENUE FOR 2025 ... 

Cutting the payroll is fine  but not as substantial  as they may go , I could see cutting it 15 million  because of TV revenue  , still at a 140 million payroll  the Twins could have found some players to help , and with the Twins getting into the playoffs  , wildcard , and ALDS  and Quite possibly  the ALCS and WORLD SERIES  ...

You make a good run in the playoffs  and teams make more money  , seems like the pohlads don't like taking risks  ...

They don't believe like us diehard Twins  do .

It didn't have to be this way 

 

Who were you going to sign that was going to make a difference?  The only contract that made sense at this point would be Sonny Gray.  3 years $75 mil is a fair contract.  The issue is we got a very good draft pick for letting him go.   

[DocBauer]

41 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

1 question for everyone,  do you believe ownership allowed the Twins to skyrocket payroll for 1 year last year after they had already pivoted away from Correa and then were able to sign him.  I fully think last year was a one off.  Add in the RSN issues and its a 1 off the other way.   Even still the team is in my opinion having better health and depth than last year, especially in the bullpen and then at this point with Buxton (knock on wood).  Yes I would rather have Gray than Paddack,  but with that being said Paddack may have even a higher ceiling than Gray especially in a playoff scenario (even though he hasn't shown it accept in fleeting moments).

For me a lot comes down to the health of Desclafani.  Is he even a pitcher we can count on this year or not.  If he is I feel a lot better on this season.  If not then we need to make another move at some point and may still need to make a move on the SP market even if he is healthy.    

I don't think 2023 was a one off. I think they saw an opportunity with Correa that they just couldn't pass up. Remember, he was actually offered more guaranteed money by the Twins than he ultimately signed for.

I think they understood the young talent they had on hand that had arrived, was ready to arrive, and that is in the system. They knew Gray and Maeda were coming off the books, that Polanco and Kepler would soon, so I don't believe they felt financially handcuffed in any way, so even with an expiring TV coming up and some unknowns, they trusted in what they had, made the Correa move, and then extended Lopez as well. 

So while I wish they had taken more risk this offseason and just bet on a decent deal happening for 2024 in order to enhance the roster more, they certainly did make a few aggressive moves before 2023. 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

11 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

I don't think 2023 was a one off. I think they saw an opportunity with Correa that they just couldn't pass up. Remember, he was actually offered more guaranteed money by the Twins than he ultimately signed for.

I think they understood the young talent they had on hand that had arrived, was ready to arrive, and that is in the system. They knew Gray and Maeda were coming off the books, that Polanco and Kepler would soon, so I don't believe they felt financially handcuffed in any way, so even with an expiring TV coming up and some unknowns, they trusted in what they had, made the Correa move, and then extended Lopez as well. 

So while I wish they had taken more risk this offseason and just bet on a decent deal happening for 2024 in order to enhance the roster more, they certainly did make a few aggressive moves before 2023. 

I agree, we are on the same path here.  Pohlads felt comfortable letting the salary be high knowing a lot of the salaries would be coming of in the next few years.  

[purplesoldier4u]

I read somewhere, they will receive $46.58m, in 2024, from BSN. It was from a TD type of site so consider the source.

[Seth Stohs]

The Twins are generally between 18-22 in revenues and between 16-22 in payroll. 

Other than that, payroll is what it is. 

[Seth Stohs]

2 minutes ago, purplesoldier4u said:

I read somewhere, they will receive $46.58m, in 2024, from BSN. It was from a TD type of site so consider the source.

I'm not sure how to take that, but... HA! 

If that's the number, and I'm sure it's somewhere around that, they're down about $15M in revenue, so about $7.5 million in payroll... But until Friday, they didn't know what that number would be. If it had been like $20 million, that would have been like $20 million drop in payroll. 

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Twins make 2-3 moves yet over the next 3-5 days. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

1 question for everyone,  do you believe ownership allowed the Twins to skyrocket payroll for 1 year last year after they had already pivoted away from Correa and then were able to sign him.  I fully think last year was a one off.  Add in the RSN issues and its a 1 off the other way.   Even still the team is in my opinion having better health and depth than last year, especially in the bullpen and then at this point with Buxton (knock on wood).  Yes I would rather have Gray than Paddack,  but with that being said Paddack may have even a higher ceiling than Gray especially in a playoff scenario (even though he hasn't shown it accept in fleeting moments).

For me a lot comes down to the health of Desclafani.  Is he even a pitcher we can count on this year or not.  If he is I feel a lot better on this season.  If not then we need to make another move at some point and may still need to make a move on the SP market even if he is healthy.    

There were some unusual circumstances last year but there is one nobody seems to want to acknowledge.  They got $30M in BAM money.  Yet, unless I missed it, there has not been a single mention of this fact in any of the TD articles written on the topic.  If we expect them to push payroll up when they have an increase in revenue we should also expect it to go down if revenue goes down..   That said, I still think they have a little wiggle room for another addition.

 

[tony&rodney]

Clevinger, Bauer, and Lorenzen are unsigned. Why does anyone believe Montgomery, Snell, or Bellinger are options.

A suggestion to attempt to dump piles of players and prospects on the Marlins for Cabrera seems more likely than any of the other options and Cabrera's salary will fit too.

[jorgenswest]

I am OK with the payroll. I am OK with the ownership. I think it is very unlikely a new ownership would be as stable or as good to the community as the Pohlad’s have been over the long run. My A’s colleagues out on the west coast have continually begged for new ownership. With each new ownership they are left wishing they had the previous one back.