Ripple Effects: This Team Wasn’t Built For This Payroll

[Greggory Masterson]

Whether it be through poor forecasting, the rug being pulled out from under the front office, or both, the Twins’ payroll is too lopsided to provide the necessary flexibility.

Image courtesy of © Matt Blewett-Imagn Images

This is the first piece in a series of articles to kick off the offseason, here at Twins Daily. Each day, we'll tackle a different aspect or element of the team's predicament and their collapse at the end of this season--a different place where the buck might stop, and why, and what makes the assignment of blame complicated. We're calling it Ripple Effects.

In 2024, the Minnesota Twins had an estimated payroll of approximately $130 million (21st in MLB), down from $160 million in 2023 and lower than their 2018 number (which ranked only 18th in the league). Spending in the bottom third of the league is no reliable way to put a winning team on the field, but it's perfectly possible to do so. Alas, this Twins team is seemingly built on the assumption of being somewhere in the middle of the league. There's a mismatch that matters just as much as the raw dollar number or payroll ranking.

Payrolls are not created equally. Even similar payrolls can be distributed in wildly varying ways. The 2024 Twins—and, to an even greater extent, the 2025 Twins—could be described as a stars-and-scrubs distribution. Over the weekend, anonymous reports surfaced suggesting that the Twins could be facing a similar payroll limit in 2025 as they did in 2024. Although this is better than news that payroll would drop further, the club could be facing a less flexible situation than the one that forced them to cut $30 million in salaries ahead of 2024.

In 2025, Carlos Correa will earn $36 million, Pablo López will earn $21.5 million, and Byron Buxton will earn $15 million--before any of his $10,000,000 in performance bonuses are potentially met. These three salaries add up to $72.5 million. If the Twins indeed have a payroll limit of $130 million again, that leaves $56 million to fill the other 23 roster spots.

Other guaranteed contracts will eat up about $20.5 million of that leftover money, and players in arbitration will eat up more still. But even without those immediate expenditures, it’s hard to fill 23 spots with $56 million in today’s league.

Buxton’s extension ahead of 2022 could be classified as team-friendly, as the team bought low on an oft-injured but supremely talented player, only paying top dollar if he played full seasons and won awards. Correa’s contract is the largest in team history, and López’s extension is the most the club has ever doled out to a pitcher—both deals conveniently being struck in 2023, during the highest payroll season in team history.

From the outside, it seems clear that those deals were struck based on the belief that payroll would, at a bare minimum, stick around that $160 million range, if not increase. If the club had held pat at the $160 million mark, they would be looking at $86 million to divide between players not named Correa, López, or Buxton. That’s far more manageable, as the big three would only constitute 46% of the team’s salaries, rather than the 57% they project to soak up in 2025 based on a $130 million budget.

It matters, too, that the team (mostly) knowingly made such heavy investments in three players who don't play a high volume of baseball and impact as high a percentage of the team's action as one might hope. Using the most generous math possible (counting all plate appearances taken by both Buxton and Correa and all the balls hit to each in the field, even ground ball singles to Buxton in center, as well as all López's batters faced), the trio played a role in 17.4% of the team's combined batting and pitching plate appearances this year.

Obviously, that number pales in comparison to the percentage of the payroll they take up, but that's normal. You pay an outsize rate for established stars whom you can confidently project to be above-average, knowing you'll pay a bargain-basement rate for the guys who are just getting started. It's how baseball economics work, and it's not even necessarily irrational. But the ratio of 57% to 17% is much different than that of 46% to 17%--and crucially, there's another number to consider. If both Buxton and Correa were closer to everyday players, like many expensive stars (think Juan Soto, Bobby Witt, José Ramírez, etc.), that 17% number could scale up close to 24%. López's impact is bounded by the way all teams now use starting pitchers, and he provides plenty of volume for his cost and position, but if you're going to pay north of $50 million for two players against a total payroll south of $150 million, you'd like them to consistently qualify for the batting title.

The teams who can afford to hold onto low-volume players with concentrated impact in less playing time are the ones spending north of $200 million, so investing in Buxton and Correa this way seemed to signal a belief that payroll would steadily increase. It immediately did the opposite.

Of the nine teams with lower payrolls than the Twins have in 2024, only two have a single player with a higher salary than Buxton’s—Kansas City’s Salvador Perez, and Washington’s Patrick Corbin and Stephen Strasburg. Many of the teams above them don’t have a López-level contract, let alone Correa’s—which currently ranks sixth-largest in all of baseball heading into 2025.

These salaries would provide some strain on the $160 million number, but at $130 million, the roster is being stretched to its limits, especially as prominent players like Joe Ryan, Bailey Ober, Griffin Jax, and Jhoan Durán are entering their arbitration years and will no longer be making the league-minimum salary of roughly $750,000.

If the front office was aware of the impending payroll reductions, this was poor planning—or at least, an unusual show of risk acceptance from a highly risk-averse group. If the decision-makers were blindsided entirely by ownership over this change, it’s a disservice to the team and the fans, and I don’t say that lightly.

One common refrain amid the Twins’ collapse in 2024 was that ownership’s unwillingness to meet last year’s spending, or even 90% of it, was a crucial factor in the team’s fate. One common retort to that complaint was that the Twins outspent the Guardians, Royals, and Tigers—each of whom finished ahead of Minnesota in the final standings.

However, due to the constraints associated with beginning the offseason with more money on the books than they were allowed to commit by Opening Day, the club was restricted from making the adjustments that every club needs to make every year. No matter the payroll, there’s no team that doesn’t enter the offseason with some sort of hole on the roster that needs addressing. A payroll number for a given season matters, but the direction in which it's moving from previous years matters, too. A shrinking payroll changes the implications of every contract on the books, and all for the worse.

For example, the Twins needed a starting pitcher. Instead of having $15 million in flexibility to spend on a Michael Wacha- or Seth Lugo-caliber replacement for their outgoing arms, they were consigned to taking on Anthony DeSclafani to balance out Jorge Polanco’s salary and calling the hole filled. At the trade deadline, reports indicated difficulty bringing on any player’s salary over $1 million.

Regardless of the salary the team starts the offseason with, there needs to be some flexibility to fill holes, either over the offseason or during the season via trade. It does not matter what the total salary is when the team, for example, needs one more reliable reliever. That’s something that needs to be fixed now, not last year.

And so when a team enters a season committing $74 million of their $130 million payroll to three players, they’re kneecapped, regardless of what everyone else is spending around them. That concentration of salary is built for a $160-million payroll, or an even greater one, given the specific identities of those three players. The team cannot truly address needs when so few funds remain to fill in the rest of the roster. Instead, they’re bound to build from within.

Building from within isn’t a bad thing—it’s what every team should be trying to do. But filling every hole on the roster year-to-year with internal pieces leaves a lot up to fate, hoping that your Austin Martins are ready on time to step in as a fourth outfielder. And that highlights an important piece—these holes don’t always necessitate a Nelson Cruz-level addition. But even a Carlos Santana or Michael A. Taylor can be a nearly impossible acquisition, when that signing makes up 10% of a team's remaining payroll.

You can miss a bit on your other moves when you have a middle-of-the-road payroll and those three big salary earners. When you’re in the bottom third, you need to hit on 95% of your other decisions to properly build around them. No one is that good, in the fiercely competitive world of professional baseball. It's not possible to be.

View full article

[Mike Sixel]

It's going to be a challenge for sure. 

[Craig Arko]

I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest they will tender a contract to Cole Irvin with the intent of having him compete to be the fifth starter (fourth, if Paddack is traded.).

[Rosterman]

Two Questions to answer. As well as the Overall Question of WANT to be Competitive.

Cost: What do you have to spend to fill a weakness. Do you trust that a rookie will step forward, as much as a free agent, and fulfill the needs for a position of weakness.

Looking at the Twins offensively for 2025, they need a first baseman. Or a bat that can play that position, maybe the outfield, or DH. Internally they have the unproven, as both a bat and fielder, Yennier Severino. They can also mix in one Miranda, Julien or Kirilloff, all who hold more potential than value right now for the team to cut.

There is also the need for strength from the left-side in pitching. Headrick could fulfill part of that. Is Moran due for a comeback? Do you rust Funderburk. Spending money on a Taylor Rogers is, sadly, out of the question for managment. Had their chance.

Two: When figuring payroll, you lways have to factor in "how much can I have spending time in the clubhouse." The team basically paid $5m for two players, who performed basically a but more than one. So you actually were eating around $22, in salary, not counting the DeScalfini, Paddack, Kepler days watching from the bench. A team like the Yankees can write off $50 or so million, a drop in the bucket. But when 25-30% of your tight payroll is unusable on the field, you either signed the wrong contracts for guys, or won't be competitive... unless you have an outstanding farm system.

Roster construction is always the key. Having the flexibility to promote future prospects to get playing time, and then sending them back to the minors for some possible fine tuning. Having enough developed every year so you can avoid the expensive free agent contracts and just try to survive on smart trades, or rewarding your own with modest contract extension (see Span, Polanco as examples).

You can field a decent team, and even a compoetitive one, if everyone come together at the right time. We can't knock the Twins for spending. They invested in Correa... a solid player but also a roadblock to many prospects unless he changes positions. They considered Buxton the current "Face of the Franchise" and reward accordingly, although how long is he for centerfield. Lopez was a shrewd trade and a decent resigning of a still young arm, but veteran presence for the pitching staff. 

You can be inexpensive with prospects thru their first arbitration years. Then the dollars start to add up. You can often patchwork with lowend free agents, but are they really any better than your prospects (Margot = Martin, for example). 

Ultimatey, you want your monies worth when you pay someone. Innings or days on the field, as well as productivity. 

[gman]

Definitely a conundrum. If the team salaries are capped at $130mil for next year and probably the year after, then their best option is to try and trade Correa. The highest salaried player. Only problem who would take him for that salary to play 120 games a year. If they can get him out there for that many games. Unfortunately the Giants and Mets were right not to sign him. Maybe if he realizes that he will only play for a (at best) 4th place team,  he might be willing to renegotiate his contract. I doubt he would do it until 2026, however.

I expect everyone in the office got blindsided by the sudden reduction in team salaries. Other players to go would include Farmer, Santana and Kepler. Maybe Vasquez, who would need to be traded with I am sure the Twins eating at least a third of his salary.

[KGB]

https://www.forbes.com/teams/minnesota-twins/

According to Forbes, for the 2023 season, they spent 54,6% of revenue on players expense. I think that is around what they said their budget was.

The revenue jumped up in 2023, from around $260m to $342m, it will be interesting to see if it went back down to the $260m which is what they were averaging in prior to 2023.  The front office should be aware of the revenue coming in and if salary is based on the revenue, the payroll reduction shouldn't have been a surprise.

 

[Mike Sixel]

22 minutes ago, gman said:

Definitely a conundrum. If the team salaries are capped at $130mil for next year and probably the year after, then their best option is to try and trade Correa. The highest salaried player. Only problem who would take him for that salary to play 120 games a year. If they can get him out there for that many games. Unfortunately the Giants and Mets were right not to sign him. Maybe if he realizes that he will only play for a (at best) 4th place team,  he might be willing to renegotiate his contract. I doubt he would do it until 2026, however.

I expect everyone in the office got blindsided by the sudden reduction in team salaries. Other players to go would include Farmer, Santana and Kepler. Maybe Vasquez, who would need to be traded with I am sure the Twins eating at least a third of his salary.

He'd have to extend his deal to spread the money out. MLB rules don't allow an overall reduction, iirc

[gman]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

He'd have to extend his deal to spread the money out. MLB rules don't allow an overall reduction, iirc

That's a given I thought. But there is a good example in LA of a player who spread his money over multiple years. Of course that was agreed to in advance.

[umterp23]

Playoff Teams compared to Twins in '24 payroll and allocated $$'s:

# Ranked High to Low / Team / Payroll / 26-man active payroll (% of remaining payroll injured, retained or buried)

1. Mets / $317MM / $186MM (41%)

2. Yanks / $309MM / $260MM (16%)

3. Astros / $255MM / $174MM ( 32%)

4. Phils / $247MM / $226M (9%)

5. Dodgers / $242MM / $171MM (30%)

6. Braves / $236MM / $156MM (34%)

15. Padres / $171MM / $143MM (17%)

19. TWINS / $130MM / $102MM (22%)

20. Royals / $122MM / $84MM (32%)

21. Brewers / $115MM / $71MM (39%)

22. O's / $109MM / $65MM (41%)

23. Guards / $106MM / $50MM (53%)

26. Tigers / $98MM / $33MM (67%)

Top 6 teams have big payrolls and huge expectations year in year out.  You can throw Padres into that conversation at 15th position, but 8 teams missed playoffs that have huge substantial payrolls and expectations clearly not being met.

Twins bottom half in payroll and expectations not being met.  

Guards and Tigers outperformed everyone with low payrolls, more dead money vs 26 active man roster than everyone else, but exceeded expectations. They proved it can be done to get to playoffs, winning in playoffs will be a tall task, but they have just a good a chance as anyone else in the field.

Weakest division conversation last year was AL Central, but this year is the strongest in numbers, not financial but seats at the playoff table.

Twins very lopsided in high priced players to MLB minimum type of fillers of the roster.  Comes down to developing your youth to supplement and be stars vs injured/aging stars carrying the weight.  Twins don't have that balance compared to other teams

 

[chpettit19]

42 minutes ago, KGB said:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/minnesota-twins/

According to Forbes, for the 2023 season, they spent 54,6% of revenue on players expense. I think that is around what they said their budget was.

The revenue jumped up in 2023, from around $260m to $342m, it will be interesting to see if it went back down to the $260m which is what they were averaging in prior to 2023.  The front office should be aware of the revenue coming in and if salary is based on the revenue, the payroll reduction shouldn't have been a surprise.

 

The "front office" we talk about is a separate entity than the one that deals with revenue and finances. Derek Falvey is likely not aware at all of what the revenue is. That's Dave St Peter's job. DSP and the Pohlads aren't sharing their financials with more people than they have to. They don't have to share with Falvey. Falvey gets told a general range of what he can spend that year, and the closer he gets to the max of that range, or the bigger his proposed deals get, the more he has to check with Pohlad to sign off on things. Derek Falvey wouldn't have insights into what future payrolls are going to be beyond what the Pohlad's and Dave St Peter tell him. He's not privy to revenue numbers. And neither is Forbes when it comes to the numbers that St Peter and the Pohlads are actually making payroll decisions on. 

[Jocko87]

15 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The "front office" we talk about is a separate entity than the one that deals with revenue and finances. Derek Falvey is likely not aware at all of what the revenue is. That's Dave St Peter's job. DSP and the Pohlads aren't sharing their financials with more people than they have to. They don't have to share with Falvey. Falvey gets told a general range of what he can spend that year, and the closer he gets to the max of that range, or the bigger his proposed deals get, the more he has to check with Pohlad to sign off on things. Derek Falvey wouldn't have insights into what future payrolls are going to be beyond what the Pohlad's and Dave St Peter tell him. He's not privy to revenue numbers. And neither is Forbes when it comes to the numbers that St Peter and the Pohlads are actually making payroll decisions on. 

Derek Falvey knows exactly what revenues are.  If he was at liberty to say, I'd venture he could recite them from memory on a street corner.  They aren't his primary concern, true, but DSP and little Joe aren't hiding in a corner office counting pennies. 

There are two people in the organization with the title of President.  Suggesting that one of them isn't aware of the financials is a bit of a stretch.

Derek Falvey is a large figure in creating the budget.

Forbes has about the same clue as you and I do.

[Jocko87]

To the point of the original article, I would say that the entire league is shifting to a stars and scrubs(youngsters) league and they missed the mark with the kids performance.  And the stars health.

The mid-priced veteran player is in an interesting spot.  They are being priced out.

[Major League Ready]

According to Spotrac 2023 Twins Salaries the Twins had an ending salary of $156.1M.  The opening day salary which you should be using for comparison is much closer to $150M than $160M.  Is it too much to ask that writers here give an accurate portrayal of salary numbers rather than throw up an exaggerated approximation that best suits a given narrative?

[Karbo]

The Pohlads don't seem to care what fans think. If they would only open their eyes and see what the fans see, and treat them the way they should be treated, they would realize how much revenue they are losing out on. They got a beautiful new ballpark at the taxpayers expense not that long ago, but who cares? They promised to work out a streaming TV deal and then they went back to Bally, but they don't care. They could be a team with a pretty good chance for success, meaning more people in the stands, but they don't care because it's a business decision. Missing out on the revenue from the playoffs? Pohlads need to get someone who knows how to run a business IMHO. And don't even get me started on the way they treat season ticket holders, or accommodate handicapped fans!

[S Bart]

On a different topic, I am going to give a shout out to former Twin Luis Arraez. He won his third batting title. First person to do it for three teams. Also, he took the Triple Crown away from Ohtani. 

We miss you, Luis! Go Padres!

[S Bart]

11 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

According to Spotrac 2023 Twins Salaries the Twins had an ending salary of $156.1M.  The opening day salary which you should be using for comparison is much closer to $150M than $160M.  Is it too much to ask that writers here give an accurate portrayal of salary numbers rather than throw up an exaggerated approximation that best suits a given narrative?

Interesting to note that a list that I viewed for the start of 2024 lists the Brewers, Guardians (I hate that name), Tigers, and Royals with lower payrolls than the Twins and they all made the playoffs!!!

[Mike Sixel]

12 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

According to Spotrac 2023 Twins Salaries the Twins had an ending salary of $156.1M.  The opening day salary which you should be using for comparison is much closer to $150M than $160M.  Is it too much to ask that writers here give an accurate portrayal of salary numbers rather than throw up an exaggerated approximation that best suits a given narrative?

Assuming positive intent, maybe there was a simple error? 

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

The Twins should approach this off-season with the premise that Correa, Buxton and Lopez will be on the roster for the next several years and work around that. Trading any of them would be a kill shot for this organization.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

Someone help me out because I'm not necessarily understanding the impact of the TV deal that got botched this summer - when the Twins signed Correa in 2023 and gave Pablo that extension - what was different then versus now? Did the TV deal make that much of a difference? And if so, is there anything that can change in a positive way so that the payroll restraints are loosened? 

[Parfigliano]

27 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

To the point of the original article, I would say that the entire league is shifting to a stars and scrubs(youngsters) league and they missed the mark with the kids performance.  And the stars health.

The mid-priced veteran player is in an interesting spot.  They are being priced out.

Come next CBA I gaurantee the mid price veteran players will have something to say about that.

[Parfigliano]

18 minutes ago, S Bart said:

On a different topic, I am going to give a shout out to former Twin Luis Arraez. He won his third batting title. First person to do it for three teams. Also, he took the Triple Crown away from Ohtani. 

We miss you, Luis! Go Padres!

3 batting crowns in 3 years in 2 different leagues with 3 different teams.

This tells me todays baseball analytics doesnt value singles hitters.

[Greggory Masterson]

58 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

According to Spotrac 2023 Twins Salaries the Twins had an ending salary of $156.1M.  The opening day salary which you should be using for comparison is much closer to $150M than $160M.  Is it too much to ask that writers here give an accurate portrayal of salary numbers rather than throw up an exaggerated approximation that best suits a given narrative?

To be clear, is your issue that I described a $30 million pay cut, based on a rounding from the total payroll allocations as available from Spotrac in both years (rounding 156.1 to 160 and 130.9 to 130) instead of a $26 million cut from an opening day salary of 153.7 to 127.3? When talking about an approximate payroll for 2025, it’s helpful to describe it round numbers that can be taken as more of an idea than an exact total. I’d appreciate the grace to not assume some sort of nefarious intent on my end.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Greggory Masterson

[The Great Hambino]

9 minutes ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Someone help me out because I'm not necessarily understanding the impact of the TV deal that got botched this summer - when the Twins signed Correa in 2023 and gave Pablo that extension - what was different then versus now? Did the TV deal make that much of a difference? And if so, is there anything that can change in a positive way so that the payroll restraints are loosened? 

I had to go look it up because I had assumed that the Correa/Lopez funds were handed out before Joe was put in charge - at least Correa, anyway.  But no - he was put in charge in December 2022, before both contracts were handed out, so you'd have to assume he signed off on deals of that size.  And to the suprise of no one (except Joe, apparently), DSG went into bankruptcy that spring. 

So he knew TV revenue was going to be seriously in flux (anyone in his positon should've seen bankruptcy coming when they signed Correa, and they signed Lopez after bankruptcy was filed), approved those big contracts anyway, experienced the most successful season in a generation ... and only then decided payroll needed right-sizing?

To answer your question: nothing was really different regarding the TV situation.  And he followed up the following year by opting back in to Bally's when they were free and clear from that sinking ship.  There's just no evidence of any sort of long-term vision at work here. 

I'm afraid we've already seen the high-water mark for payroll for quite some time.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

24 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I had to go look it up because I had assumed that the Correa/Lopez funds were handed out before Joe was put in charge - at least Correa, anyway.  But no - he was put in charge in December 2022, before both contracts were handed out, so you'd have to assume he signed off on deals of that size.  And to the suprise of no one (except Joe, apparently), DSG went into bankruptcy that spring. 

So he knew TV revenue was going to be seriously in flux (anyone in his positon should've seen bankruptcy coming when they signed Correa, and they signed Lopez after bankruptcy was filed), approved those big contracts anyway, experienced the most successful season in a generation ... and only then decided payroll needed right-sizing?

To answer your question: nothing was really different regarding the TV situation.  And he followed up the following year by opting back in to Bally's when they were free and clear from that sinking ship.  There's just no evidence of any sort of long-term vision at work here. 

I'm afraid we've already seen the high-water mark for payroll for quite some time.

Good post. And I agree. Things look bleak going forward :( and not much confidence in ownership to get things back on track.

[nicksaviking]

37 minutes ago, Greggory Masterson said:

To be clear, is your issue that I described a $30 million pay cut, based on a rounding from the total payroll allocations as available from Spotrac in both years (rounding 156.1 to 160 and 130.9 to 130) instead of a $26 million cut from an opening day salary of 153.7 to 127.3? When talking about an approximate payroll for 2025, it’s helpful to describe it round numbers that can be taken as more of an idea than an exact total. I’d appreciate the grace to not assume some sort of nefarious intent on my end.

You as a fan are not allowed to approximate to fit your narrative.

Joe Pohald on the other hand is free to do so with every word he speaks.

https://www.minnesotasportsfan.com/minnesota-twins/minnesota-twins-news/aaron-gleeman-grills-joe-pohlad-interview-2024/

https://www.skornorth.com/episode/minnesota-twins-are-tone-deaf-addressing-their-2024-season-collapse/

 

[IndianaTwin]

Places I've seen list Correa at $37.333M this year, rather than $36M as is listed in the OP. But what's a little over a million between friends? 

[Parfigliano]

7 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

Places I've seen list Correa at $37.333M this year, rather than $36M as is listed in the OP. But what's a little over a million between friends? 

Hey friend can i have $1 million?

[TheLeviathan]

I think the statement in the middle of this excellent article is the key:

Say what you will about the moves made this offseason (they weren't good other than Santana) but the position they were in was completely unexpected.  The FO was assuming a 150-160M payroll and the flexibility that would have came with that.  Slashing the payroll took all manueverability from them and their scramble to add to the roster failed.

Ownership knee-capped the franchise just when they finally had the place starting to buzz again.  We talk about "winning fixes all" but this team was winning in July and nobody was showing up.  The fanbase is exhausted with the Pohalds, this offseason broke them.

[rv78]

44 minutes ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

The Twins should approach this off-season with the premise that Correa, Buxton and Lopez will be on the roster for the next several years and work around that. Trading any of them would be a kill shot for this organization.

Why would it be a kill-shot? Would it keep the team from making the playoffs? It appears they don't make a difference evidenced by NOT making the playoffs. Would it keep the fans from coming to the games? A lot of Twins fans, roughly 300,000 (I heard, less than last year) didn't come to games this year. And from the sound of things there will be even less next year. When 57% of your team salary is eaten up by 3 players that account for 17% playing time, you have a serious problem that will only go away BY trading them. Is this team really serious about building a championship caliber team or are they just trying to appease the fans into coming to games and spending money?

Let's assume the Twins won's increase payroll, which also means they won't be bringing in any additional talent, at least none that will make a difference to this team or the way they play. We all know after watching Rocco manage the last 5 years he isn't going to change the way he manages so in effect it will be up to the players to change the way they try to hit, field, and play fundamental baseball. Are Correa, Buxton and Lopez going to change at this point in their careers? I highly doubt it and I'd bet you or anyone else feels the same way. That leaves it up to the young players to get better. What is the best way for them to do that? CONSISTANT PLAYING TIME! Think they will get that with the way Rocco manages? NOPE! You don't get better by sitting on the bench everytime a matchup is against you. You get better by facing it and playing regularly at the same position, Becoming comfortable at what you do. It can make a BIG difference verses playing tight, which almost always leads to mistakes. The 2 BIGGEST detriments to this roster are Correa and Buxton. Neither can be relied upon to be there. Neither have a history of being full-time players in their careers. (Correa has played 140 or more games 2 times in 10 years, and Buxton has done it once, 1 flippin time!) Losing both of these guys would NOT hurt the team. It could possibly open up consistant playing time for 2 up and coming youngsters, if a new manager would also be brought in that doesn't play the analytical paper game to death every chance he gets. One that shows some confidence in those players to become better in areas that they aren't so good at. Yah! Whoopie! Rah Rah! the Twins won a playoff series last year. In the mean time they are wasting time on their young players by NOT letting them play everyday and becoming better, which only hurts the team long term. Did bringing Gallo help any young player? NO. How about Santana this year? Did he help win a few playoffs games? NO. Or Margot? Who did he take valuable playing time from? Sorry, I don't buy into the "tired excuse" at the end of the season. Most of the players were part-time players all year. Maybe they were mentally exhausted from not knowing if they were going to be in the lineup or not, or where they were even going to play in the field, or the on again, off again being pinch hit for and not being able to get consistant at bats. Your subs on the bench should be just that, subs. One like Willie Castro should not be leading the team in at bats. If no one else can take a spot on the field and play it 140-150 games a year then maybe they aren't worth having..... and Correa and Buxton are 2 of them.

[Old fox]

The Pohlads are bankers which are considerably different from a businessman. They don’t even compare closely.