If Twins Owners Want to Clean Up Their Books, Pablo López Could Be a Trade Candidate

[Cody Christie]

Minnesota’s potential ownership change puts the team’s long-term plan under the microscope. If the front office is searching for creative ways to create payroll space, one option might be to deal away their only tradable long-term investment.

Image courtesy of © Matt Krohn-USA TODAY Sports

The Minnesota Twins have some big decisions looming, and they may need to think about their future beyond the field. With the announcement that the Pohlad family is positioning themselves to sell the team, offloading long-term contracts like Pablo López’s might be on the table.

López signed a sizable extension just last year, but ownership's spending proclivity has since taken a sharp turn, and now we have some idea as to why. Could the front office be compelled to further shed payroll to make the club more attractive to potential buyers? If so, López’s contract might become one of the first chips to fall.

After a solid second half, he has re-established himself as one of the league’s top starters. However, López is set to see his salary jump from $8.25 million to $21.75 million in 2025. The Twins dropped their payroll by $30 million heading into the 2024 season, signaling a shift in financial priorities from ownership. It’s unclear whether this belt-tightening approach will continue, and tough decisions lie ahead. The front office will need to find creative ways to retool the roster while managing costs, and that’s why trading López would make sense.

López struggled early in the season, posting a 5.11 ERA in the first half, largely due to opponents hitting for a .723 OPS with 18 home runs. However, he returned to his 2023 form in the second half, emerging as one of the league's top pitchers. Over 81 1/3 innings, he allowed just 25 earned runs for a 2.77 ERA, with his OPS allowed dropping by 40 points compared to the first half. Minnesota needed their ace for the stretch run, and he did his best to put the club in position to win.

However, his big salary increase will take up a large chunk of the Twins’ payroll, and with other money tied up in contracts with no-trade clauses like Carlos Correa and Byron Buxton, that might not be sustainable. López has value on the trade market, and the timing may be ideal for the Twins to capitalize on that value by moving him. Plenty of teams out there are looking for a top-tier starter, and the Twins could net an impressive haul of prospects or major-league-ready talent in return.

If the Twins were to keep López, it would likely come at the expense of adding in other areas, forcing the team to go bargain shopping or rely heavily on unproven prospects. By trading López, they could free up substantial payroll space to fill multiple holes on the roster, while continuing to invest in emerging talent from within the system.

The Twins have quietly built one of the most exciting young pitching groups in the majors, and several arms are poised to take the next step in 2025. Joe Ryan and Bailey Ober are already locked into rotation spots and continue to develop into solid major-league starters. Beyond them, the Twins have a slew of talented pitchers ready to make their mark.

David Festa, Simeon Woods Richardson, and Zebby Matthews have all shown flashes of their potential at the big-league level, and they should get their shot at regular rotation work next season. Add in highly-touted prospects like Marco Raya and Andrew Morris, and it’s clear that Minnesota’s young rotation depth is among the strongest in recent memory.

The Twins need to lean into this youth movement, and trading López would open up more opportunities for these young arms to prove themselves at the big-league level. The farm system has the potential to produce a cost-controlled, effective starting rotation for years to come. Festa, Woods Richardson, Matthews, Raya, and Morris can grow alongside Ryan and Ober, giving the Twins a strong, sustainable core that fits their financial limitations.

Outside of López, the Twins can look to other parts of the roster to free up long-term money. Many of the team’s young core pieces are going to start getting expensive through the arbitration process. Royce Lewis, Jhoan Durán and Willi Castro will start to get expensive through arbitration and have different levels of trade value. Veterans like Chris Paddack ($7.5 million) and Christian Vázquez ($10 million) have expensive contracts that the team might try to dump this winter, though finding takers could prove tough. There’s also a chance the Twins go to Correa and explain that they are entering a soft rebuild. He might waive his no-trade clause if the Twins won’t be competitive for a couple of seasons. Anything really needs to be on the table after a terrible collapse to end the 2024 campaign.

The reality of today’s MLB is that small- and mid-market teams must make difficult choices to stay competitive. The Twins have payroll restrictions, and that means the salary jumps described above could become untenable. By moving long-term money this winter, the Twins can replenish their farm system or address other areas of need while clearing payroll space. From the Pohlads' perspective, the team might be more attractive to a potential buyer if there are fewer long-term commitments. The Marlins (by trading Giancarlo Stanton, Christian Yelich, and Marcell Ozuna, after 2017) and Royals (reduced payroll by $26 million going into 2019) both made it a point to get expenses down amid franchise sales. If the Pohlads follow that pattern, it will require some tough decisions.

---

Do the Twins need to offload long-term money before an ownership change? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion.

View full article

[MinnesotaTwins26]

Without Pablo Lopez the Twins are no longer a playoff capable team. It was obvious that we could not lean on our young pitching staff of David Festa, Simeon Woods-Richardson, and Zabby Matthews, without Lopez Minnesota would be left with only the injury prone Joe Ryan and Bailey Ober as starters to build around. Also, with a bullpen that blew up at the end of last season we need multiple high caliber starters that can help ease the bullpen's arms.

[HerbieFan]

Let the hand-wringing begin....

[RpR]

Books are the Twins least problem.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Pablo is likely gone. He’s the only one of the big 3 that the Twins wouldn’t have to pay to offload.

do they “need” to offload? No, but knowing the Pohlads, they will.

[Jocko87]

Quote

From the Pohlads' perspective, the team might be more attractive to a potential buyer if there are fewer long-term commitments. The Marlins (by trading Giancarlo Stanton, Christian Yelich, and Marcell Ozuna, after 2017) and Royals (reduced payroll by $26 million going into 2019) both made it a point to get expenses down amid franchise sales. If the Pohlads follow that pattern, it will require some tough decisions.

Have you not been paying attention for the last 14 months? Completely avoiding expenses has kinda been the thing.

Also, actually having a limited availability resource under control for well under market value is attractive to a buyer. 

Long term commitments aren't a negative, long term negative commitments are.  A long term TV contract would be a positive, I would believe.

An active player producing above salary rate in his prime is not a negative.

A Chris Davis type contract is a negative.

[LastOnePicked]

Well, if this is how the rebuild starts, then this is how it starts. The only thing that would soften the sting would be if a new owner was more likely.

Look, I think they should go for it next year. I think they should have gone for it last year. But if they're just going to hold steady, they won't win in 2025.  That means it's time to tear off this band-aid, let the kids get more lumps and let the rebuild begin. They don't always work, but rebuilds are the reason why the Royals and Tigers just had a resurgent postseason. It's the only recourse for low-revenue teams with low-interest ownership and anything less than stellar player development.

[Parfigliano]

24 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Pablo is likely gone. He’s the only one of the big 3 that the Twins wouldn’t have to pay to offload.

do they “need” to offload? No, but knowing the Pohlads, they will.

I thought team bought

[Richie the Rally Goat]

4 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

I thought team bought

I don’t understand, please elaborate 

[Cory Engelhardt]

This is truly a terrible idea: Just terrible

[Whitey333]

They should have never spent all that money and long term commitment to a part time  player in Buxton and an injury prone star shortstop that two other teams wouldn't sign due to physical concerns.  Before I dump Lopez I would try hard.to get Correa and Buxton to agree to trade them.  We need Lopez.  I honestly believe we can do without Correa and Buxton and reallocate some of their salaries to fill other positions.

[DocBauer]

Pablo began each of his 2 Twins seasons rather slow, and then picked it up BIG TIME. Unfortunately, he got in a groove a little later this season than last. But if he was a FA this season, he's easily getting $25-30M per season. He's actually underpaid based on age, stuff, results, while still offering additional upside.

Moving him DEFLATES the overall value of the team in regard to a potential new owner.  He's actually an ASSET that's PART of the purchase of the ballclub!

Moving him is a TERRIBLE idea short term as well as long term to the product on the field, as well as removing an asset for the new buyer.

Awful idea.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think they will trade him, but if they do, Boston has a great catching prospect and more....I think it's Baltimore or Boston... But I think they keep him.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

Everyone is always available for the right price.  However, I can't see that trading Lopez would bring back so much return that I would be willing to make the trade.  It would severely weaken our pitching staff and set the team back dramatically.  Don't do this!

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Pablo is likely gone. He’s the only one of the big 3 that the Twins wouldn’t have to pay to offload.

do they “need” to offload? No, but knowing the Pohlads, they will.

There is almost zero chance of this happening.  A sale announcement makes it even less likely. 

Why would they “offload” anything individually when they are “offloading” everything?

[bean5302]

Lopez is a low end #2, upper end #3 caliber pitcher on the books for $22MM per year. He's making about the kind of AAV he'd make in free agency right now, just doesn't have the length. I don't know how the Twins plan to construct their roster for next year, but Lopez is low hanging fruit in terms of payroll capacity.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

34 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

There is almost zero chance of this happening.  A sale announcement makes it even less likely. 

Why would they “offload” anything individually when they are “offloading” everything?

In the private equity investment world, where The Pohlad companies operate, and is also typically done when sports franchises are put up for sale, like the Orioles and Royals, companies artificially inflate their profitability and or cash flow by selling their liquid assets and converting them to cash. This reduces Cost of Goods Sold, making gross profit (and net) higher. It comes at the expense of future sales, but when you are selling the company you don’t care. When you are buying the company, it becomes more valuable even though it has less assets, because outside of the stadium, the assets are intangible, you’re buying profitability 

also, cash from the seller, stays with the seller. There is a likelihood the sale will last into 2025, maybe 2026.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

No reason to do this in any capacity except for a complete rebuild which the Twins do not need.

The vitriol following this move would be insane.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

In the private equity investment world, where The Pohlad companies operate, and is also typically done when sports franchises are put up for sale, like the Orioles and Royals, companies artificially inflate their profitability and or cash flow by selling their liquid assets and converting them to cash. This reduces Cost of Goods Sold, making gross profit (and net) higher. It comes at the expense of future sales, but when you are selling the company you don’t care. When you are buying the company, it becomes more valuable even though it has less assets, because outside of the stadium, the assets are intangible, you’re buying profitability 

also, cash from the seller, stays with the seller. There is a likelihood the sale will last into 2025, maybe 2026.

I understand how the numbers work.  Unfortunately for your theory, anyone who would be interesting in making the purchase would also understand how they work.  Most of the adjustments you are suggesting have already happened and will be transparent to a buyer.  Gee, your EBITDA for the last two years looks nice, now lets see the 5 and 10 year information.

There is no such thing as dressing up the books for a sale, that's called fraud.  Anyone involved in these transactions can see what happened in 5 minutes with the proper information presented.  What actually happens is the seller takes care of problems instead of passing an issue to the buyer.  The more outstanding issues, the more items the buyer has to negotiate with. 

There is no artificially inflating or deflating anything.  Moving money around so I'm not selling bad (unsecured) debt is pretty standard stuff but its out in the open.  Lopez has a good contract and isn't an issue, it's very standard for the business.  Any new owner would know they have to get another pitcher anyway so they have to run their numbers based on spending that money, rather than running with what the seller was able to conjure up.  The buyer would have to pay current market prices at a higher cost than already secured.  There is no incentive to offload a good contract.

Many real estate investors get themselves in trouble accepting expenses as presented rather than underwriting how they would actually operate..  "Who shovels the walk?"  "I do, if I'm out of town my brother does."  "Are you going to keep doing it for me if I buy it?"  "No!" "OK, that has a cost for me to do it, I'll add it to the calculations."  Price goes down, just a little.  Pretty soon the numbers aren't nearly as rosey as presented.  Simple example but happens all the time.  People that buy baseball teams don't make those mistakes.

Anthony Rendon made it harder for Angelos to sell the Angels.  It's a bad debt.  If they could have gotten that off the books, a sale is much easier.  Lopez is not a bad debt.

You do not buy a business based on what the seller is doing or has done.  You buy it based on what you will do with it.

Cash from the seller remains with the seller?  2026?

[old nurse]

7 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

In the private equity investment world, where The Pohlad companies operate, and is also typically done when sports franchises are put up for sale, like the Orioles and Royals, companies artificially inflate their profitability and or cash flow by selling their liquid assets and converting them to cash. This reduces Cost of Goods Sold, making gross profit (and net) higher. It comes at the expense of future sales, but when you are selling the company you don’t care. When you are buying the company, it becomes more valuable even though it has less assets, because outside of the stadium, the assets are intangible, you’re buying profitability 

also, cash from the seller, stays with the seller. There is a likelihood the sale will last into 2025, maybe 2026.

What talent did the Royals sell?  The rest of your statement is backwards of what the people here have said about a profitable team 

[old nurse]

4 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

I understand how the numbers work.  Unfortunately for your theory, anyone who would be interesting in making the purchase would also understand how they work.  Most of the adjustments you are suggesting have already happened and will be transparent to a buyer.  Gee, your EBITDA for the last two years looks nice, now lets see the 5 and 10 year information.

There is no such thing as dressing up the books for a sale, that's called fraud.  Anyone involved in these transactions can see what happened in 5 minutes with the proper information presented.  What actually happens is the seller takes care of problems instead of passing an issue to the buyer.  The more outstanding issues, the more items the buyer has to negotiate with. 

There is no artificially inflating or deflating anything.  Moving money around so I'm not selling bad (unsecured) debt is pretty standard stuff but its out in the open.  Lopez has a good contract and isn't an issue, it's very standard for the business.  Any new owner would know they have to get another pitcher anyway so they have to run their numbers based on spending that money, rather than running with what the seller was able to conjure up.  The buyer would have to pay current market prices at a higher cost than already secured.  There is no incentive to offload a good contract.

Many real estate investors get themselves in trouble accepting expenses as presented rather than underwriting how they would actually operate..  "Who shovels the walk?"  "I do, if I'm out of town my brother does."  "Are you going to keep doing it for me if I buy it?"  "No!" "OK, that has a cost for me to do it, I'll add it to the calculations."  Price goes down, just a little.  Pretty soon the numbers aren't nearly as rosey as presented.  Simple example but happens all the time.  People that buy baseball teams don't make those mistakes.

Anthony Rendon made it harder for Angelos to sell the Angels.  It's a bad debt.  If they could have gotten that off the books, a sale is much easier.  Lopez is not a bad debt.

You do not buy a business based on what the seller is doing or has done.  You buy it based on what you will do with it.

Cash from the seller remains with the seller?  2026?

In a 3 billion Olaf sale, Rendon’s contract is not the hold up 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

34 minutes ago, old nurse said:

What talent did the Royals sell?  The rest of your statement is backwards of what the people here have said about a profitable team 

In 2017 the Royals had a payroll of $127m, 2018 payroll was $130m, 2019 $67m. Royals sold in August of 2019.

[Doctor Wu]

An emphatic "NO" on the idea of trading Lopez. It took us this long to find another quality starter, it would be a big stop backwards to deal him this winter. 

[CRF]

Clean up the books? Seems to me, that trading away some of your best assets isn't the right way to make the franchise attractive to a potential buyer. 

[Trov]

Really the question the article poses is could you raise the overall team by spreading out money across the board more?  Personally, I would not trade Lopez away.  He is not making that much that spreading his money across the board will make a huge difference.  The economics of baseball make it that you either need to spend huge on vets, or hit big on prospects.  You rarely will get by spending a little across the board on vets.  

Think about it, most guys do not become FA until average of 30.  Some earlier, but they generally are great players that will demand mega bucks.  Most players start to really drop off at 30.  The ones that do not, normally are really great players that demand mega bucks.  Sometimes you get the guys like Santana who can still play at late 30's earning single year contracts until they fall off the cliff.  Sometimes you get a pitcher that pops up out of no where when older. 

However, for the most part, teams are built either on young guys they drafted, or traded for, or big time FA that they spent big on. 

Now, if you are saying dump him to cut payroll for a sale, it is possible but it will just cause more fans to get mad.  Then you have fans not showing up and attendance dropping, not something you want to show to your new buyers. 

[LambchoP]

All this penny pinching is very sad. Your competitive window is usually before all your core players get expensive. Now would be the time to supplement, not tear down and start a rebuild or trade away assets BEFORE they get expensive. If ownership trades Lopez, the leader of our pitching staff, we are no longer a playoff team. Just because we have a lot of warm bodies SP in the high minors does NOT mean they are ready for the majors. Neither Festa or Mathews looked ready to hold down a full-time roster spot. I won't believe we have a surplus of pitching until I actually see more than a rotations worth of successful pitchers.

[thelanges5]

We finally have some good pitching and all we want to talk about is trading them away? I may feel differently about this given another year with some of the rookies but pitching was a big problem in 2024.

[Otaknam]

Trade Lopez if you want to confirm that the front office has no idea of what it is doing. Trading the hugely popular Arraez for Lopez, signing Lopez to a huge contract extension, and then trading him a year later, would verify that the team management is incompetent. I like Lopez, but let’s stop saying he is one of the top starters in the league. At best he can be really solid, but he is inconsistent and he’s no ace. As for the idea the Twins have “quietly built one of the most exciting young pitching groups in the majors”. We all need to reserve judgment on that notion. So far, none of these young starters look like a top of the rotation starter, and you need a legitimate number one or a couple of number two starters to have a realistic chance of making a playoff run. 

[Jocko87]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

In a 3 billion Olaf sale, Rendon’s contract is not the hold up 

No, but it changes the price. The contract value when the sale didn't happen was 8-10% of the sale value. That moves the needle.

[spanman2]

12 hours ago, DocBauer said:

Pablo began each of his 2 Twins seasons rather slow, and then picked it up BIG TIME. Unfortunately, he got in a groove a little later this season than last. But if he was a FA this season, he's easily getting $25-30M per season. He's actually underpaid based on age, stuff, results, while still offering additional upside.

Moving him DEFLATES the overall value of the team in regard to a potential new owner.  He's actually an ASSET that's PART of the purchase of the ballclub!

Moving him is a TERRIBLE idea short term as well as long term to the product on the field, as well as removing an asset for the new buyer.

Awful idea.

Well said!