3 Key Twins Takeaways From Juan Soto's Historic Deal with Mets

[Matthew Trueblood]

I was worried he was going to sign with the White Sox, weren't you? Phew. Bullet dodged.

Image courtesy of © Brad Penner-Imagn Images

Ok, plainly, that's not the nature of the ripples Twins Territory will feel after Juan Soto and the Mets agreed on a gargantuan contract Sunday night. The Royals reportedly expressed interest, but one can only guess that when they and Soto's camp took the measure of each other, they all shared a hearty chuckle and agreed to part friends. There was no chance Soto would land in the AL Central, so his choice of a new team feels like only a small bit of influence. We might as well start there, though, and then go on to break down two other ways in which this deal figures to affect the Twins' matrix of options and their prospects for 2025.

1. He's out of the American League.
Although three AL Central clubs snuck into the postseason in 2024, by and large, it's going to be hard for anyone in the division to claim Wild Card berths. The Red Sox vied for Soto's services, and while they fell short, they sound especially aggressive as they pivot toward other ways to upgrade their roster for next season. They, the Yankees, and the Orioles remain formidable, and the Guardians and Royals have already acted decisively to hold onto key contributors this winter—Kansas City by extending Michael Wacha, and Cleveland by re-signing Shane Bieber.

Still, with Soto going to the Mets, Willy Adames signing with the Giants, and Blake Snell heading to the Dodgers, the biggest deals of the winter to date have all sequestered top talent in the National League. If it seems imposing to try to consistently attain October for the Twins, consider this: they're much better off than most of their division rivals and (arguably) all of their NL Central counterparts. So far, this winter has not seen a major step forward by any AL contender, unless you count the overexcited Angels as contenders. In an interview Monday morning on MLB Network, Derek Falvey reiterated that the Twins' focus is to win again in 2025, fueled by the roster they've already built over the last few years. As frustrating as the end of their season was, the flow of talent (not just Snell, Soto, and Adames, but Clay Holmes and Matthew Boyd, among early movers) leaves open some lanes through next year's schedule and onward into October—if the Twins act decisively.

2. There will be Carlos Correa rumors.
It still feels like little more than big-market arrogance, but Yankees media continues to sling around Correa as a name to which the Yankees could turn after having been spurned by Soto. It makes sense from their perspectives, but much less so from the Twins'. On the other hand, the Soto deal can only have acted to raise the going rate for star-caliber players, which also augments Correa's trade value. He'd be a steal at roughly $33 million per year over his four remaining guaranteed seasons, and he comes with a series of team-friendly options, to boot. If that salary was daunting even a few days ago, it's much less so now, after Soto got more than $50 million per year and the right to opt out of his deal—in effect, and in stark contrast with Correa's deal structure, a monstrous player option.

That doesn't mean the Twins should or will want to trade Correa, or that Correa (whose big consolation prize in this team-friendly deal is a full no-trade clause) would be open to being dealt. It merely proves that the surplus value on Correa's deal is considerable, even in the wake of a second straight season marred by plantar fasciitis. Unless and until the Yankees make a couple of huge free-agent outlays instead, Correa's name will keep coming up. Joel Sherman mentioned him as a target for New York on MLB Network Monday, although again, that felt more like an East Coast columnist feeling entitled to all the league's good players than like a sourced report.

3. New ownership is not going to solve the problems posed by the Mets' financial edge over the Twins.
While Soto never had a connection to the Twins at all, it's a little bit poignant to see him land with the same ham-fisted mega-market behemoth to whom the Twins had to trade Johan Santana nearly two decades ago. The staggering terms of this deal, which amounts to a five-year, $255-million deal with a 10-year player option worth $510 million (which the team can convert, if they choose, to a $550-million commitment to cancel the opt-out), make clear how wide the chasm has become between the league's haves and have-nots.

It's a good reminder that the league needs a dramatically expanded, comprehensive revenue-sharing system, and that the ugly collective bargaining agreement negotiations a year or two from now will really have three important parties: the players union, small-market owners, and large-market ones, all at crossed purposes. The Twins could be sold to as rich and competitive a magnate as is practically possible, and they would still be wildly unlikely to seriously battle with the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, or Red Sox for top free agents, given the scale to which those teams are now showing themselves able to spend. The league's wealth needs to be radically redistributed, and big-market owners will only be pulled into such an arrangement kicking and screaming. It's a big change, and much-needed, but the upheaval will not be fun. A work stoppage might be in the offing.

View full article

[gman]

Looks like the Mets won the latest round out of "The Battle for New York", although, I honestly don't care. The Twins were never in that hunt and probably won't be no matter who buys them. They won't be until baseball gets its finances in order. If my calculations are correct 24, other teams were never in that fight. I think there are enough haven'ts to win the small & medium market teams versus the super heavy weights fight. Probably there will be several super heavy weights ready to throw in the towel when the fight finally is booked.

[NYCTK]

"to whom the Twins had to trade Johan Santana nearly two decades ago." 

The Twins didn't have to. They decided not to pay a player fair market value so decided to trade him and try to recoup some value from him. 

The Pohlads could have paid him and not noticed any difference in their quality of life for generations. 

[NYCTK]

"It merely proves that the surplus value on Correa's deal is considerable, even in the wake of a second straight season marred by plantar fasciitis." 

And this is a very dubious claim. Correa is no Soto, obviously, but comparing him to the recently signed SS Adames seems more appropriate. They both have 10.4 bWAR in their last 3 seasons. 

Adames is one year younger, so the 7 years, $182M isn't quite apples to Correa's 4-$133M but let's take:

Adames 6-156

Correa 4-133 

Honestly there doesn't seem to be much, if any, surplus value there. The risk is manageable for a large club but to claim its a steal is just foolish. 

 

[DJL44]

The disparity in large and small market teams is going to hinder expansion. There are markets that would be viable for MLB, especially compared to Milwaukee, Cincinnati and Miami, but they're still small markets. It would be good for MLB as a whole to expand but it would dilute the shared revenue even more because there is nobody they can add who would be a large market team.

[BH67]

Ah, yes -- "the league's wealth needs to be radically redistributed.." I have no desire to rehash excursions down ideological rabbit holes that have accompanied such statements ere now. Redistribution of existing big-market revenue is dead on arrival, but a more competitive and systematic direction of new streams of media revenue toward smaller market clubs, no matter the location generating such revenue, must occur if MLB is to exist meaningfully in the future.

This doesn't have to be a zero-sum equation. Indeed, Rob Manfred's changes to game rules seek increased consumer interest and revenue even if their competitive effects are contentious. Absent such initiatives, small-market teams cannot exist competitively for much longer in any event.

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

There are markets that would be viable for MLB, especially compared to Milwaukee, Cincinnati and Miami, but they're still small markets.

Agree with this statement but we should remember that Miami is a large market club sandwiched between Phillies, Astros, and Blue Jays just above them and Washington D. C., Atlanta, and Boston trailing their market.

[DJL44]

28 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Agree with this statement but we should remember that Miami is a large market club sandwiched between Phillies, Astros, and Blue Jays just above them and Washington D. C., Atlanta, and Boston trailing their market.

Miami has the same size TV market as Minnesota. They're a medium market for size but not a good market for baseball.

MLBs best expansion targets in the US are Portland, OR; Charlotte, NC; Nashville, TN; San Antonio, TX. Those are all roughly as good as Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

[USAFChief]

Until MLB establishes a firm salary cap, ensuring league wide ability to compete, it'll continue to bleed customers. 

If it takes breaking the MLBPA to do it, so much the better. 

 

[tony&rodney]

38 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Miami has the same size TV market as Minnesota.

I understand that MLB counts Iowa, Wisconsin, the Dakotas, Minnesota, and even parts of Montana as "Twins Territory", which is a little bit humorous. Miami doesn't support baseball and Florida actually doesn't take to either of its two teams. Still, the population and reach/potential in numbers is over 20 million to split between Tampa Bay and Miami. There are more Yankee fans though. So, yes, MLB chooses how to measure the markets but population is not to be ignored. I wonder how much ad revenue the Twins bring in from out of state.

FWIW, last summer I found out that my mlb.com account allowed me to watch the Twins while in Missoula but the Twins were blacked out in Billings. Manfredmen draw funny scribbles all across the country. 

[Doctor Gast]

The feeding frenzy has started. We'll pick the bones after it's over.

[Blyleven2011]

They key take away is that the Mets out bid the Yankees ...

The contract of Soto is 760 million plus a 75 million signing bonus if I read that right a day or so , that means Yankees offered 710 million and then boros  went back to the Mets  and the Mets held to their initial statement of beating all offers by 50 million  ...

Don't know if it really has any merit but it's what I read during the Soto episode of free agency  ...

[Jeff K]

On 12/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, DJL44 said:

The disparity in large and small market teams is going to hinder expansion. There are markets that would be viable for MLB, especially compared to Milwaukee, Cincinnati and Miami, but they're still small markets. It would be good for MLB as a whole to expand but it would dilute the shared revenue even more because there is nobody they can add who would be a large market team.

While the marlins act like a small market, they are not located in one.  Miami metro is a top 10 DMA.

[Jeff K]

I'm certainly glad that the Yankees didn't resign Soto; however, I agree with many of the above comments that far too many teams are unable to compete for the best players.  Revenue sharing?  Salary Cap?  Combo Platter or something else?  Baseball has a big problem.  I think the Twins are the "canary in the coal mine" in terms of cutting salary.  None of us like it and it showed up in reduced attendance.  It will be interesting to follow attendance figures going forward especially if you compare the smaller market teams vs. the goliaths.

[nicksaviking]

20 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Until MLB establishes a firm salary cap, ensuring league wide ability to compete, it'll continue to bleed customers. 

If it takes breaking the MLBPA to do it, so much the better. 

 

You don't have to break them, just make it worth their while. As much as they say "no' right now, establishing a firm salary floor within say, 30M of the cap should get them to the table.

If not, the inevitable threat of contraction will.

[DJL44]

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

If not, the inevitable threat of contraction will.

An empty threat. Expansion is more likely than contraction.

[nicksaviking]

5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

An empty threat. Expansion is more likely than contraction.

The bottom feeders are going to continue to get worse and worse TV deals with the worse and worse teams they continue to field due to the inequity.

At a certain point, these owners who always say that they aren't profiting will actually be telling the truth if they continue down this path. Billionaires don't keep or buy unprofitable businesses, they liquidate them to their competitors.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

The bottom feeders are going to continue to get worse and worse TV deals with the worse and worse teams they continue to field due to the inequity.

The national TV deals will get worse if they have fewer teams. Contraction will cede even more attention to NBA and MLS.

[gman]

The TV market still counts fans all over the country to watch the playoffs and Word Series. TV station pay contracts based on attracting those coast to coast markets. But, has as been seen this past year, 14 teams lost their TV packages because they weren't drawing enough customers to watch the advertising between innings. As fans continue to tune out the playoffs because their team doesn't have a chance and the off season goes by when the same 4 teams sign the best players, TV revenue will shrink further and further. Even billionaires will eventually understand that what is best for their pockets is  more balance leagues.