Twins Front Office Finding a Sweet Spot with Low-Wattage Free-Agent Bats

[Jamie Cameron]

The Twins have relied on low-wattage offensive additions in recent seasons. Is playing the waiting game and plucking the diamond from the rough a skill for this front office—or is their success with that model a mirage?

Image courtesy of © Chris Tilley-Imagn Images

The last few Twins offseason have hardly been flush with excitement. In fact, they've been downright slow. External additions have been few and underwhelming. Twins fans have an increasingly rancorous relationship with an ownership group who want to sell the club, anyway. Curtailed spending has necessitated creativity from the front office in rounding out the roster. While there will always be a focus on roster additions that didn’t work out, the Twins have quietly established a solid track record in a contextually important aspect of roster building; low-cost veteran bats.

The Twins are a pitching organization. As the pitching development and performance goes, so go the fortunes of the major-league team. Recent spending constraints necessitated that the Twins hit on some of their offensive additions, most of whom have been acquired at minimal expense. They have! With the Twins projected to have a high-variance lineup in 2025, let’s look at some recent under-the-radar additions who outperformed expectations and provided a strong return on investment, and examine the 2025 candidate to fill this role on the roster.

2023: Michael A Taylor, OF
In 2023, the low-wattage addition was Michael A. Taylor, acquired from the Royals in exchange for Evan Sisk and Steven Cruz. Taylor was brought in as a legitimate backup and insurance policy for Byron Buxton. The Twins paid Taylor $4.5 million in 2023, for 2.0 fWAR in 129 games. While the bat was around average (95 wRC+), that came with a career-high 21 home runs, at least putting a dent in the void left by the oft-injured Buxton. Defensively, Taylor was worth 9 Outs Above Average, good for 14th among outfielders that year—and an improvement on the 5 OAA he accrued for the Royals in 2022.

2024: Carlos Santana, 1B
Santana is easily the most famous of this group, and has had (easily) the best career. He’ll go into his age-39 season with Cleveland in 2025, for what will be his 15th major-league season. The Twins signed Santana to a one-year, $5.25-million deal for 2024, and it couldn’t have worked out better. Santana accrued 3.0 fWAR in 2024, his most since 2019 with Cleveland (4.8 fWAR) and his third-highest single-season total ever. In 2024, Santana outgained his fWAR from his previous four seasons combined, logging 150 games and a 114 wRC+ in the process.

Additionally, he won his first Gold Glove. While that award is hardly a reliable indicator of defensive excellence, consider this: Santana was worth 2 OAA in 2023 (146 games), good for 11th among qualified first basemen. In 2024, he was worth 14 OAA, tops in baseball among first basemen, ahead of Christian Walker.

2025: Ty France, 1B
This brings us to this season’s version of this move, Ty France. This feels like the final boss. France was the cheapest of these moves, at just $1 million. Unlike Taylor and Santana, there’s no established track record of defensive excellence.

France ranked 40th (out of 40) in OAA in 2024, at -12. Not great, but we know he was playing through a significant heel injury. How about 2023? 16th at -1 OAA; much better. There’s no hiding from the fact that France was bad offensively in 2024. He managed a .670 OPS, good for just a 93 wRC+. We are talking about a hitter who has a track record of significant MLB success. In his previous four seasons, France averaged a 123 wRC+. Is that a reasonable expectation for 2025? I don’t think so. If the Twins got an average bat and an average glove, it would represent a significant win, given the roster-building constraints this offseason and the timing of the move.

Not even mentioned, here, is Donovan Solano, who arguably had an impact similar to that of Taylor for the 2023 club. What are the lessons learned here? Is this a beat Derek Falvey has sniffed out exceptionally well? Possibly. I think there’s also credence to the idea that they don’t care to allocate significant resources to first base, at least not given the current context and confines of their payroll. As the pitching goes, so will the Twins go in 2025, but maybe they’ll continue to bubble up some value from unexpected sources.

View full article

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Castro fits the mold here as well...

Not every reclamation project has been a win (looking at you Joey Gallo), but the Twins probably have seen a net positive when it comes to these types of signings.  The major problem is that they get magnified when these signings tend to be the "big move" of the offseason.

The other point of contention is the connection of players on the list (Santana, France, Solano, include Gallo here too).  The Twins really need to find someone they trust long-term at 1B.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

The Twins have had some successes — and also some failures, ESPECIALLY on the pitching side.  Certainly MAT and Santana are great examples of excellent moves, but the failures prove that low level signings are low level ($$) for a reason.  They are a crapshoot in terms of success for any team — and that includes the Twins.  

Also, I’m plenty intrigued by what Ty France has done so far in spring training, but anointing him a success at this point is pretty premature.  Tap the brakes a little and re-visit this in about 3 months.

[LambchoP]

We've had success and failures with these kind of signings. What makes the failures worse is how long the team sticks with them rather than a younger better option. Margot, Gallo etc. France has looked good in Spring, but I worry if he starts to struggle, we will suffer through him hitting .200 for most of the year rather than giving the starts to Miranda or someone else who's playing well 

[Riverbrian]

What Solano, Taylor and Santana did for the Twins was nice. Decent... contributed to some W's in their single of year of service. No Complaints on any of the players but yet a concern remains. 

The concern is quite simply this:

The yearly dependence upon players of this ilk.

Taylor begets Margot, Margot begets Bader, Bader begets ??? 

Solano begets Santana, Santana begets France, France begets ???   

[Doctor Gast]

36 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

What Solano, Taylor and Santana did for the Twins was nice. Decent... contributed to some W's in their single of year of service. No Complaints on any of the players but yet a concern remains. 

The concern is quite simply this:

The yearly dependence upon players of this ilk.

Taylor begets Margot, Margot begets Bader, Bader begets ??? 

Solano begets Santana, Santana begets France, France begets ???   

Exactly, they are making a area of need into a crap shoot. None of them ever live up to their hype. All of them take up valuable playing time from capable inhouse players. They are showcased & when they flop, they still play too much & block the needed young inhouse players. This showcasing is often not only a detriment to the team but also the players. Case in point. Coulume, Pagan & J Lopez all were elevated to closer & all flopped. If they were eased into the team & BP in lower leverage, they could have done well. But that's not Flavey's way. 

But getting back to the main point. Constantly bringing in 1 year rentals never improves the position from year to year & we aren't developing our young players to take over those positions. Which is cheaper & more beneficial.

[Karbo]

How are they going to develop a 1st baseman if they keep getting these types on 1 year deal? It sure would be nice to have a youngster to put there and let him grow. I've been advocating to move Lewis to 1st for a couple of years now. With Keaschall on the verge of his major league debut, they move Lee to 3rd and Keaschall to 2nd. Now that has the potential to be a really good defense, with guys that can hit!

[Jamie Cameron]

1 hour ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

The Twins have had some successes — and also some failures, ESPECIALLY on the pitching side.  Certainly MAT and Santana are great examples of excellent moves, but the failures prove that low level signings are low level ($$) for a reason.  They are a crapshoot in terms of success for any team — and that includes the Twins.  

Also, I’m plenty intrigued by what Ty France has done so far in spring training, but anointing him a success at this point is pretty premature.  Tap the brakes a little and re-visit this in about 3 months.

I agree, don't think I anointed him as a success though. Merely discussed what would constitute success.

[Fatbat]

Its a sad cycle of not having enough key role players in the org. Even when we won both WS’s we couldn’t find a star 2B man and had to shop for a DH. 
Sure would be nice to shop on the top shelf of the FA boutique instead of the dumpster in the alley…

[nicksaviking]

I wouldn't call it a sweet spot. If you can draft and develop, you should be giving these low wattage free agents 600 PAs a season combined.

If you can't or won't draft and develop your own players, you need to sign high wattage free agents.

[chpettit19]

I think the definition of "success" is important here. Is the definition of success for these types of additions just not being bad? It's a relative thing, right? They're "successful" because they weren't bad while being "cheap." 

Carlos Santana had the 2nd most plate appearances on the Twins last year. He was 129 PAs ahead of the 3rd spot (that's about 1.25 months worth of PAs). Is a 109 OPS+ from your 1B and 2nd most used hitter really a success? Or is it just better than what the vast majority of us expected and "good" relative to his contract?

MAT was 6th on the Twins in PAs in 2023. Is a 92 OPS+ for your 6th most used hitter really a success? Or is it just better than what the vast majority of us expected and "good" relative to his contract?

Both of those players played really good defense which is absolutely a thing they need to get credit for, but I don't know if I'd call them any sort of great success stories. They're just successful when it comes to the Twins complete lack of ability to produce a single guy who can be a usable glove in CF or hit well enough to claim the 1B spot. 

They were helpful in that they didn't completely bomb and provided a floor stabilizing presence for their 1 year here. But they didn't provide any sort of great help when it comes to possibly winning a World Series. They didn't raise the ceiling. They simply didn't crater the floor. Which certainly has value. But it isn't a team building strategy that's going to lead to a real shot at a championship parade marching down any Minnesota streets anytime soon.

[bean5302]

The Twins haven't typically gone top shelf FA's, but they've added a LOT of top shelf talent in recent years through extensions, trades and signings.
Josh Donaldson
Carlos Correa x2
Sonny Gray
Byron Buxton
Pablo Lopez
All those guys were considered pretty high end and the Twins either extended their team control, traded for them with multiple years of control or signed them as free agents under multi-year deals.

When it comes to low cost, one year additions, the Twins have gotten okay value for the contracts themselves, and they've flipped value as well. Lets be frank at how valuable these players have REALLY been.

Carlos Santana worked out great.
Michael A Taylor was solid, but nothing special.
Joey Gallo and Andrelton Simmons were net negatives, though maybe Simmons' $10.5MM deal eclipses low cost thresholds.
 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

1 hour ago, Jamie Cameron said:

I agree, don't think I anointed him as a success though. Merely discussed what would constitute success.

Sorry but he is guilty by association.   You didn’t list Mike Ford or Mickey Gasper.   

[Brandon]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

What Solano, Taylor and Santana did for the Twins was nice. Decent... contributed to some W's in their single of year of service. No Complaints on any of the players but yet a concern remains. 

The concern is quite simply this:

The yearly dependence upon players of this ilk.

Taylor begets Margot, Margot begets Bader, Bader begets ??? 

Solano begets Santana, Santana begets France, France begets ???   

Shouldn’t CJ Cron be on the list as well as Schoop?  I was also thinking Solano as well be he has already been mentioned a few times already.  Garlick is another…

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Shouldn’t CJ Cron be on the list as well as Schoop?  I was also thinking Solano as well be he has already been mentioned a few times already.  Garlick is another…

Lots of begats going all the way back to the Old Testament. 

[Brandon]

24 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I think the definition of "success" is important here. Is the definition of success for these types of additions just not being bad? It's a relative thing, right? They're "successful" because they weren't bad while being "cheap." 

Carlos Santana had the 2nd most plate appearances on the Twins last year. He was 129 PAs ahead of the 3rd spot (that's about 1.25 months worth of PAs). Is a 109 OPS+ from your 1B and 2nd most used hitter really a success? Or is it just better than what the vast majority of us expected and "good" relative to his contract?

MAT was 6th on the Twins in PAs in 2023. Is a 92 OPS+ for your 6th most used hitter really a success? Or is it just better than what the vast majority of us expected and "good" relative to his contract?

Both of those players played really good defense which is absolutely a thing they need to get credit for, but I don't know if I'd call them any sort of great success stories. They're just successful when it comes to the Twins complete lack of ability to produce a single guy who can be a usable glove in CF or hit well enough to claim the 1B spot. 

They were helpful in that they didn't completely bomb and provided a floor stabilizing presence for their 1 year here. But they didn't provide any sort of great help when it comes to possibly winning a World Series. They didn't raise the ceiling. They simply didn't crater the floor. Which certainly has value. But it isn't a team building strategy that's going to lead to a real shot at a championship parade marching down any Minnesota streets anytime soon.

I would use cost per WAR relative to average cost per WAR and then also compare to what our other options did and what their costs were as well.

[Brandon]

3 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Lots of begats going all the way back to the Old Testament. 

The point was to show a history of cheap bats found by front office that were deemed a success overall.

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, Brandon said:

The point was to show a history of cheap bats found by front office that were deemed a success overall.

Understood

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Brandon said:

I would use cost per WAR relative to average cost per WAR and then also compare to what our other options did and what their costs were as well.

The cost per WAR stuff is kind of my point. They were a "success" because they were cheap and not terrible. Not because they raised the team's ceiling.

It's hard to judge the "other options" because there's no direct comparison. Minor leaguers that never got real playing time can't be compared to these guys, but they're part of the "other options." If you drop all the veterans on the Twins who make about 10 mil or less over the last handful of years you get over 30 million per year. So, another star level player is also part of the options if you're willing to run with league minimum guys in the other spots. Not an easy comparison to make.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

The cost per WAR stuff is kind of my point. They were a "success" because they were cheap and not terrible. Not because they raised the team's ceiling.

It's hard to judge the "other options" because there's no direct comparison. Minor leaguers that never got real playing time can't be compared to these guys, but they're part of the "other options." If you drop all the veterans on the Twins who make about 10 mil or less over the last handful of years you get over 30 million per year. So, another star level player is also part of the options if you're willing to run with league minimum guys in the other spots. Not an easy comparison to make.

I have many issues with WAR / Salary, but the biggest is low production has a net drag on a team's playoff chances.

If you sign a $6.0 MM player and they produce 1.0 WAR, you can claim it was a good deal because the average free agent cost per WAR is $8.0MM. But do you really want a starting position player generating 1.0 WAR? 

Consider...
AAA replacement team 45 wins 117 losses record expected
9 batters at 2.5 WAR = 22.5
5 rotation at 2.0 WAR = 10.0
8 bullpen at 0.5 WAR = 4.0
4 bench at 1.0 WAR = 4.0
Total = 40.5 WAR = 85.5 wins.

This is a general guideline for what you need from players to field a bare minimum playoff caliber team. WAR production under the guidelines means another player has to carry the team for the weaker performance.

The truth is, in terms of production a 1.0 WAR $6MM starter is a net drag on the team, and finding 1.0 WAR players is easy AF. They're available every year on the waiver wire or for MiLB contracts.

I'd say a scale like this would be better.
1.0 WAR = $1MM
1.5 WAR = $4MM
2.0 WAR = $12MM
2.5 WAR = $15MM
3.0 WAR = $20MM
3.5 WAR = $25MM
4.0 WAR = $30MM
4.5 WAR = $35MM
5.0 WAR = $40MM

I'd like to see an analysis where free agents were compared by production in brackets to see what free agents for any given quality were costing.

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I have many issues with WAR / Salary, but the biggest is low production has a net drag on a team's playoff chances.

If you sign a $6.0 MM player and they produce 1.0 WAR, you can claim it was a good deal because the average free agent cost per WAR is $8.0MM. But do you really want a starting position player generating 1.0 WAR? 

Consider...
AAA replacement team 45 wins 117 losses record expected
9 batters at 2.5 WAR = 22.5
5 rotation at 2.0 WAR = 10.0
8 bullpen at 0.5 WAR = 4.0
4 bench at 1.0 WAR = 4.0
Total = 40.5 WAR = 85.5 wins.

This is a general guideline for what you need from players to field a bare minimum playoff caliber team. WAR production under the guidelines means another player has to carry the team for the weaker performance.

The truth is, in terms of production a 1.0 WAR $6MM starter is a net drag on the team, and finding 1.0 WAR players is easy AF. They're available every year on the waiver wire or for MiLB contracts.

I'd say a scale like this would be better.
1.0 WAR = $1MM
1.5 WAR = $4MM
2.0 WAR = $12MM
2.5 WAR = $15MM
3.0 WAR = $20MM
3.5 WAR = $25MM
4.0 WAR = $30MM
4.5 WAR = $35MM
5.0 WAR = $40MM

I'd like to see an analysis where free agents were compared by production in brackets to see what free agents for any given quality were costing.

That's a much better explanation of what my point is. 

[old nurse]

5 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

What Solano, Taylor and Santana did for the Twins was nice. Decent... contributed to some W's in their single of year of service. No Complaints on any of the players but yet a concern remains. 

The concern is quite simply this:

The yearly dependence upon players of this ilk.

Taylor begets Margot, Margot begets Bader, Bader begets ??? 

Solano begets Santana, Santana begets France, France begets ???   

Lance Lynn begat Perez, who begat Hill who begat Happ and Schumacher who begat Bundy and Archer 

[Riverbrian]

4 minutes ago, old nurse said:

Lance Lynn begat Perez, who begat Hill who begat Happ and Schumacher who begat Bundy and Archer 

Exactly... and on the pitching side. The begats have stopped as development has taken over. 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

I have many issues with WAR / Salary, but the biggest is low production has a net drag on a team's playoff chances.

If you sign a $6.0 MM player and they produce 1.0 WAR, you can claim it was a good deal because the average free agent cost per WAR is $8.0MM. But do you really want a starting position player generating 1.0 WAR? 

Consider...
AAA replacement team 45 wins 117 losses record expected
9 batters at 2.5 WAR = 22.5
5 rotation at 2.0 WAR = 10.0
8 bullpen at 0.5 WAR = 4.0
4 bench at 1.0 WAR = 4.0
Total = 40.5 WAR = 85.5 wins.

This is a general guideline for what you need from players to field a bare minimum playoff caliber team. WAR production under the guidelines means another player has to carry the team for the weaker performance.

The truth is, in terms of production a 1.0 WAR $6MM starter is a net drag on the team, and finding 1.0 WAR players is easy AF. They're available every year on the waiver wire or for MiLB contracts.

I'd say a scale like this would be better.
1.0 WAR = $1MM
1.5 WAR = $4MM
2.0 WAR = $12MM
2.5 WAR = $15MM
3.0 WAR = $20MM
3.5 WAR = $25MM
4.0 WAR = $30MM
4.5 WAR = $35MM
5.0 WAR = $40MM

I'd like to see an analysis where free agents were compared by production in brackets to see what free agents for any given quality were costing.

This makes perfect sense, but honestly my first takeaway is “Holy Crap!  The White Sox were BELOW replacement level last year WITH Garret Crochet!”

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

What Solano, Taylor and Santana did for the Twins was nice. Decent... contributed to some W's in their single of year of service. No Complaints on any of the players but yet a concern remains. 

The concern is quite simply this:

The yearly dependence upon players of this ilk.

Taylor begets Margot, Margot begets Bader, Bader begets ??? 

Solano begets Santana, Santana begets France, France begets ???   

This is a very good point.  We don't see Cleveland signing nearly as many of this type of player.  I do think we are improving in this regard because THANKFULLY we no longer need to sign warm bodies for the back of the rotation.  With reasonable health we should be able to avoid these types of pitchers for the next several years.

I also do see the need for low-rent OFers for quite some time either with Rodriguez / Jenkins on the horizon and Keaschall probably will play some OF as well.  Martin might be kept around as well.

3B and SS are covered for the foreseeable future as well.  That leaves us with 2B and 1B which are the easiest two positions to fill.  IDK who ends up there but it seems likely they fill 2B with either Lee, Julien or maybe even Gasper until Keaschall is here.  That leaves Miranda or maybe Julien for 1B.  I also think we will trade one of Wallner or Larnach next off-season or when Jenkins is ready.  This assumes Rodriquez works out at least reasonably well.  That trade could be used to fill a need.  Tampa and Cleveland have been great at getting major league ready guys in this type of trade.

I went through this exercise to ask this question ... Are we at the point where the type of player you pointed out won't be needed starting next year?  I think the vast majority of us would like to see the system produce enough that we can move on from these low-rent players.  Some of them have been good as you point out but it sure would be nice to simply not need them.

[bean5302]

16 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

This makes perfect sense, but honestly my first takeaway is “Holy Crap!  The White Sox were BELOW replacement level last year WITH Garret Crochet!”

Holds pretty true. The White Sox combined for -6.3 WAR for position players (puke). Their pitching staff was also poor, but not so hysterically bad at +9.8 WAR.

[Riverbrian]

13 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is a very good point.  We don't see Cleveland signing nearly as many of this type of player.  I do think we are improving in this regard because THANKFULLY we no longer need to sign warm bodies for the back of the rotation.  With reasonable health we should be able to avoid these types of pitchers for the next several years.

I also do see the need for low-rent OFers for quite some time either with Rodriguez / Jenkins on the horizon and Keaschall probably will play some OF as well.  Martin might be kept around as well.

3B and SS are covered for the foreseeable future as well.  That leaves us with 2B and 1B which are the easiest two positions to fill.  IDK who ends up there but it seems likely they fill 2B with either Lee, Julien or maybe even Gasper until Keaschall is here.  That leaves Miranda or maybe Julien for 1B.  I also think we will trade one of Wallner or Larnach next off-season or when Jenkins is ready.  This assumes Rodriquez works out at least reasonably well.  That trade could be used to fill a need.  Tampa and Cleveland have been great at getting major league ready guys in this type of trade.

I went through this exercise to ask this question ... Are we at the point where the type of player you pointed out won't be needed starting next year?  I think the vast majority of us would like to see the system produce enough that we can move on from these low-rent players.  Some of them have been good as you point out but it sure would be nice to simply not need them.

I'd be surprised if the organization was self sufficient next season.   

[old nurse]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Exactly... and on the pitching side. The begats have stopped as development has taken over. 

I was going too add the last begat of  “let us try something different”

[old nurse]

18 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is a very good point.  We don't see Cleveland signing nearly as many of this type of player.  I do think we are improving in this regard because THANKFULLY we no longer need to sign warm bodies for the back of the rotation.  With reasonable health we should be able to avoid these types of pitchers for the next several years.

I also do see the need for low-rent OFers for quite some time either with Rodriguez / Jenkins on the horizon and Keaschall probably will play some OF as well.  Martin might be kept around as well.

3B and SS are covered for the foreseeable future as well.  That leaves us with 2B and 1B which are the easiest two positions to fill.  IDK who ends up there but it seems likely they fill 2B with either Lee, Julien or maybe even Gasper until Keaschall is here.  That leaves Miranda or maybe Julien for 1B.  I also think we will trade one of Wallner or Larnach next off-season or when Jenkins is ready.  This assumes Rodriquez works out at least reasonably well.  That trade could be used to fill a need.  Tampa and Cleveland have been great at getting major league ready guys in this type of trade.

I went through this exercise to ask this question ... Are we at the point where the type of player you pointed out won't be needed starting next year?  I think the vast majority of us would like to see the system produce enough that we can move on from these low-rent players.  Some of them have been good as you point out but it sure would be nice to simply not need them.

Cleveland trades for Framber Reyes types who have one year of 1.5 war than perform at replacement level for a couple years before they move on from them. 

[jmlease1]

17 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I have many issues with WAR / Salary, but the biggest is low production has a net drag on a team's playoff chances.

If you sign a $6.0 MM player and they produce 1.0 WAR, you can claim it was a good deal because the average free agent cost per WAR is $8.0MM. But do you really want a starting position player generating 1.0 WAR? 

Consider...
AAA replacement team 45 wins 117 losses record expected
9 batters at 2.5 WAR = 22.5
5 rotation at 2.0 WAR = 10.0
8 bullpen at 0.5 WAR = 4.0
4 bench at 1.0 WAR = 4.0
Total = 40.5 WAR = 85.5 wins.

This is a general guideline for what you need from players to field a bare minimum playoff caliber team. WAR production under the guidelines means another player has to carry the team for the weaker performance.

The truth is, in terms of production a 1.0 WAR $6MM starter is a net drag on the team, and finding 1.0 WAR players is easy AF. They're available every year on the waiver wire or for MiLB contracts.

I'd say a scale like this would be better.
1.0 WAR = $1MM
1.5 WAR = $4MM
2.0 WAR = $12MM
2.5 WAR = $15MM
3.0 WAR = $20MM
3.5 WAR = $25MM
4.0 WAR = $30MM
4.5 WAR = $35MM
5.0 WAR = $40MM

I'd like to see an analysis where free agents were compared by production in brackets to see what free agents for any given quality were costing.

You're right in that there are 1.0 WAR players available every season on the waiver wire or cheaply through free agency, but figuring out who those players are vs the ones who can't get to that level at all isn't easy, because there are a lot of them around too. But in terms of player valuation you shouldn't just take the "1 WAR equals $8M" or whatever it is now and multiply it out to rate value, because scarcity shows that a 4 WAR player is worth more than two 2.0 WAR players.

I don't mind the Twins bringing in low-wattage bats every season to supplement the roster; if done correctly they can raise the floor for the team. And simply not giving ABs & innings to bad players is a good and relatively cheap way to raise the floor and win more games. And with the way baseball playoffs go, all you need is a chip a chair and chance to make a run. 

Where I get nervous is when they ride those veteran bats even when they're not playing well and can't bring themselves to move on and/or give a young player enough of an opportunity to prove themselves. Twins (like most teams, frankly) struggle with the sunk cost fallacy, and after being burned so badly a few seasons ago value depth maybe a little too much now (I would argue there was a bit of overcorrection there).

If Ty France cracks the ball hard this year, they'll be proven right on this one. If he goes into a 2 month long slump and they keep running him out every day while letting Miranda/Julien et al sit...then we have a problem.