Twins Must Attempt to Follow Guardians' and Rays' Blueprints at MLB Trade Deadline

[Rufus]

4 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

LOVE the whole "the new owners will want to win" bit.  Good comedy.

The Pohlads really enjoy watching the Twins lose, it was their highest form of entertainment.  I also like how people talk about "we"  when referring to the Twins.  That is until something goes wrong, then it is they or the cheap Pohlads.   If it is truly "we" then chip in some money to help make the payroll.   It is easy to critique when you have nothing in the game

[Road trip]

There's a cost to the Tampa/Cleveland model not stated: fan apathy.  As a fan it's hard to watch the roster churn constantly.  This is especially true of casual fans.  Over the long haul this shows up in attendance, which equals revenue.

Now Tampa has some built-in attendance problems to be certain.  Bad stadium in a bad location, a team with a short history, and a city full of transplants who have loyalties to other franchises.

But Cleveland?  Gosh, they were attendance monsters two decades ago.  Jacobs Field was packed from the mid 90s to the early 2000s when Cleveland had good teams and a stable roster.  They had a long string of drawing 3 million fans a year.  Now, even in the good years, Cleveland is near the bottom of the league in attendance.  That fan base has really tuned out, and they've rarely cracked 2 million in attendance the past 15 years.  

So, yes, the Cleveland model might incrementally improve the roster and help sustain a certain level of success, but it also comes at a cost.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

I believe that our FO over-values our players and under-values potential trade targets.  Look no further than Kepler.  We never traded him at his peak and lost him, now he is not doing well with the Phillies.

I like the concept of adding to address our weaknesses and subtracting from our surplus at the deadline, but doubt that will happen.

This will another year where the FO stands pat.

Kepler is a, not the only, poster child for why this FO should go. They got nothing for him. Nothing. And people want to repeat this mistake with the expiring contracts this year. Kepler should have been dealt with 1.5 years left on his deal. 

[chpettit19]

19 minutes ago, Road trip said:

There's a cost to the Tampa/Cleveland model not stated: fan apathy.  As a fan it's hard to watch the roster churn constantly.  This is especially true of casual fans.  Over the long haul this shows up in attendance, which equals revenue.

Now Tampa has some built-in attendance problems to be certain.  Bad stadium in a bad location, a team with a short history, and a city full of transplants who have loyalties to other franchises.

But Cleveland?  Gosh, they were attendance monsters two decades ago.  Jacobs Field was packed from the mid 90s to the early 2000s when Cleveland had good teams and a stable roster.  They had a long string of drawing 3 million fans a year.  Now, even in the good years, Cleveland is near the bottom of the league in attendance.  That fan base has really tuned out, and they've rarely cracked 2 million in attendance the past 15 years.  

So, yes, the Cleveland model might incrementally improve the roster and help sustain a certain level of success, but it also comes at a cost.

Those 90s Cleveland teams let Albert Belle walk, traded Kenny Lofton for David Justice and Marquise Grissom (then brought back Lofton, brilliantly), traded Sean Casey, traded Richie Sexson, and let Sandy Alomar Jr walk. That's just the position player side.

They weren't a super stable team. They had plenty of roster turn. They also hit on multiple Hall of Fame level prospects at the same time (Manny and Thome) and made multiple World Series runs with an incredible offense and fun team to watch.

Fans showed up because they were one of the best offenses of all time and were a sustained winner with realistic World Series expectations every year for over half a decade. I think you're being awfully deceiving by trying to act like they used to be "attendance monsters." That was a 6 year run. That's it. Outside of that 6 year run they were never "attendance monsters." And they were turning the roster back then, too. They just nailed the moves they made during that 6 year run and their fans had legit World Series hopes every year.

[TheLeviathan]

5 hours ago, Sjoski said:

Minnesota isn’t failing to follow the Cleveland/Tampa model because they won’t, it’s because they can’t.

Those teams trade from strength and develop surplus. The Twins don’t have the same luxury. 

 

 

.

One way you develop surpluses is by not pretending you are a contender and letting assets walk for nothing.

The Twins, for decades now, have been content to be stagnant.  This is a clear, shining moment to change that.

[TheLeviathan]

It's pretty simple folks:

Until MLB has the fight with the union (and the big market owners) to fix the game's finances......the Twins are going to have to rely on cheap, controllable talent to have a shot at winning.  A new ownership group (which hopefully happens just to finally end the nonsense, banal style of the Pohlads) will not change this.

So.....a team like the Twins needs to trade Castro, Paddack, Columbe, Stewart, and be open to bigger conversations to keep the churn of young talent alive.  I wouldn't be selling Ryan yet, but I would be looking at Lopez in the offseason.  I would be fielding calls to deal Duran or Jax.

That's the necessary path in this economic world of baseball.  If you do nothing......then you will continue to reap the rewards of your inaction.  You'll win nothing.  Not fan support.  Not baseball games.  Just spinning your wheels to nothing.

[RpR]

58 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Kepler is a, not the only, poster child for why this FO should go. They got nothing for him. Nothing. And people want to repeat this mistake with the expiring contracts this year. Kepler should have been dealt with 1.5 years left on his deal. 

The difference would have been what?

Besides wishful thinking, with supposed 20-20 hindsight.

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The only team in the bottom half of revenue that has won the WS in recent memory is the Royals.  Do you want the Twins to model their practices. 

Nope, you should read my post, I want the Twins to model the Cardinals, who are in a smaller market than the Twins yet have won 2 World Series in the past 20 years.  

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

People really can't seem to remember this. 

I have a lot of things I'd like this team to do differently, but model KC and similar teams is not one. 

This is a great strawman since nobody suggested that we follow the Royals model.  

[Danchat]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

The Twins have "long eyed" the Guardians and Rays because they are cheap, not because they are successful winning organizations.  Modeling your team on 2 franchises that have combined for 0 World Series in 75 years is just such a loser mentality.  

The model for the Twins, if they can't come up with intelligent strategies of their own that fit with this market, should be the Cardinals.  

The Dodgers hired away the Rays' GM and made changes to their organization to model after how Tampa runs things, and it's worked out quite well for them. I don't see what's wrong with trying to mimic a team that should be like the A's and Pirates based on their payroll but annually is at least a contender even if they haven't won it all.

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Woof Bronzer said:

This is a great strawman since nobody suggested that we follow the Royals model.  

fair.

People here say they want the twins to be like other teams , but never want them to deal most veterans. Not all people, but a lot of people 

 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, SF Twins Fan said:

Here is Falvey speaking recently to Jon Heyman.  It does seem like he's open to trading any and all players if the right offer is made.

Thanks for the link.  It sure seemed like both Sherman and Heyman believed they should sell.  They did not come out and say it but the way they framed the questions suggested they believed this team needs a makeover.  

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Major League Ready said:

Thanks for the link.  It sure seemed like both Sherman and Heyman believed they should sell.  They did not come out and say it but the way they framed the questions suggested they believed this team needs a makeover.  

Nah. Just because they'll likely miss the playoffs four out of five years. Why change?

[Major League Ready]

6 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Nope, you should read my post, I want the Twins to model the Cardinals, who are in a smaller market than the Twins yet have won 2 World Series in the past 20 years.  

I like the Cardinals organization a lot.  However, "Market Size" does not necessarily dictate revenue.  St Louis does not have an NFL team or an NBA team.  It's a great baseball market and the Cardinals generate substantially more revenue than the Twins.  You can't just ignore all every factor outside of population size and call them similar markets.  Therefore, it is unrealistic for the Twins to operate the same way as the Cardinals. 

[Major League Ready]

8 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Nah. Just because they'll likely miss the playoffs four out of five years. Why change?

IDK if you listened but they actually said in framing one of the questions that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results.  They also pointed out Detroit has a strong young team and a very good farm system so if the twins are going to compete with them, they have to upgrade the talent.  I am paraphrasing a more direct version.  They were being polite.

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

IDK if you listened but they actually said in framing one of the questions that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results.  They also pointed out Detroit has a strong young team and a very good farm system so if the twins are going to compete with them, they have to upgrade the talent.  I am paraphrasing a more direct version.  They were being polite.

This fear of trying youth over bad veterans drives me crazy. At least one way there is hope, even if faint. 

What good, consistent, hitter have they developed? They have a 1:1 and 1:5.....

[TheLeviathan]

Oh great!  I see that we're once again limiting our conversations about the best path forward by "what will win a World Series".

Putting aside that the World Series is a small sample size gauntlet (complete with all the whackiness of any small sample) unlike the other major sports.....the primary similarity all World Series winners have had for the last 30 years?  Money. Lots of money.

So unless you have a plan to explode the population of Minneapolis to LA levels and secure a decade long, mega-bucks TV deal for that new population......maybe sit this one out if you're stuck on WS wins.  That measure (if it's even a good measure at all for a successful baseball team) shouldn't lead you to have any conversations about team talent.   That measure gets decided by money.  But if that's your focus, it damn sure shouldn't lead you to conclude that we should be clutching to Chris Paddack or Danny Columbe like they're your woobie.

[BillyBallLives]

3 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

How in the world are the Twins a "mother club"? 

Think Yankee, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc. Or really, anyone else willing to trade with them.

[KirbyDome89]

Yeah, Cleveland did essentially tank their 2023 season. They've gotten absolutely nothing from Manzardo, and their 2024 acquisitions were a net negative. I guess we're going to celebrate the fact that they didn't try compete in a very winnable division in 2023 or add any type of impact talent at either of the two previous deadlines because things are going so well for them in 2025 right?  

[BillyBallLives]

33 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I want the Twins to model the Cardinals, who are in a smaller market than the Twins yet have won 2 World Series in the past 20 years.  

I am not against that idea of modeling the Cards....but you also have to factor in:

While the Cardinals and Twins are both small-market teams. That’s where the similarities end.
St. Louis has a great fan base, stronger TV income, and a franchise worth over $2.5 billion. 

  Yet, one could say, St. Louis proves "small market" doesn't have to be a barrier, it’s a mindset.

[Mike Sixel]

7 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Yeah, Cleveland did essentially tank their 2023 season. They've gotten absolutely nothing from Manzardo, and their 2024 acquisitions were a net negative. I guess we're going to celebrate the fact that they didn't try compete in a very winnable division in 2023 or add any type of impact talent at either of the two previous deadlines because things are going so well for them in 2025 right?  

Sometimes things don't work. That doesn't make them wrong. Also, I'm not sure any expiring deal is team breaking. But I have zero interest in things that never work. Like standing still with veterans on expiring deals. Or just bad veterans. 

[TheLeviathan]

12 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Yeah, Cleveland did essentially tank their 2023 season. They've gotten absolutely nothing from Manzardo, and their 2024 acquisitions were a net negative. I guess we're going to celebrate the fact that they didn't try compete in a very winnable division in 2023 or add any type of impact talent at either of the two previous deadlines because things are going so well for them in 2025 right?  

Manzardo is 24 and has a 102 OPS+  

Can I sign up for that version of "absolutely nothing" for the Twins please?

[KirbyDome89]

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Sometimes things don't work. That doesn't make them wrong. Also, I'm not sure any expiring deal is team breaking. But I have zero interest in things that never work. Like standing still with veterans on expiring deals. Or just bad veterans. 

Sure, process can sometimes outweigh results. I wouldn't punt on a season just to acquire a prospect like Manzardo but YMMV. Their deadlines have been eerily similar to the Twins, i.e. spare parts or a lot of nothing. Idk why we're putting their recent deadlines on a pedestal. 

[KirbyDome89]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Manzardo is 24 and has a 102 OPS+  

Can I sign up for that version of "absolutely nothing" for the Twins please?

Sure, his .1 WAR (yes that's real) in basically a full season at 1B will fit right in. 

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, process can sometimes outweigh results. I wouldn't punt on a season just to acquire a prospect like Manzardo but YMMV. Their deadlines have been eerily similar to the Twins, i.e. spare parts or a lot of nothing. Idk why we're putting their recent deadlines on a pedestal. 

Fair. And to be clear, I'm not. I'm more into stopping the process this team uses, which does not work. I'd like more dice rolls that might yield a useful piece. 

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, his .1 WAR (yes that's real) in basically a full season at 1B will fit right in. 

You're right, 24 year olds should be full fledged Hall of Famers or they're trash.

I guess?  I think I'm meeting you at your level here.

[KirbyDome89]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

Fair. And to be clear, I'm not. I'm more into stopping the process this team uses, which does not work. I'd like more dice rolls that might yield a useful piece. 

Concur, which is why I see moving fringe and/or expiring pieces are rearranging deck chairs. 

[KirbyDome89]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

You're right, 24 year olds should be full fledged Hall of Famers or they're trash.

I guess?  I think I'm meeting you at your level here.

Is the premise of this article not about retooling over cashing in/out? How does plugging in a replacement level 1B for the last 2 seasons count as retooling? 

[TheLeviathan]

10 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Is the premise of this article not about retooling over cashing in/out? How does plugging in a replacement level 1B for the last 2 seasons count as retooling? 

Because retooling isn't necessarily about immediate gains? It's not like if we sell pieces in 2025 and they don't immediately cash in 2026 that means the moves were the wrong ones.  If Manzardo never becomes more than he is today (as a rookie being a slightly plus offensive player and minus defensive player) than it didn't cash out as much as hoped when you made the deal.  But it's not a bad deal.....because the guy they gave up in Civale is sub-replacement level now and has been for much of the last two years as well.  

You can't judge the move in a short-sighted manner because the process behind it is quite literally the opposite.  In 2023 someone could've made the same argument about Nelson Cruz for Joe Ryan after he settled in at 1.5 WAR.  How'd that deal end up in the end?

[KirbyDome89]

56 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I like the Cardinals organization a lot.  However, "Market Size" does not necessarily dictate revenue.  St Louis does not have an NFL team or an NBA team.  It's a great baseball market and the Cardinals generate substantially more revenue than the Twins.  You can't just ignore all every factor outside of population size and call them similar markets.  Therefore, it is unrealistic for the Twins to operate the same way as the Cardinals. 

So factor in that ownership (and organizational) malpractice has destroyed public sentiment and the subsequent revenue standing (if we're actually going to believe the numbers) is reflective of that fact. This is a mid market team with one of the wealthiest ownership groups in baseball but anytime the topic of winning comes up we're supposed to act like they're a poverty franchise...