The Latest Trade Rumors Regarding Joe Ryan and Pablo López

[laloesch]

1 hour ago, SteveLV said:

I actually think Buxton has the highest trade value--assuming he waived his no trade clause.

He had a terrific year, was relatively healthy, and is cheap!

I do agree that Ryan is likely to be traded, and I hope they get some very, very good talent back for him.

It sounds like Buxton might be drawing a bit of a red line in the sand with Falvey.  You trade Lopez or Ryan and I might consider waiving my no trade clause. That's about as close to a trade me statement if you make moves x,y, or z without officially stating it.

Here's what Dan Hayes wrote in the Athletic.

Byron Buxton might waive his no-trade clause? That's the word from Twins insider Dan Hayes, who, in a report for The Athletic, said Buxton might be open to being traded to a contender if Minnesota tears down the roster any more than it already has.

Hayes wrote that Buxton "wants to play for a winner and may reconsider his stance for certain clubs if the Twins continue breaking up their roster, potentially by trading starting pitchers Joe Ryan or Pablo López."

 

[TopGunn#22]

rdehring, on Baseball Trade Values I was just scrolling through a number of proposed trades and stumbled across a 3-team trade that involved the Twins, Padres and and one other team I cannot remember, but the Twins were trading Ryan (52.7) and receiving Mason Miller (44.6) the young flamethrowing Closer who was traded by the Athletics to the Padres as San Diego was trying to catch the Dodgers last year.  There was one other player that the Twins got but I can't remember who and from what team.  

Miller would be a big time Closer that would anchor a re-made Twins BP.  

[NYCTK]

10 minutes ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

Maybe I should have just said Cholowsky then. He could be up in 2027, so if he is ready made, that would change the focus of returns no?

Even if you know what position you're drafting it'd be absolutely malpractice to make moves this offseason before your desired target is even in the organization, much less ready for the major leagues. 

[Nashvilletwin]

Top three reasons to move Ryan vs. Lopez:

1. Ryan brings back the better return and is at peak value right now.

2. Lopez’s injury laden ‘25 campaign plus his higher salary will hurt his near term return.

3. Lopez would probably be a better mentor to the younger pitchers who will likely comprise the staff.

There is no reason not to trade both as neither will re-sign to be part of the post lockout core in ‘28.  However, there is a scenario under which Lopez’s value actually increases once his injury concerns are put to bed; therefore, Ryan should go soon, but Lopez’s trade might wait all the way up to the deadline.

This strategy maximises the player with the higher return and provides a bit of a hedge on the team’s first half performance (i.e., if for some unknown reason we are competitive, we could keep Lopez and try to make a run).

[Patzky]

23 minutes ago, laloesch said:

Twins insider source stated that Ryan was more likely to be moved than Lopez due to interest but either one could get trade.  Apparently the Twins aren't willing to trade both.  My guess would be Lopez because of his 21.5 million plus salary.  This is all in preparation for the 2027 work stoppage that will probably result in a lost season.  Twins are going cheap cheap again like the 90's and will claim to be dirt poor during that lost season.  If Lopez is traded they are gonna be at what? 68 million in payroll projected?  I've also heard grumblings that Buxton is considering waiving his no trade clause as he does not want to have to go through another full rebuild.  If the Twins end up dealing him too, they are down to say 53 million?  That would be crazy.

We are considering renewing our apartment lease. A variety of terms are presented, mostly smoothly following the curve where a longer term elicits a smaller monthly rent payment. Over 15 months you'll pay more money overall than for 9 months but at a more helpful monthly rate. So the calculus is how long do you wish to enjoy the expected benefits (not having to move, deal with new office and traffic, etc.)

 

We Twins fans have our theories. Many are based on contending in 2026, 2028, cost and ownership and a lockout or strike. Pablo is spendier than Joe over two years. Will he be cheaper than Joe over five? The length of the contract (or time together) needs to be calculated as well as the rate. If you envision a 35 year old Pablo Lopez in the Twins maybe you recalculate the immediate cost to get there. If Ryan becomes the dominant guy many think he will, his most costly years are far ahead. Gotta guess the timeframe that'll ownership is considering. 

And this Ober talk.is silly.. 

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Gotta wait for the dust to settle with Skubal before anything happens with either of Lopez or Ryan. Teams aren't going to offer up 3 top 5 prospects to the Twins if those assets could be used to secure a legitimate ace. 

I agree, and it might have to wait until Framber Valdez, Dylan Cease and Ranger Suarez come off the market. To trade Ober, I would expect we would need to see more of the free agent starting pitchers come off the market.

I was a little surprised to see Shota Imanaga take the qualifying offer.

[Cory Engelhardt]

20 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Even if you know what position you're drafting it'd be absolutely malpractice to make moves this offseason before your desired target is even in the organization, much less ready for the major leagues. 

Maybe? But they also have Culpepper who will be at AAA. 

Basically, I'm curious what a return would look like? I kind of expect a young core-type position player along with a couple of high upside arms.

[Mahoning]

The problem with keeping both of them is that for the Twins to think of winning the Central next year they need SO MUCH -- a bullpen, someone who can hit -- that there's no realistic prospect of doing so even with both Lopez and Ryan. Unless you trade at least one of them, and get immediate value, you just keep them and lose. What's the point of that? The Twins don't have the position players to compete.

[tony&rodney]

A number of people have referenced the CBA expiring at the close of next year as the lockout of 2027. 

There seems to be some sentiment that the above could affect negotiations this offseason. I know this is a separate topic to some extent but the Twins are in a crucial offseason in my opinion. August and September were a fair precursor of the current roster. Some changes need to occur. How deep is an ongoing question.

MLB last had a consequential work stoppage in 1994. That season hurt baseball badly, in the pocketbook. The owners make money. A few teams lose money. Who makes how much is mostly a wild guess despite lengthy attempts to quantify revenues and expenses. The basis for guesses are reasonable at times and the Atlanta Braves have to publish some of their numbers, however the books can be manipulated. Because the books are not transparent, the public does not know the facts of profits and losses. 

In the event of a lockout and the loss of games, the owners lose piles of dough. The players with huge salaries will also lose but the MLBPA has a significant kitty set aside to pay the minimum wage guys. The history of MLB labor issues has always been a fight over how much the owners can make. The players get a little more each time but the owners, through year over year profits or increases in valuation still make more money. There isn't a single player whose net worth equals the net worth of an owner. I don't expect anything other than a big series of shouts, accusations, public posturing, and perhaps a loss of some games in April, at the worst. I do believe many fans want salary caps, but we do not get a vote. Why would any owner making any money vote for a lockout or loss of a season? They need 16 votes. That is impossible. When was the last time a group of billionaires decided to lose money for a cause?

Thus, I don't believe the Twins should pay any attention to the close of the current CBA in any discussions related to player transactions. Ryan has huge value because his relatively low salary allows a team to add in other areas while locking down a #2 starting pitcher. Dylan Cease is not as good as Joe Ryan and he will cost a boatload of money. Lopez and Buxton are also great values. The Twins need to have a specific idea/plan of their future. 

[Blyleven2011]

From the first paragraph  ....

 

Trades  , a very high probability that Ryan , Lopez , Jeffers and maybe buxton if he opts out  ...

 

Financials  , cheap since 2023 , nothing is changing their right sizing of payroll  , they are moving in the direction of Cleveland , Milwaukee and other teams having low payrolls that have winning formulas that win or play competitive baseball ...

 

Ownership uncertainty  , lost in the twilight zone ...

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Mets will be all in on Skubal. They will be very interested in Ryan, but nowhere near all in. 

Jett Williams and Brandon Sproat, maybe Ryan Clifford or Mark Vientos for offensive punch, but these talks will happen after Skubal is either extended or traded (or Tigers announce nothing is happening). 

I appreciate your Mets fandom and agree that Tarik Skubal is a clear ace and the guy every team in baseball covets. That said, a clear #2 at Ryan's salaries affords all teams including the Mets to consider other expensive additions to their team. Signing Skubal next season may be an option for the Mets (he won't sign an extension-people should not be delusional about that), but he won't be traded and teams can't wait until March.

I may be the only person who follows baseball on this site who doesn't believe the Tigers will trade Skubal. No matter what the return is, Detroit will not be better in 2026 without Skubal and the Tigers will have as good of a shot to win it all next season as any other team in the American League. Of course, many will disagree with that and suggest the Twins have a shot too. It is just my opinion and thoughts. I believe Detroit should load up and one of the ways they can load up is by trading for Joe Ryan. 

[beckmt]

Problem is, it will be a lockout and therefore the players will probably wind up being paid.  And it could be a long one if enough of the owners want a hard cap (the only way to level the field).  New investors could well want to see a return next year, so my guess is the Twins payroll will be very low.  

Other thought is now of the Twins players (except maybe Lewis) has yet to hit 1000 PA.  That is about the number where players who make it figure it out.  If you look over time it took many great players a few years to figure it out.  Even Mike Schmidt hit under the Mendoza line early in his career.  So we don't know how Lewis, Lee, Wallner, and Larnach will turn out.  Much less other young players.  This is mostly a learn and develop year and see what you do during an after it.  I just have no faith in the Twins not to go super cheap and tear it down.  This should argue against trading Lopez and Ryan, but the Twins are not rational, so we shall see what happens.  

[twinstalker]

If the Twins can get one okay not good prospect for Lopez, they do it, because the money is the main concern here, not future talent.  Unfortunately.

If the Twins prioritized rebuilding, they'd trade Ryan, but that's not where their heads are.  The periods 1980-86, 1993-2000, and 2011-2016 were not just losing periods, but truly awful baseball.  Pretty sure we started a new one in 2024 plagued by horrible ownership and some front office ineptitude (hitting, drafting).

edit:  I left out 1971-75, which had a mix of mostly veteran HoFers (Harmon, Tony O., Carew, Blyleven, and Kaat) transitioning into a new, fun class (Carew, Hisle, Bostock, Goltz, Campbell) that ended the period and went on to winning records 3 of the remaining four years of the '70s.  The 1971-75 period only seemed really bad because of the great years before and the long playoff drought to 1987,  Or maybe it was Darwin, Soderholm, Kusick, Thompson, Terrell, McKay, Mitterwald, Woodson, Eddie Bane, and Bluegill Hughes that made it seem bad., But they were .500 or better in three of the five years.  Fun fact: while the 1970s was considered a down decade for the Twins, only three of those years did they finish below .500:  1971 (74 wins), 1974 (76 wins), and 1978 (73 wins).

[sweetmusicviola16]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I am under the impression. I may be wrong... I may be right... but I am under the impression that Joe Ryan has the highest trade value of any player on the current 40 man roster and that's why you trade him.  

I am also under the impression because of money owed that the trade value difference between Joe Ryan and Pablo Lopez isn't close.  

Therefore because of this impression... may it be right or wrong. Joe Ryan is the guy you trade in an attempt to bring back higher quality young talent. If you are going to trade these guys... Let's not mess around with marginal attempts at talent acquisition.  

If you intend to truly compete in 2026 you don't trade either one. But competing in 2026 will call for some major $$$$ to be spent at C, 1B and in the Pen. You can't get around it. If truly competing in 2026 is not your goal then Ryan should absolutely be traded. His value is at it's peak. Lopez should be kept until at least June in the hopes to regain some of his 2025 lost value. imo Ober should also be kept to see if he can rebound. 

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

If you intend to truly compete in 2026 you don't trade either one. But competing in 2026 will call for some major $$$$ to be spent at C, 1B and in the Pen. You can't get around it. If truly competing in 2026 is not your goal then Ryan should absolutely be traded. His value is at it's peak. Lopez should be kept until at least June in the hopes to regain some of his 2025 lost value. imo Ober should also be kept to see if he can rebound. 

My opinion and many will disagree. I think 2026 should be whatever happens happens but the path to whatever happens happens should be the accumulation of talent. 

If the Twins can identify and roster young hitters who actually hit the ball. Wins just might take care of themselves. If it doesn't... well they should be better in 2027 and forward. The need to find young hitters will still be necessary even if Ryan remains on the club. 

The other risk... that scares the pants off me. An arm injury that requires Tommy John or something. His Value is gone as soon as that happens. 

I see the desire to keep him because I would like to keep him but... I think the time is now. 

[DJL44]

40 minutes ago, twinstalker said:

If the Twins can get one okay not good prospect for Lopez, they do it, because the money is the main concern here, not future talent.  Unfortunately.

Doubtful. That would mean they didn't even shop him around to find the highest bid. Lopez would be coveted by multiple teams.

[laloesch]

2 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

A number of people have referenced the CBA expiring at the close of next year as the lockout of 2027. 

There seems to be some sentiment that the above could affect negotiations this offseason. I know this is a separate topic to some extent but the Twins are in a crucial offseason in my opinion. August and September were a fair precursor of the current roster. Some changes need to occur. How deep is an ongoing question.

MLB last had a consequential work stoppage in 1994. That season hurt baseball badly, in the pocketbook. The owners make money. A few teams lose money. Who makes how much is mostly a wild guess despite lengthy attempts to quantify revenues and expenses. The basis for guesses are reasonable at times and the Atlanta Braves have to publish some of their numbers, however the books can be manipulated. Because the books are not transparent, the public does not know the facts of profits and losses. 

In the event of a lockout and the loss of games, the owners lose piles of dough. The players with huge salaries will also lose but the MLBPA has a significant kitty set aside to pay the minimum wage guys. The history of MLB labor issues has always been a fight over how much the owners can make. The players get a little more each time but the owners, through year over year profits or increases in valuation still make more money. There isn't a single player whose net worth equals the net worth of an owner. I don't expect anything other than a big series of shouts, accusations, public posturing, and perhaps a loss of some games in April, at the worst. I do believe many fans want salary caps, but we do not get a vote. Why would any owner making any money vote for a lockout or loss of a season? They need 16 votes. That is impossible. When was the last time a group of billionaires decided to lose money for a cause?

Thus, I don't believe the Twins should pay any attention to the close of the current CBA in any discussions related to player transactions. Ryan has huge value because his relatively low salary allows a team to add in other areas while locking down a #2 starting pitcher. Dylan Cease is not as good as Joe Ryan and he will cost a boatload of money. Lopez and Buxton are also great values. The Twins need to have a specific idea/plan of their future. 

From what i've heard the issue of a hard salary cap is gonna be first foremost on the table in 2027 and this time around the owners are not gonna except no for an answer.  At least that's what I've hard.  Meaning no play in 2027 and possibly 2028 too.  That's part of the reason I think the Pohlads dumped so much salary and might dump more.  People forget they are 400 million in the hole from their commercial real-estate holdings and were supposedly losing 40 million a year on the Twins the last few years.

[tony&rodney]

13 minutes ago, laloesch said:

From what i've heard the issue of a hard salary cap is gonna be first foremost on the table in 2027 and this time around the owners are not gonna except no for an answer.  At least that's what I've hard.  Meaning no play in 2027 and possibly 2028 too.  That's part of the reason I think the Pohlads dumped so much salary and might dump more.  People forget they are 400 million in the hole from their commercial real-estate holdings and were supposedly losing 40 million a year on the Twins the last few years.

This stance is only from fans. The Athletic had another article yesterday that explained that not a single game has been lost under Manfred. The owners want to "discuss" ways of adjusting spending inequities. Numerous anonymous GM/owner quotes suggesting hope that some positive change occurs. Nobody expects games to be missed. The owners make a ton of money. Attendance and viewership is up. The recent playoffs were up 19% from last year. Money is coming in and MLB is attempting/ taking steps to address media money and its distribution across baseball. There is no appetite for a lockout. The players have a decent deal. They would continue the present agreement if necessary but will negotiate any number of minor changes back and forth. A cap similar to NBA/NFL/NHL is actually impossible at this time. I might want a cap, you might want a cap. The owners like money. They are doing better than the players.

Think of it this way - You have 29 friends/colleagues who are all rolling in the dough except for maybe 2-5 people. You are going to stop the flow of money via a vote (16 or more) that sets you all back a decade with hopes you can recover in the mid 2030s. Are you in?

[laloesch]

11 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

This stance is only from fans. The Athletic had another article yesterday that explained that not a single game has been lost under Manfred. The owners want to "discuss" ways of adjusting spending inequities. Numerous anonymous GM/owner quotes suggesting hope that some positive change occurs. Nobody expects games to be missed. The owners make a ton of money. Attendance and viewership is up. The recent playoffs were up 19% from last year. Money is coming in and MLB is attempting/ taking steps to address media money and its distribution across baseball. There is no appetite for a lockout. The players have a decent deal. They would continue the present agreement if necessary but will negotiate any number of minor changes back and forth. A cap similar to NBA/NFL/NHL is actually impossible at this time. I might want a cap, you might want a cap. The owners like money. They are doing better than the players.

Think of it this way - You have 29 friends/colleagues who are all rolling in the dough except for maybe 2-5 people. You are going to stop the flow of money via a vote (16 or more) that sets you all back a decade with hopes you can recover in the mid 2030s. Are you in?

When it comes to insider negotiations in sports leagues there are no absolutes.  All of this information i've hard and you've heard is all second hand or third hand reports.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I wouldn't say there is not a possibility 2027 is a lockout season.  In fact, I think it's very likely.  The owners DO WANT a hard salary cap with the exception of a handful of big market franchises who happen to be the most vocal drowning out the smaller market teams.  Sure, the owners are making money but the problem is the spread.  The team that won the world series this season spent 150 million more than the runner up and they spent 250 million.  So the Dodgers spent roughly 250-300 million more than many of the middle and small market franchises which is 2/3 of the league.  That can't continue and the league knows it.  Manfred wants to expand and add teams and aside from settling the A's, Devil Rays, and Marlin's situations the last big hurdle to expansion is the salary cap fiasco.  It's now or never.  

[Nashvilletwin]

1 hour ago, beckmt said:

Problem is, it will be a lockout and therefore the players will probably wind up being paid.  And it could be a long one if enough of the owners want a hard cap (the only way to level the field).  New investors could well want to see a return next year, so my guess is the Twins payroll will be very low.  

Other thought is now of the Twins players (except maybe Lewis) has yet to hit 1000 PA.  That is about the number where players who make it figure it out.  If you look over time it took many great players a few years to figure it out.  Even Mike Schmidt hit under the Mendoza line early in his career.  So we don't know how Lewis, Lee, Wallner, and Larnach will turn out.  Much less other young players.  This is mostly a learn and develop year and see what you do during an after it.  I just have no faith in the Twins not to go super cheap and tear it down.  This should argue against trading Lopez and Ryan, but the Twins are not rational, so we shall see what happens.  

The investors are in knowing that a possibly long lockout is in the way. They invested fully expecting a drawn out fight for a salary cap and that a cap of some sort will be adopted. 

[DJL44]

47 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

This stance is only from fans. The Athletic had another article yesterday that explained that not a single game has been lost under Manfred. The owners want to "discuss" ways of adjusting spending inequities. Numerous anonymous GM/owner quotes suggesting hope that some positive change occurs. Nobody expects games to be missed. The owners make a ton of money. Attendance and viewership is up. The recent playoffs were up 19% from last year. Money is coming in and MLB is attempting/ taking steps to address media money and its distribution across baseball. There is no appetite for a lockout. The players have a decent deal. They would continue the present agreement if necessary but will negotiate any number of minor changes back and forth. A cap similar to NBA/NFL/NHL is actually impossible at this time. I might want a cap, you might want a cap. The owners like money. They are doing better than the players.

Think of it this way - You have 29 friends/colleagues who are all rolling in the dough except for maybe 2-5 people. You are going to stop the flow of money via a vote (16 or more) that sets you all back a decade with hopes you can recover in the mid 2030s. Are you in?

I don't know why the lower spending teams would even want a salary cap. It would only affect a few teams (Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies) and the end result would be to make those teams even more profitable without improving the revenues for any of the other clubs. What incentive do the other teams have to make the Dodgers and Yankees even more profitable? It would actually decrease their revenues because they wouldn't get the luxury tax revenue sharing dollars.

The union wouldn't like a salary cap because spending would go down by $400M. 25 ball clubs wouldn't like a salary cap because they would lose revenue without lowering their payroll. The Dodgers, Yankees, Mets and Phillies would each get $75-100M more revenue with a salary cap which would go directly to their bottom line. MLB brings in more overall revenue when the large market teams do well so the league would suffer in the long run. 

So, why would 25 teams lockout the players and lose a pile of money to ensure they lose more money in the future after the salary cap is put in place? Why would they agree to a lockout to make the Yankees, Mets and Dodgers even more wealthy?

[tony&rodney]

13 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I don't know why the lower spending teams would even want a salary cap. It would only affect a few teams (Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies) and the end result would be to make those teams even more profitable without improving the revenues for any of the other clubs. What incentive do the other teams have to make the Dodgers and Yankees even more profitable? It would actually decrease their revenues because they wouldn't get the luxury tax revenue sharing dollars.

The union wouldn't like a salary cap because spending would go down by $400M. 25 ball clubs wouldn't like a salary cap because they would lose revenue without lowering their payroll. The Dodgers, Yankees, Mets and Phillies would each get $75-100M more revenue with a salary cap which would go directly to their bottom line. MLB brings in more overall revenue when the large market teams do well so the league would suffer in the long run. 

So, why would 25 teams lockout the players and lose a pile of money to ensure they lose more money in the future after the salary cap is put in place? Why would they agree to a lockout to make the Yankees, Mets and Dodgers even more wealthy?

Exactly. I get that a crap ton of fans think that a salary cap will level the playing field as far as how much money each team spends but that doesn't make sense. 

A number of people have referenced 80-90% from cap bottom to top. So the top teams already spend $300M. The bottom spenders will now spend $240M? Drop the top limit to $200M, which is impossible because several teams are already contracted for much more than that amount. Now the bottom team spends $160M. Sounds doable until you see that there are more than half of all teams below that number. Then you take away revenue sharing? 

I completely understand that people magically want their team to spend as much as the next team. 

I completely don't understand how people can expect 25 (whatever the number) teams' owners to lose tens of millions of dollars because they feel sorry for Pittsburgh. BTW, this idea that MLB would lose a season or even more than a few weeks in cold, wet April would put the game back 20 years. There are mechanisms to reduce the impulse of wealthy teams from gathering all of the best players without caps. 

I'm confused why anyone would buy into a notion of a salary cap in MLB. There are virtually no similarities between NFL/NBA/NHL, which some folks look at as an example. 

[Woof Bronzer]

8 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I'm confused why anyone would buy into a notion of a salary cap in MLB. There are virtually no similarities between NFL/NBA/NHL, which some folks look at as an example. 

Why?  I am not doubting you, but this is a talking point I hear often and it doesn't make sense to me.  What makes MLB so unique and special and rigid that change is impossible?  If every other major sports league can figure it out, why can't MLB?  Aren't 25 NFL/NBA/NHL owners losing revenue because they feel sorry for Green Bay/Oklahoma City/Raleigh?  

Again not a criticism of you, I am hoping to be educated! 

[SteveLV]

It is certainly possible to have both a hard salary cap and floor and STILL put more money in the Players' collective pockets to make the system acceptable to both sides.

Whether there is the collective wisdom to achieve that is another matter, but the basic blueprint from the NFL is there to emulate.....

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, SteveLV said:

It is certainly possible to have both a hard salary cap and floor and STILL put more money in the Players' collective pockets to make the system acceptable to both sides.

One guarantee with a salary cap is it will put less money in the player's pockets. There is no reason why ownership would agree to it otherwise.

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Why?  I am not doubting you, but this is a talking point I hear often and it doesn't make sense to me.  What makes MLB so unique and special and rigid that change is impossible?  If every other major sports league can figure it out, why can't MLB?  Aren't 25 NFL/NBA/NHL owners losing revenue because they feel sorry for Green Bay/Oklahoma City/Raleigh?  

Again not a criticism of you, I am hoping to be educated! 

Baseball plays every day, 162 games. The NBA and NHL play half that many games, the NFL just a bit more than 10% of the games. All media contracts are national in the three other leagues. In the case of the NBA, there are suitcases of money arriving from their international presence. MLB does not take in nearly as much money via national deals. MLB wants to move towards more of a 'one pile' media money deal, but local markets are very diverse and there isn't the attention paid to every game like the once a week NFL. The MLBPA has a far better pension than others, superior benefits, and all contracts are guaranteed by MLB. This is not true across the other leagues. Why should the players give up their gains? 

The NHL has a cap around $90M. They have 20 some players and guys working for virtually nothing in a minor league. The NBA has 15 players and a development league of a dozen more players. The NFL has 50 some players and some practice squad guys. MLB teams have 26 players with another 150 plus making minor league money. Colleges provide free development for the other leagues. MLB doesn't have big numbers of college players and those guys spend 2-5 years or more in the minor leagues. The sports are very different in their development and structures. Imagine if the Twins had 26 players in their minor leagues. Town ball and senior leagues would be better.

There isn't much evidence that parity is increased in the other leagues. Fans are mollified however. The major push for financial sharing is from fans not owners.

I could care less what happens but any strike/lockout will harm MLB. One of the byproducts would almost certainly be a further reduction in the minor leagues. We have seen how this affects development to some extent. Further, I don't see why the owners would choose to lose money but stranger things have happened. My thoughts on this have nothing to do with what I want or wish would occur, but rather a simple thought, follow the money. That is about all I got.

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, SteveLV said:

It is certainly possible to have both a hard salary cap and floor and STILL put more money in the Players' collective pockets to make the system acceptable to both sides.

Whether there is the collective wisdom to achieve that is another matter, but the basic blueprint from the NFL is there to emulate.....

This would essentially entail every dollar collected by every team pooled and then distributed evenly. Sounds great to me. Problem is how do compensate those individuals who purchased a team for $2.42B as opposed to those who paid $10M? I'm curious how all funds can be collected. NFL has open books, MLB's books are closed.

If parity is the plan, have every player be available in a draft and teams pick until they have spent to an agreed upon limit. Those players who currently have contracts would carry those contracts to their new team. So if the Twins picked first they could take Ohtani and pay him $2M per year and defer $68M until a future time which shortens their player budget in those later years. Of course this doesn't work either because we haven't considered endorsement money and many other details not to mention whether a player wants to work in a particular place.

I disagree that the NFL is a template to use. 

One of the primary complaints across the internet is player's salaries. Ok, I get that. I never made more than $50M in a year like Juan Soto. So there is a simple solution, restrict the total assets of any individual that lives or works or does business in the country to a number .... $10M should be enough. This would increase parity and solve a whole host of other issues. When all of the money is distributed ..... who is going to work?

[JD-TWINS]

9 hours ago, rdehring said:

Another day, another piece talking about the "unclear ownership direction."  Yes, it is unclear to us fans and even all those reporters with all their inside information. 

But we don't know that it is unclear to Falvey and the front office.  For all we know, he may have specific instructions, including payroll, on what his options are for the 2026 Twins.  Should that be true, like all of you I have no idea, his ambiguous comments would be a smart way of entering an off-season of wheeling and dealing.

What I do know is by the second week of February we all will know what the spring training roster will be.  I remain hopeful that it will be a team who will provide exciting baseball at Target Field in 2026.

Absolutely no reason not to be ambiguous - for sure! Still hoping for an intact rotation - youthful bullpen mostly stocked from within - as well as FA guys at 1B & C. To me, a group with this general approach makes Team competitive in the Division Race!

[D.C Twins]

"and limit the team’s ability to pursue meaningful free agents."

They were never going to pursue meaningful free agents... but good excuse though!

The owners will not care if the market is depressed for Lopez.... they want to dump salary!  

[D.C Twins]

10 hours ago, TJSweens said:

I would rather trade Ober than Lopez or Ryan. I'm wary of a long limbed 6'10 pitcher who can't throw at least a 93 mph fastball. Now he has lost velocity from the 91 mph he used to have. Trade him now before any residual value evaporates.

Unfortunately nobody is looking for Ober for the same correct reasons that you want to get rid of him