The Twins’ problem isn’t how much they spend. It’s how well they spend it.

[tlkriens]

https://kornradio.com/sports/the-twins-problem-isnt-how-much-they-spend-its-how-well-they-spend-it/

Travis Kriens – KORN News Radio Sports Director

Spending. Spending. Spending.

Money. Money. Money.

It seems to be the central argument surrounding the Minnesota Twins future these days. What is the payroll? Is it going up? Is it going down? Are the Pohlad family and the Twins serious about winning?

In a recent column, Aaron Gleeman argues that they need to spend significantly more this offseason to regain the trust of a frustrated fan base. I understand the sentiment. I just don’t agree with the premise.

The Twins absolutely should spend money when the right opportunity presents itself. But payroll is not a measure of how serious a team is about winning. It is simply a resource. The more important question is what a team does with that resource. And the Twins have provided plenty of evidence that spending more money does not necessarily produce better results.

Consider some of the largest contracts in franchise history.

Carlos Correa’s six-year, $200 million contract remains the largest deal in Twins history. When Minnesota signed him, the decision was easy to understand. Correa was an elite player entering his prime, and the Twins needed a star.

In 2022, he looked every bit worth the investment. He hit .291 with a .366 on-base percentage, a .467 slugging percentage, 22 home runs and a 138 OPS+. Baseball-Reference credited him with 5.3 WAR.

Then things changed.

Correa’s 2023 season was the worst of his career. He hit .230 with a 93 OPS+ and produced just 1.3 WAR. He rebounded in 2024, making the All-Star team and hitting .310. But he appeared in only 86 games because of injuries. The following season brought another decline, and the Twins ultimately traded him back to Houston.

There were reasonable explanations for much of it. Injuries played a major role. Baseball is unpredictable. That is precisely the point. Even a well-intentioned, analytically defensible $200 million investment can turn into something very different from what everyone expected.

Joe Mauer’s eight-year, $184 million extension is another example, although it deserves considerably more nuance. The Twins probably had little choice but to sign Mauer. He was a franchise player, an MVP, a three-time batting champion and one of the most accomplished players in team history.

Nobody could reasonably have anticipated the concussion problems that altered the trajectory of his career. Mauer still produced a Hall of Fame career. But the Twins did not receive eight years of the superstar-level production that the contract was designed to purchase.

Josh Donaldson provides another example.

Minnesota gave the 34-year-old third baseman a four-year, $84 million contract before the 2020 season. Donaldson had been an All-Star and American League MVP. He had also just hit 37 home runs for Atlanta. The Twins got 163 games from him over two seasons. Donaldson was better in 2021, posting a 127 OPS+ and hitting 26 home runs. But by then, he was 35 years old, and the Twins ultimately traded him to the Yankees.

None of this means the Twins were foolish for making those investments. It means something much simpler. Money does not eliminate risk.

So when Gleeman argues that the Twins need to raise payroll substantially this offseason, I think the obvious follow-up question is: For whom? Where is the money supposed to go?

The Twins’ biggest issue may not be a lack of players. It may be determining what to do with all the players they already have. Look at the starting rotation.

Joe Ryan. Pablo López. Taj Bradley. Connor Prielipp. Dean Kremer. Bailey Ober. Zebby Matthews. Mick Abel. David Festa. Kendry Rojas.

Assuming reasonable health, there are a lot of options there. Does Minnesota need to spend significant money on another starting pitcher? I’m not convinced.

The bullpen is even harder to justify as an area requiring major investment.

Since July 1, the Twins’ bullpen has posted a 3.15 ERA, tied with the White Sox for fifth best in baseball. Andrew Morris, A.J. Minter, Yoendrys Gómez, Jeff Hoffman and Tommy Nance have all been effective. Minter has an $11 million player option, so there are decisions to make. But the Twins have already transformed a major weakness into one of the better parts of the roster. That doesn’t mean the bullpen is perfect. It means there are other problems to solve first.

Then there is the position-player group.

Byron Buxton. Trevor Larnach. Kody Clemens. Royce Lewis. Brooks Lee. Luke Keaschall. Alan Roden. Kaelen Culpepper. Walker Jenkins. Victor Caratini. Alex Jackson. Ryan Kreidler. Austin Martin. Emmanuel Rodriguez. Hendry Mendez. Matt Wallner.

That’s 16 names competing for roughly 10 spots. Obviously, some won’t make the roster. Some will play in the minors. Some could be traded. Some won’t be with the organization next season. But that is precisely the point. The Twins have decisions to make before they have a blank check to spend.

Maybe they need another impact bat. Maybe they need a veteran position player who can stabilize a young lineup. Maybe they need to trade from their surplus to address a weakness elsewhere. Those are legitimate arguments. “Spend more money” is not.

The Twins’ recent history actually makes the case for being more selective with payroll, not less. The 2023 Twins won the American League Central and finally ended the franchise’s two-decade playoff losing streak with a payroll of roughly $160 million. That is evidence that Minnesota can win with a significant payroll. It is not evidence that $160 million is the magic number.

This year’s team is better than last year’s team despite spending roughly $25 million to $30 million less. That doesn’t prove spending less is inherently better. It does prove that payroll and success are not perfectly correlated. And that distinction matters.

The Twins should not be embarrassed by having a lower payroll if they have a better baseball team. They should be embarrassed if they have a lower payroll and fail to identify the opportunities that would make the team better. That’s the standard I would use. Spend when the player is worth the investment. Spend when the opportunity fits the roster. Spend when the organization believes the player improves its chances of winning. But don’t spend simply to demonstrate to fans that you are spending. That is how you end up paying for yesterday’s production with tomorrow’s money.

There is also a larger point about rebuilding trust with the fan base. Fans don’t ultimately care about payroll. They care about winning. Nobody walks out of Target Field thinking, “At least ownership had the 10th-highest payroll.” They remember division titles, playoff wins, great players and meaningful baseball late in the season.

If the Twins win, develop their young players and build a sustainable contender, the fans will notice. If they spend another $30 million and finish out of the playoffs, I’m not sure the fans will feel particularly comforted by the fact that ownership tried.

The recent trade deadline was encouraging precisely because the Twins did something more important than simply increase payroll: They addressed a weakness. Jeff Hoffman, A.J. Minter and Dean Kremer give the roster more depth and experience. Taking on roughly $8.5 million in remaining salary was a meaningful commitment. It was a good move. But the lesson shouldn’t be that the Twins finally discovered they need to spend money. The lesson should be that targeted spending can make a difference when it is attached to a coherent baseball decision.

That’s the distinction I think gets lost in this discussion. Payroll is not the product. The roster is. And the standings are. If the Twins have an opportunity this offseason to add a player who makes them significantly better, they should absolutely pursue it. If that opportunity requires $20 million, $30 million or $40 million, so be it. But if the best move is a trade, promoting a prospect, retaining an existing player or simply refusing to overpay for an aging free agent, then that should be the move.

The Twins don’t need to win a payroll competition. They need to win baseball games. That’s ultimately how they regain the trust of their fans. Not by spending more. By proving they know when to spend, whom to spend it on and why. And with 40 games left in this season, there is still baseball to play.

I’m far more interested in seeing what this team does between now and October than I am in looking at a payroll spreadsheet. I’ll take meaningful baseball in August and September over an impressive offseason spending total every time.

[Possumlad]

My greatest wish for the Twins is that we stop spending real money on short-term stop-gap guys with league-average production.

If you're going to have a $150-$175MM payroll (which I expect in 2027 if we have a season), it should be barbelled between 4-5 stars & controllable low-money guys on good deals.  Josh Bell & Victor Caratini have been fine this year (probably about average at their position), but it's tough for a team like the Twins to be paying $18MM total this year to guys like that.

[stringer bell]

3 hours ago, Possumlad said:

My greatest wish for the Twins is that we stop spending real money on short-term stop-gap guys with league-average production.

If you're going to have a $150-$175MM payroll (which I expect in 2027 if we have a season), it should be barbelled between 4-5 stars & controllable low-money guys on good deals.  Josh Bell & Victor Caratini have been fine this year (probably about average at their position), but it's tough for a team like the Twins to be paying $18MM total this year to guys like that.

There is a reason for making the signings you are referencing. Counting on young guys sometimes works and sometimes fails spectacularly. There is no such thing as a bad one-year deal is often repeated and there is much truth to it. Signing the right guys with the right amount of rope is a defensibile decision IMHO. Carlos Santana, Donovan Solano, Harrison Bader, Michael A. Taylor and to a lesser extent Kyle Farmer and Ty France were decent recent signings that helped the club. 

The Josh Bell signing has worked out as expected or better. I think having Bell as a constant in the middle of the lineup has helped more than his numbers show. I am not as sure about Caratini, mostly because of his usage at first base. When there is a gap in the depth having a veteran to fill that gap for a year works pretty well. 

Per the OP, big swings can be big swings and misses. Almost everyone praised the signings of Correa and Donaldson when they happened, but those kinds of outlays on guys with over six years in the majors are risky, especially on the back end of deals. 

[Riverbrian]

There is no doubt that money is a significant advantage and I don't think that can be denied but I agree with the premise of the article. 

It's really simple for me. The Twins have never spent significant money and I don't expect that they ever will and the Twins need to operate with this REALITY in mind until the a new CBA removes the inherent disparity. 

Yes... we can spend more money but how much is enough when the distance is 300 million a year or 100 million just to reach the top ten.    

It can't compete in the current free agent arena.

It can compete in the development arena because development is going to be within everyone's budget.  

A major league roster has 26 roster spots to fill. The more players making the minimum and playing decently... the less roster spots you have to fill with players that cost money and the more money you have to spend on those less roster spots. Having 60 million to spend on 3 players is better than having 60 million to spend on 10 players. 

Develop or die... make that the state motto... put in on the state flag. 

Money is no doubt a huge advantage but it didn't save the Mets or Giants. Not having money is a huge disadvantage but it didn't stop the Brewers or Rays. 

The Twins could become the Brewers or Rays with more money to spend. That's how you create an advantage for yourself. That's what we need to become.

Yes Spend more... and yes spend wisely if you can but you are going to need that youth to cover when the money thing doesn't work.

We make it harder trying to win the free agent game renting players that the big boys passed over.

Create players, teach players, coach players that the big boys will want to buy from you and keep them coming. That's how you win the game... 

At least until a new CBA that levels the playing field.  

 

[Road trip]

37 minutes ago, stringer bell said:

There is a reason for making the signings you are referencing. Counting on young guys sometimes works and sometimes fails spectacularly. There is no such thing as a bad one-year deal is often repeated and there is much truth to it. Signing the right guys with the right amount of rope is a defensibile decision IMHO. Carlos Santana, Donovan Solano, Harrison Bader, Michael A. Taylor and to a lesser extent Kyle Farmer and Ty France were decent recent signings that helped the club. 

 

It's so hard to identify the right guys, young or old.  You've rightly pointed to some success stories for vets (although I would debate the re-signing of Farmer).  In recent years there have also been some very unfortunate signings of certified formerly good veteran players.  Dylan Bundy, Chris Archer, Andrelton Simmons, Joey Gallo, Christian Vazquez on a multi-year, and more failed bullpen guys than I can remember.

Every team has some successes and some failures of this type.  The problem for the Twins is that they seem to fall for the sunk cost fallacy with the vets.  Because they have invested money, they are gonna make the Manuel Margots of the world work, dammit, even when it becomes obvious to casual observers that the skills have degraded.  Money is tight for the Twins, and I wonder if the front office wouldn't be more willing to move on from underperforming vets if they hadn't had to beg the ownership for the funds to sign some of these guys who don't work out?

[HarmonK03]

I agree with this article 100%, don't just spend money for the sake of it.  You have to work with the resources given.  It felt like Falvey wanted to act like a larger market team when the resources weren't in line with that premise, he never fully adapted to the reality in front of him.

The signing of Bell this offseason was a great example of spending money to spend money.  That money could have been used for a weakness on the roster at the time, the bullpen.  Instead it went to Bell to play 1B, when he is no longer playable at 1B, so it should have been obvious at that time that he was going to be the DH

There was a lost opportunity cost with this of not giving Rodriquez or even at the time Roden an opportunity.  Coming out of spring training if Bell is not on the roster, Rodriquez probably opens as the starting LF giving coverage for Buck in CF and Larnach would have been the DH still able to play the field more often than Bell.  Bell has given some decent production, but he is at a replacement level, for that we gave up the opportunity cost to find out what some younger players can do and production wouldn't have been a huge dropoff from what Bell has provided IMO.

This is why I hope Tom P.  will hire an experienced baseball executive to lead the baseball operations, Zoll is not up to the task.

[HarmonK03]

7 minutes ago, Road trip said:

Money is tight for the Twins, and I wonder if the front office wouldn't be more willing to move on from underperforming vets if they hadn't had to beg the ownership for the funds to sign some of these guys who don't work out?

Falvey was given a budget and he signed the players within that budget, that he didn't identify the correct ones is on him and his staff, not ownership.  I realize there are going to be misses, but I think there more misses than real impact signing.

[stringer bell]

38 minutes ago, Road trip said:

It's so hard to identify the right guys, young or old.  You've rightly pointed to some success stories for vets (although I would debate the re-signing of Farmer).  In recent years there have also been some very unfortunate signings of certified formerly good veteran players.  Dylan Bundy, Chris Archer, Andrelton Simmons, Joey Gallo, Christian Vazquez on a multi-year, and more failed bullpen guys than I can remember.

Every team has some successes and some failures of this type.  The problem for the Twins is that they seem to fall for the sunk cost fallacy with the vets.  Because they have invested money, they are gonna make the Manuel Margots of the world work, dammit, even when it becomes obvious to casual observers that the skills have degraded.  Money is tight for the Twins, and I wonder if the front office wouldn't be more willing to move on from underperforming vets if they hadn't had to beg the ownership for the funds to sign some of these guys who don't work out?

I believe Bell might have provided more value than his WAR by being a stabilizing force in the lineup. I can recall many people complaining that the Twins had no one last year that could be counted on hitting in the middle of the lineup. Bell is on track to play in excess of 150 games and hit somewhere between third and fifth in almost all of them, whether he was at first or his best position (DH) is immaterial as far as  offensive production goes. There have been reports that he's a great guy in the clubhouse--yeah probably, but the 70+ RBI might be the reason. Trevor Larnach has morphed into a platoon leadoff hitter, but trading him could have just as easily opened a spot for young talent and maybe brought back some talent. Signing Bell for $7M isn't on the scale of Donaldson and Correa.

While there aren't any guarantees in baseball, Bell's hitting is as close to a sure bet as you can find without breaking the bank. Could and should the Twins have spent more and gotten more quality in the bullpen? Absolutely, but I think that has more to do with indecision from ownership than anything else. 

[Trov]

This is the key to all mid to small market teams.  The large market teams can swing and miss on a bad deal, but the rest cannot miss too much.  Reflect back to the summer we signed CC, there was several SS on the FA market.  There was much discussion on which the Twins should target, and after the signing did they get the right one. 

That is always the issues in mid-market teams like the Twins.  They can make a big signing from time to time, but is it the right signing will be the question.  Many fans point to the Padres for their spending recently, but many of their signing have been bad. Some have been good.  They have been willing to spend a ton in hopes of winning, with not overall great results, if playoff success is what you want and not just making playoffs. They have hit on a few and missed on a few. 

I will agree, spending wisely is important, because look at Mets they have just spent spent spent and they have not had good years on just spending.  The Dodgers continue to crush spending on the better players, and they have had much less misses. 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

Any time we have taken a big swing it has failed. Donaldson, Correa.  So I’m not sure you can say the Twins are not doing what you want them to do. We are still paying for Correa hence why we have gone the bargain bin route.

[tlkriens]

What I never guy was why Correa and why SS? They had Royce Lewis ready to go and his career was derailed with a move to CF and the ACL and missed season. Move the No. 1 prospect in baseball to a position he never played before and really mess with his career.

[Eris]

The biggest Twins issue is not money but drafting and developing players. Hence the Twins have ended up with a roster full of DH types who lack speed and athleticism and can’t play defense. 
 

Injuries are part of the game. The Twins have three players whose careers were cut short by concussions (Mauer, Morneau and Koskie). I think the Carlos Correa resigning was very questionable in part because two other clubs (Mets and Giants) rescinded their contracts to Correa after evaluating is leg/ankle. 

[tony&rodney]

The constant complaining about money does nothing to explain how the front office signs and develops players. Most years the free agents available are either not as good (Jordan Montgomery/Rhys Hoskins) as what is already in house or beyond realism (Aaron Judge). The problem of reasonable revenue sharing was created exclusively by the owners. The Dodgers are reviled by people today but it is only the hiring of Andrew Friedman in 2014 (away from the Tampa Bay Rays) that boosted the fortunes of the Los Angeles franchise. There have been moments when it would have been nice for the Twins owners to spend more money but none in recent memory. It is worth a reminder that the Twins spent more money on players than each of their AL Central foes during the entirety of Derek Falvey's tenure.

Building a winning team is quite complex. There needs to be a star or two and also a few talented support players. Most importantly is that clubs use a number of average guys who make valuable contributions through their consistent play. How a team is constructed is difficult to carry out. Each winter since October of 2023 there seemed to be opportunities for gamble type trades. The problem with these transactions is that a team can come out on the short end of such a deal. The wholesale dismantling of the bullpen last July (2025) seemed to portend a couple (or at least one) of moves last winter. Then ..... crickets. The recent deadline displayed the Twins interest in winning now. We shall see how the club navigates through the remainder of the schedule.

When I look over the Twins 40 person list I see an unbalanced roster on the position player side. There are too many solid players or prospects who fit best as a DH. I don't have anything against any of these players. Josh Bell is firmly the current DH. All of Gonzalez, Keaschall, Larnach, Mendez, and Wallner are DH types, and the two catchers (Jeffers and Caratini) as well as Byron Buxton on occasion can serve as the DH. Finally, the Twins have Tristan Gray, Austin Martin, and Alan Roden as decent athletes who cannot be counted as stellar defensive players. While I have not gone through the rosters of each MLB team, it seems like the Twins have some work to do to change the roster. How the switch occurs will be the job of the front office but spending a ton of money doesn't look like a forward moving plan. Randy Arozarena and Ryan Jeffers appear to be the most attractive free agent bats available this coming winter. Both are not noted for their gloves. They fit in the DH slot. Is that where the Twins spend the big money? It has been an easy click to constantly moan about the Pohlads and people have made a living (financially) doing exactly that, but the work of the front office will determine if the Twins have sufficient talent to compete. 

Recently a few folks have bemoaned the missed opportunity that perhaps existed with the mythical trade (Ryan for Tolle, Arias, and another player) in July of 2025. There will be another opportunity to gamble. Will the Twins take that chance to alter their roster?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 8/13/2026 at 10:30 AM, tlkriens said:

https://kornradio.com/sports/the-twins-problem-isnt-how-much-they-spend-its-how-well-they-spend-it/

The Twins’ recent history actually makes the case for being more selective with payroll, not less. The 2023 Twins won the American League Central and finally ended the franchise’s two-decade playoff losing streak with a payroll of roughly $160 million. That is evidence that Minnesota can win with a significant payroll. It is not evidence that $160 million is the magic number.

Payroll is not the product. The roster is. And the standings are. If the Twins have an opportunity this offseason to add a player who makes them significantly better, they should absolutely pursue it. If that opportunity requires $20 million, $30 million or $40 million, so be it. But if the best move is a trade, promoting a prospect, retaining an existing player or simply refusing to overpay for an aging free agent, then that should be the move.

The Twins don’t need to win a payroll competition. They need to win baseball games. That’s ultimately how they regain the trust of their fans. Not by spending more. By proving they know when to spend, whom to spend it on and why. And with 40 games left in this season, there is still baseball to play.

I’m far more interested in seeing what this team does between now and October than I am in looking at a payroll spreadsheet. I’ll take meaningful baseball in August and September over an impressive offseason spending total every time.

You aren’t wrong, but are missing the point. yes, quality of spend matters more than quantity, but quantity matters too, to a point.

The median payroll in 2025 was $172m, the target of $160m isn’t that the Twins have to magically hit that, it’s that the higher the payroll, the higher winning percentage in the regular season, and mid-range payrolls win the World Series 7 of the last 10 years.

There are exceptions, don’t mistake the Rays as the rule. Pittsburgh is the rule. When the Twins slashed payroll from 160m after 2023 the team got significantly worse, when they slashed it again after 2024, they didn’t get significantly worse. The truth is, 99% of prospects fail, good teams have a mix of veterans and youth. To have a mix of good veterans comprising half the team is to have a payroll above 130m, and average has been above 160m for years.

How they spend matters more than what, but what they spend matters a lot to the quality of the team relative to the league.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

https://www.thesportsgeek.com/blog/mlb-big-spenders-performance/

[Craig Arko]

I find I have this very same problem myself. Anyone else?

[Riverbrian]

In recent Twins times. 

Our best year was 2023 with 87 wins a playoff berth and playoff series win. 

2023 was also the year that our payroll reached a record level of 153.7

Case closed... money matters. 

Well... I suppose it needs to be considered that in 2023. 

Top Salary belonged to Correa and he did lead the team in AB's and finished the regular season with a 94 OPS+ at a 33.33 Million price tag. 

2nd highest expense was Buxton and he was having serious physical issues that limited him to 80 games at DH only and he toughed out a 97 OPS+ at a cost of 15.14 million. 

The 4th highest salary belonged to Gallo who produced the worst 100 OPS+ in the history of the game for a 11 million dollar price tag.  

The 5th highest salary belong to Vazquez who produced a 64 OPS+ at 10 million for the year. 

The total spent on these 4 players for the year was 69.47 Million. 

That leaves about 84 million spent on everyone else. You will need at least 22 more players to staff 26 players on the MLB roster and then there is money being made on the 40 man. 

I understand that people won't appreciate my pointing this out but I'm going to point it out. Look what we got for driving that price up. 

We set a record in club spending. What happened next? Yes we won the Central, We won a playoff series and we did so on the backs of lesser paid talent and then we needed to spend even more in the off-season because of Arb raises and we didn't have cheap talent to prevent the payroll from rising. And after not continuing to drive payroll upward... setting a new payroll record the year prior no longer mattered. It became a PR nightmare and frankly... they deserved it. 

This club has never spent significant money in its existence. 2023 was the closest we ever came to significant and it made us hate the franchise even more.

They will need to find another way to compete. 

[Linus]

Both matter. It’s been studied many times and there is a strong correlation between payroll and winning. Of course using that payroll most effectively is really important as we’ve seen with our recent free agent catchers. More important than either of these factors is drafting and developing good players. This is kind of a triple whammy against the Twins. Their payroll has wavered between average and low, they have spent it pretty poorly and are not particularly good at drafting and developing players. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

59 minutes ago, Linus said:

Both matter. It’s been studied many times and there is a strong correlation between payroll and winning. Of course using that payroll most effectively is really important as we’ve seen with our recent free agent catchers. More important than either of these factors is drafting and developing good players. This is kind of a triple whammy against the Twins. Their payroll has wavered between average and low, they have spent it pretty poorly and are not particularly good at drafting and developing players. 

So… do better at everything?

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Linus said:

This is kind of a triple whammy against the Twins. Their payroll has wavered between average and low, they have spent it pretty poorly and are not particularly good at drafting and developing players. 

There has to be some massive positive factor, counteracting this triple whammy, to allow them to maintain a won-loss record barely under .500 for the past 20 years .  Must be the excellent managers they always hire.

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Linus said:

Both matter. It’s been studied many times and there is a strong correlation between payroll and winning. Of course using that payroll most effectively is really important as we’ve seen with our recent free agent catchers. More important than either of these factors is drafting and developing good players. This is kind of a triple whammy against the Twins. Their payroll has wavered between average and low, they have spent it pretty poorly and are not particularly good at drafting and developing players. 

Good post as usual.

You are correct.

1. There is a strong correlation between payroll and winning it's undeniable. There is also a strong indicator that if you go the money route... if you raise that payroll to create that competitive team... it'll typically take an increase of money to sustain it without development to keep a rising payroll somewhat in check. Without it... she will keep spinning upwards. 

2. You won't have development to keep payroll from going unchecked when you are using potential 26 man development space on 1 year contracts of 2nd or 3rd tier free agents that the true free agent winners passed on.  

3. Those 1 year contracts to cover for development add 15 million to 40 a year in expenditure. 

4. The Twins can only compete for better free agents if they reduce the number of free agents needed.

5. Then consolidating the combined money that would have been required for multiple acquisitions and directing toward the one or two needed because development has filled additional spaces. 

6. It's completely doable but it needs to constant development commitment at the major league level. 

 

[Major League Ready]

On 8/13/2026 at 4:29 PM, Riverbrian said:

There is no doubt that money is a significant advantage and I don't think that can be denied but I agree with the premise of the article. 

It's really simple for me. The Twins have never spent significant money and I don't expect that they ever will and the Twins need to operate with this REALITY in mind until the a new CBA removes the inherent disparity. 

Yes... we can spend more money but how much is enough when the distance is 300 million a year or 100 million just to reach the top ten.    

It can't compete in the current free agent arena.

It can compete in the development arena because development is going to be within everyone's budget.  

A major league roster has 26 roster spots to fill. The more players making the minimum and playing decently... the less roster spots you have to fill with players that cost money and the more money you have to spend on those less roster spots. Having 60 million to spend on 3 players is better than having 60 million to spend on 10 players. 

Develop or die... make that the state motto... put in on the state flag. 

Money is no doubt a huge advantage but it didn't save the Mets or Giants. Not having money is a huge disadvantage but it didn't stop the Brewers or Rays. 

The Twins could become the Brewers or Rays with more money to spend. That's how you create an advantage for yourself. That's what we need to become.

Yes Spend more... and yes spend wisely if you can but you are going to need that youth to cover when the money thing doesn't work.

We make it harder trying to win the free agent game renting players that the big boys passed over.

Create players, teach players, coach players that the big boys will want to buy from you and keep them coming. That's how you win the game... 

At least until a new CBA that levels the playing field.  

 

I am going to throw in a little support for your point.  The charts below show the acquisition method for the 2026 Rays who are on a 100 win pace and the Brewers who have the best record in MLB.  AaP stands for acquired as prospect.  This covers any form of acquisition where the player has not produced More than 1.5 WAR in a given season.  These teams don't draft better than the Twins.   The develop better than us and yhey do a lot better job acquiring prospects. 

2026 Rays  (100 Win Pace)		Acquired	WAR				2026  Brewers	Acquired	WAR
	Junior Caminero	AaP	4.2				Brice Turang	Drafted	4.2
	Jonathan Aranda	Intl	2.5				Jake Bauers	AaP	2.3
	Yandy Díaz	AaP	2.4				Garrett Mitchell	Drafted	2.3
	Chandler Simpson	Drafted	2				Jackson Chourio	Intl	2.3
	Jonny DeLuca	AaP	1.5				Joey Ortiz	AaP	1.6
	Victor Mesa Jr.	AaP	1.2				William Contreras	Trade	1.5
							Gary Sánchez	FA	1.2
	Pitchers						Cooper Pratt	Drafted	Drafted
	Drew Rasmussen	AaP	3.7				Andrew Vaughn	AaP	1.2
	Nick Martinez	FA	2.3				Jacob Misiorowski	Drafted	5.1
	Shane McClanahan	Drafted	2.2				Trevor Megill	AaP	2.2
	Ian Seymour	Drafted	1.4				Kyle Harrison	AaP	2.1
	Bryan Baker	AaP	1.2				Shane Drohan	AaP	2
							Aaron Ashby	Drafted	1.5
							Logan Henderson	Drafted	1.4
#	Acquired by:	WAR	% of WAR				Brandon Woodruff	Drafted
3	Drafted	5.6	23%				Chad Patrick	AaP	AaP
1	International Draft	2.5	10%				Acquired by:
6	Acquired as Prospect	14.2	58%			6	Drafted	15.7	47%
0	Trade for Proven	0	0%			1	International Draft	2.3	7%
1	Free Agent	2.3	9%			7	Acquired as Prospect	12.6	38%
	TOTALS	24.6	100%			1	Trade for Proven	1.5	5%
						1	Free Agent	1.2	4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I am going to throw in a little support for your point.  The charts below show the acquisition method for the 2026 Rays who are on a 100 win pace and the Brewers who have the best record in MLB.  AaP stands for acquired as prospect.  This covers any form of acquisition where the player has not produced More than 1.5 WAR in a given season.  These teams don't draft better than the Twins.   The develop better than us and yhey do a lot better job acquiring prospects. 

2026 Rays  (100 Win Pace)		Acquired	WAR				2026  Brewers	Acquired	WAR
	Junior Caminero	AaP	4.2				Brice Turang	Drafted	4.2
	Jonathan Aranda	Intl	2.5				Jake Bauers	AaP	2.3
	Yandy Díaz	AaP	2.4				Garrett Mitchell	Drafted	2.3
	Chandler Simpson	Drafted	2				Jackson Chourio	Intl	2.3
	Jonny DeLuca	AaP	1.5				Joey Ortiz	AaP	1.6
	Victor Mesa Jr.	AaP	1.2				William Contreras	Trade	1.5
							Gary Sánchez	FA	1.2
	Pitchers						Cooper Pratt	Drafted	Drafted
	Drew Rasmussen	AaP	3.7				Andrew Vaughn	AaP	1.2
	Nick Martinez	FA	2.3				Jacob Misiorowski	Drafted	5.1
	Shane McClanahan	Drafted	2.2				Trevor Megill	AaP	2.2
	Ian Seymour	Drafted	1.4				Kyle Harrison	AaP	2.1
	Bryan Baker	AaP	1.2				Shane Drohan	AaP	2
							Aaron Ashby	Drafted	1.5
							Logan Henderson	Drafted	1.4
#	Acquired by:	WAR	% of WAR				Brandon Woodruff	Drafted
3	Drafted	5.6	23%				Chad Patrick	AaP	AaP
1	International Draft	2.5	10%				Acquired by:
6	Acquired as Prospect	14.2	58%			6	Drafted	15.7	47%
0	Trade for Proven	0	0%			1	International Draft	2.3	7%
1	Free Agent	2.3	9%			7	Acquired as Prospect	12.6	38%
	TOTALS	24.6	100%			1	Trade for Proven	1.5	5%
						1	Free Agent	1.2	4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes... That's the very important VALUE component. Thank you for the support. I do appreciate you and your thoughts on this topic.

It's why Joe Ryan should have been traded in the off-season. His value was at an absolute peak and substantial. The Twins could have traded Joe Ryan and picked up a major prospect close to the equivelent of Jenkins or multiple highly ranked prospects with the ability to fill spaces with players making the minimum and performing decently enough. And you don't even have to do a complete teardown... you can keep Buxton and build a team with young TALENT around him and it would win baseball games. We have precedent... we can all see it happening almost consistently with other clubs as you point out. 

It's not just about developing talent that the Twins utilize on the field until they are traded or reach free agency.

It's not just for the direct benefit on the field. It's also about the indirect benefit of raising the TRADE VALUE through development.

If you are promoting young talent successfully... you will also need young talent to trade at the deadline when it works. This means you got to keep stocking those shelves. 

If you strip mine developing players for parts for MARGINAL theoretical gains today... you intentionally cap their TRADE VALUE. You don't develop them fully when you strip mine them for parts and you do it during their prime development years. It's like refusing to talk to a baby during the time when they are learning so fast that you could be teaching them english, spanish and french at the same time. Why would you cement anyone at age 25 by taking away the things they need some experience to work on. 

It's doable. You and I both see it and it would fit within our financial constraints and every one should know that we are going to have financial constraints. 

[Major League Ready]

27 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Yes... That's the very important VALUE component. Thank you for the support. I do appreciate you and your thoughts on this topic.

It's why Joe Ryan should have been traded in the off-season. His value was at an absolute peak and substantial. The Twins could have traded Joe Ryan and picked up a major prospect close to the equivelent of Jenkins or multiple highly ranked prospects with the ability to fill spaces with players making the minimum and performing decently enough. And you don't even have to do a complete teardown... you can keep Buxton and build a team with young TALENT around him and it would win baseball games. We have precedent... we can all see it happening almost consistently with other clubs as you point out. 

It's not just about developing talent that the Twins utilize on the field until they are traded or reach free agency.

It's not just for the direct benefit on the field. It's also about the indirect benefit of raising the TRADE VALUE through development.

If you are promoting young talent successfully... you will also need young talent to trade at the deadline when it works. This means you got to keep stocking those shelves. 

If you strip mine developing players for parts for MARGINAL theoretical gains today... you intentionally cap their TRADE VALUE. You don't develop them fully when you strip mine them for parts and you do it during their prime development years. It's like refusing to talk to a baby during the time when they are learning so fast that you could be teaching them english, spanish and french at the same time. Why would you cement anyone at age 25 by taking away the things they need some experience to work on. 

It's doable. You and I both see it and it would fit within our financial constraints and every should know that we are going to have financial constraints. 

You just outlined a major portion of how these teams continue to put a very high quality product on the field despite a huge revenue deficit!

I was thinking the exact same thing about Ryan as I wrote the previous post.  IDK if it's true that they were offered Tolle and Arias but let's use that decision to forego that trade to compare and contrast.  Instead of extending Joe Ryan, it's quite possible Tolle will be better for more years at far less money.  Of course, we don't know that this will happen, but this type of exchange is what teams like Milwaukee or Minnesota have to do to combat the revenue disadvantage.  Of course, Arias is one of the top 10 prospects in the game and he is a middle infielder which the Twins are short on.   That alone would be a big swing in the potential to build a contender but let's take this a step further.

The really interesting part is that this type of trade and this practice makes it feasible to spend on free agents.  You might even be able to afford a Joe Ryan "type" player by making such a trade.  In other words, they could have had both.  That might be a stretch but the concept is reasonable.

The Twins changed direction in the middle of a rebuild.  It's also quite possible they could have gotten Eyanson or Lagrange for Jeffers.  Instead, they gave up a couple pretty darn good prospects for a sub 500 team twice as likely to not make the playoffs than to make the playoffs.  Tampa and Milwaukee do occasionally trade away prospects but as you point out they are able to because they maximize their assets by selling high and continually developing assets.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

You just outlined a major portion of how these teams continue to put a very high quality product on the field despite a huge revenue deficit!

I was thinking the exact same thing about Ryan as I wrote the previous post.  IDK if it's true that they were offered Tolle and Arias but let's use that decision to forego that trade to compare and contrast.  Instead of extending Joe Ryan, it's quite possible Tolle will be better for more years at far less money.  Of course, we don't know that this will happen, but this type of exchange is what teams like Milwaukee or Minnesota have to do to combat the revenue disadvantage.  Of course, Arias is one of the top 10 prospects in the game and he is a middle infielder which the Twins are short on.   That alone would be a big swing in the potential to build a contender but let's take this a step further.

The really interesting part is that this type of trade and this practice makes it feasible to spend on free agents.  You might even be able to afford a Joe Ryan "type" player by making such a trade.  In other words, they could have had both.  That might be a stretch but the concept is reasonable.

The Twins changed direction in the middle of a rebuild.  It's also quite possible they could have gotten Eyanson or Lagrange for Jeffers.  Instead, they gave up a couple pretty darn good prospects for a sub 500 team twice as likely to not make the playoffs than to make the playoffs.  Tampa and Milwaukee do occasionally trade away prospects but as you point out they are able to because they maximize their assets by selling high and continually developing assets.

If the trade was actually offered. I know that there is some sort of confirmation out there but I still reserve the right to say if. If that trade was offered... in hindsight it looks terrible. Tolle has stufffffff! 

However... I'm still not going to blame Falvey or Zoll for not taking the deal at the time if this was indeed a deal offered.

Because I'm not sure what the reasoning was. 

1. Maybe they thought they could get a better return for Ryan in the off season with more teams involved. 

2. Neither Tolle or Arias were as highly valued as they are now. Arias at 20 years old rose from 76th to 3rd overall since the trade deadline. Payton Tolle was the 16th ranked prospect in Red Sox system in 2025. If they redid that 2025 ranking now. He's probably #2 behind Anthony and ahead of Arias. 

3. The trade deadline has to be chaotic... especially the trade deadline that the Twins had last year. Maybe they didn't have time to evaluate and reach consensus on it. Maybe #1 and #2 led to #3. 

Who knows... I wasn't in the room and I"m ok giving them the benefit of the doubt... But Yeah... you are exactly right when you said. 

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The really interesting part is that this type of trade and this practice makes it feasible to spend on free agents.  You might even be able to afford a Joe Ryan "type" player by making such a trade.  In other words, they could have had both.  That might be a stretch but the concept is reasonable.

It's not a stretch. The Joe Ryan money is then added to the available budget for free agent acquisitions with Tolle replacing Ryan... you have Tolle plus Josh Bell money to spend 15 million on a higher priced free agent acquisition than what Josh Bell cost... in theory because that 15 million acquisition still has to play better than the 7 million Josh Bell). But yeah... exactly... they could have had both! 

I also agree that something changed in the off-season. I have my suspicion but I have no proof but I do believe that they changed course. They didn't complete what they started at the deadline for whatever reason but I do believe with no proof that Falvey was going to do more selling. 

 I believe that buyers buy and seller sell. This team was in contention no matte how tenuos some of us feel about it. Making the playoffs is worth it and they needed pitching.

I worry about the loss of Hill. Hard throwing lefties are like Gold... See Peyton Tolle for example. However other than Hill they got deals done at reasonable prices and they added to a pitching staff that was finding some decent pieces but needed more to support what has been happening thus far.