Ben Rortvedt Elects Free Agency

[MeleMouth]

8 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

My assumption is that there is no way he can be specific in regards to what his words mean. 

I simply take it as a declaration of intent to go for it because I can't imagine those words to mean anything else. 

I then take that assumed declaration of intent to mean that our starters will be leading the way and we won't be trading Joe Ryan for prospects.

I also assume (my assumptions get a little less solid at this point) that there is a decent chance that Larnach will be back.

I also assume that if Larnach is back. It will be primarily DH work and I also assume that means Martin will be back to handcuff to Larnach and I also assume that barring injury... Jenkins will start in AAA because OF will be set with Buxton, Keashcall, Emma, Larnach and Martin. 

I also assume that they will add free agents to improve our chances... Primarily Bullpen but possible 1B or 2b. However, I have no assumption that the free agents we are able to acquire will be top of pile so I then assume that the free agents that we do add will be the same mid-pack passed over by the big team additions that we typically do on one year contracts.  

Ultimately... Tom Pohlad will need to show us what he means.  

So it's just once more with feeling?

[MackMan]

4 minutes ago, MeleMouth said:

So it's just once more with feeling?

Yes.....Yes. That is the correct answer to this questions

[thelanges5]

On 10/20/2026 at 11:40 AM, Chembry said:

Nothing against Ben Rortvedt, but here is where I am at...We know San Diego had significant interest in Larnach at the deadline.  We don't know what the Twins were asking for in return at that time, but can probably speculate they were looking for MLB RP in return, especially given the nixed Abreu deal. 

Since SDP now has Salas up and had some success (albeit only 39 ABs), they may be willing to move either Fermin or Campusano.  MLBTR predicted Fermin to make $2.6M (Arb2) is under team control through 2029, while Campusano is predicted to made $1.7M (Arb2) and under team control through 2028.  Neither is going to light up the stat sheet offensively, but both are quite good at controlling the running game.  Plus would be nice to get something of value for Larnach.  

I would like to keep Jackson as depth.  If he isn't added back on the 40 man he can choose minor league free agency.  Maybe they can bring him back on a minor league deal if that happens, instead of going through arbitration. 

 

Larnach for Fermin. Sounds good to me. 

[MackMan]

1 minute ago, thelanges5 said:

Larnach for Fermin. Sounds good to me. 

Hell, let's add to this to help make roster construction easier. Package Lewis/Martin and Ober with him. Then we can take one of their lower level prospects as well. Seems like a win for them and us. 

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, thelanges5 said:

Larnach for Fermin. Sounds good to me. 

Anthony Vilar has a good defensive reputation, hits lefty and is Rule 5 eligible. He only had a 712 OPS in the PCL, unfortunately.

[DJL44]

I still think cash considerations to the White Sox for Joey Bart is fine for 2027. The Sox have Teel, Quero and Romo on the 40-man roster.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, MeleMouth said:

Help me out here. When Tom Pohlad says, "we intend to take the offseason and meaningfully invest,” do you think he even knows which players will be available or what they are likely to cost? It seems to me he's just sayin' stuff.

Here's the least cynical interpretation I can come up with.  Tom may leave the identification of players to acquire to his front office, but he knows the dollar value above which ownership has to sign off on, and he knows the proposed deals that he (or his predecessor Joe) turned thumbs down on in the past half-decade, whatever those may have been.  He is prepared to go $X million higher now and approve some trades or FA acquisitions that wouldn't have passed muster two years ago.  Now it's up to Zoll to come up with moves that fit the new parameters.

How's that?

What it has to do with Ben Rortvedt, I haven't the slightest idea.

[MeleMouth]

58 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Here's the least cynical interpretation I can come up with.  Tom may leave the identification of players to acquire to his front office, but he knows the dollar value above which ownership has to sign off on, and he knows the proposed deals that he (or his predecessor Joe) turned thumbs down on in the past half-decade, whatever those may have been.  He is prepared to go $X million higher now and approve some trades or FA acquisitions that wouldn't have passed muster two years ago.  Now it's up to Zoll to come up with moves that fit the new parameters.

How's that?

What it has to do with Ben Rortvedt, I haven't the slightest idea.

That makes sense to me, but it is unclear to me how he can have confidence that they will be able to get players that will make them competitive (definition of "competitive" is unknown) next year without knowing the players or their cost.

Rortvedt - sure, sounds good, if he's better than Alex Jackson.

[Riverbrian]

17 minutes ago, MeleMouth said:

That makes sense to me, but it is unclear to me how he can have confidence that they will be able to get players that will make them competitive (definition of "competitive" is unknown) next year without knowing the players or their cost.

Rortvedt - sure, sounds good, if he's better than Alex Jackson.

They can't. 

Because of... 

Free Will 

That's why he can never be specific... that's why he can't declare payroll is going up to 180 million. That's why he can't reveal targets... he can't declare if acquisitions are via trade or free agent.

Free Will... A free agent gets to choose if he signs with a club. The other team gets to choose if they will trade a player. No matter Tom Says... we should never assume that they will aggressively over pay in a trade and they will not aggressively over pay on a free agent contract because those acts in themselves are almost worse than not acquiring a player.  

He can say it... Doing it is much harder. As Ash said... They'll have budget guidelines after that it's up to Zoll or whoever he has making the phone calls to try to land the targets they have identified. 

All Pohlad can do is stand in front of the public and declare support from ownership. It still doesn't meant that signing Goldschmidt to a one year deal at 5 million is all they are able to do.   

Rortvedt probably won't break the budget.  

 

[MeleMouth]

4 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

They can't. 

Because of... 

Free Will 

That's why he can never be specific... that's why he can't declare payroll is going up to 180 million. That's why he can't reveal targets... he can't declare if acquisitions are via trade or free agent.

Free Will... A free agent gets to choose if he signs with a club. The other team gets to choose if they will trade a player. No matter Tom Says... we should never assume that they will aggressively over pay in a trade and they will not aggressively over pay on a free agent contract because those acts in themselves are almost worse than not acquiring a player.  

He can say it... Doing it is much harder. As Ash said... They'll have budget guidelines after that it's up to Zoll or whoever he has making the phone calls to try to land the targets they have identified. 

All Pohlad can do is stand in front of the public and declare support from ownership. It still doesn't meant that signing Goldschmidt to a one year deal at 5 million is all they are able to do.   

Rortvedt probably won't break the budget.  

 

I'm tired of big talk, especially from someone who doesn't even have details about what he's confident about. "I don't know how it''ll play out, but I'm confident that we're going to be good" is malarkey. Actions are much more truthful. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly and go get a couple of big sticks.

[Riverbrian]

38 minutes ago, MeleMouth said:

I'm tired of big talk, especially from someone who doesn't even have details about what he's confident about. "I don't know how it''ll play out, but I'm confident that we're going to be good" is malarkey. Actions are much more truthful. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly and go get a couple of big sticks.

It's how PR Works and we demand PR be fed to us because we don't react well if we don't get it fed to us. 

A presidential candidate can't campaign by saying. Well... It's difficult... I'll do my best but to be honest... the sides are too far apart and nobody is working with each other with such deep divisions. It takes millions of dollars to run a campaign and those who contribute are not doing it for free. You all need to understand that I have to naviagate all of this before I can get to the issues that concern you. In the meantime, we will tell you what to be concerned about. Don't worry about it because you won't know what we are stuffing into these bills anyway.  

If he or she said that... he or she wouldn't get elected.

The candidate has to lie to us because we demand that the candidate lie to us or they won't get elected.

So he stands there and says the researched stuff that we respond to. He tells us that he is for the people and it's the people who make America great and he or she will promise to balance the budget, work across the aisle, lower taxes and build better schools and how the other candidate only cares about corporations, doesn't like old people and kicks puppies.   

And that works every time so they do it every time. 

You see it... I see it. Most people don't see it. They fall for it and that's why universities are pumping PR Grads , marketing grads and sending them into the workforce to manipulate us. 

At least until AI starts doing the manipulation and gets better at it before it turns around and kills us all.  

 

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

At least until AI starts doing the manipulation and gets better at it before it turns around and kills us all.  

At which point the joke will be on the AI because it's the people that make America great, or so I've heard.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, MeleMouth said:

Rortvedt - sure, sounds good, if he's better than Alex Jackson.

He's not.

He's not worse either.  They're within a gnat's eyelash of each other, when things like BABIP normalize over time.  There's an upper tier of fungible catchers - good but not mind-boggling defenders, bad but not unplayable hitters, no remaining minor league options  - and they're probably both in it.

[DocBauer]

Bo Naylor on a bounce back season anyone?

[MeleMouth]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

It's how PR Works and we demand PR be fed to us because we don't react well if we don't get it fed to us. 

A presidential candidate can't campaign by saying. Well... It's difficult... I'll do my best but to be honest... the sides are too far apart and nobody is working with each other with such deep divisions. It takes millions of dollars to run a campaign and those who contribute are not doing it for free. You all need to understand that I have to naviagate all of this before I can get to the issues that concern you. In the meantime, we will tell you what to be concerned about. Don't worry about it because you won't know what we are stuffing into these bills anyway.  

If he or she said that... he or she wouldn't get elected.

The candidate has to lie to us because we demand that the candidate lie to us or they won't get elected.

So he stands there and says the researched stuff that we respond to. He tells us that he is for the people and it's the people who make America great and he or she will promise to balance the budget, work across the aisle, lower taxes and build better schools and how the other candidate only cares about corporations, doesn't like old people and kicks puppies.   

And that works every time so they do it every time. 

You see it... I see it. Most people don't see it. They fall for it and that's why universities are pumping PR Grads , marketing grads and sending them into the workforce to manipulate us. 

At least until AI starts doing the manipulation and gets better at it before it turns around and kills us all.  

 

Increasingly, messaging is about manipulating people's feelings instead of giving them information that will help them better decide for themselves. Maybe that's politics, where decisions can be made by popularity instead of by a method to prove which ideas are better, and people increasingly vote by deciding which side they hate least. I would argue that's one of the greatest weaknesses of our current system - how people are given things to "feel" instead of information to know - but that's a different topic than sports like baseball.

In sports, ideas can actually be proven, at least to a much greater degree, by wins and losses. There is certainly an element of luck, but over time that becomes smaller. To my knowledge, no championship has yet been won by hype. Hype can occasionally persuade a good player to sign with a team when that player might not have otherwise considered that team, but that's uncommon. Hype doesn't hit, catch, or throw the ball. Hype can be a little more helpful for fan communication, but even then, it doesn't work very well, at least judged by the Twins' slide down the MLB attendance rankings. People like winning first, but in the absence of winning, they will support a team that looks like it's working on a plan that they understand, but if you just give them a bunch of hype, cheap beer, and frequently-changing plans that were pretty ambiguous to begin with, they'll just tune you out.

You can put together a few people who like to tell themselves they are awesome, like Royce Lewis and Tom Pohlad (the Star Tribune regularly showed a picture of the two of them grinning with self-satisfaction at each other, like trust fund bros whose parents bought them matching off-road jeeps to drive between their fraternity and their internships with their uncles downtown), and then everybody in their organization feels like they need to participate in the self-glossing, but at the end of the season hype becomes worthless and we can see who has a below average weighted runs created stat and a losing record, despite all of their big talk.

And, in politics, I guess I wish someone would tell us things are hard, instead of an increasing number of politicians acting like things can be fixed simply and often in one day, often by just hating and punishing their neighbor-enemies more, while the deficit keeps exploding and things actually seem like they get worse instead of closer to being fixed. It's been demonstrated that easy, optimistic solutions are about as rare as unicorns, yet people seem to want them more than ever.

[stringer bell]

2 hours ago, DocBauer said:

Bo Naylor on a bounce back season anyone?

If Bo Naylor didn’t get tohit against the Twins, his stats would be Kreidler-like. 

[DJL44]

10 hours ago, MeleMouth said:

Increasingly, messaging is about manipulating people's feelings instead of giving them information that will help them better decide for themselves. Maybe that's politics, where decisions can be made by popularity instead of by a method to prove which ideas are better, and people increasingly vote by deciding which side they hate least. I would argue that's one of the greatest weaknesses of our current system - how people are given things to "feel" instead of information to know - but that's a different topic than sports 

My only disagreement is your use of the word “increasingly”. Same as it ever was. Politics has always been about slogans, empty promises and making sure voters don’t think very hard.

[MeleMouth]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

My only disagreement is your use of the word “increasingly”. Same as it ever was. Politics has always been about slogans, empty promises and making sure voters don’t think very hard.

I used to think that about politics, also, but several years ago I watched a documentary about the 1968 Nixon-Humphrey campaign, and, accustomed to modern political discourse with an emphasis on the "dis," was surprised by the amount of logic and coherent ideas that were communicated by both candidates and particularly by Nixon, who for years has been considered to be the poster child of the lying, deceitful politician who uses voters' fears to win election. A documentary will contain only excerpts, of course, but it was surprising how much higher was Nixon's amount of calm logic in comparison to what is seen today. 

It's certainly not zero to one, where things were pure and now they're corrupt, but today's levels of lying, fear, and hate in politics are unprecedented in our lives. Another example would be how Ford lost a lot of votes in the 1976 election with a slip-up that sounded like he was understating the level of Soviet control over Central and Eastern Europe. That would be a cute nothingburger in the deluge of intentional misstatements today, such as how voters completely ignored a 2016 statement about Putin by a candidate in 2016: “He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.”

Getting back to baseball, maybe that style can win election in politics where you don't have to prove the validity of what you say, but sports gives prompt feedback and while hype might sell a few tickets for a while, intelligence and hard work are going to beat hype at least 99 times out of 100. One more story: the Brewers are currently up 1-0 in the World Series, but just last year their owner was criticized for saying it was not his job to deliver a World Series. He faced backlash for that statement and perhaps the backlash caused him to increase payroll from $123M in 2025 to $142M in 2026, but the key point is that an owner of a team that was regularly making the playoffs did the opposite of hyping his team's chances. Instead, they kept doing the work to put a good team on the field, going to the NLCS last year and the World Series this year - after losing their exalted POBO and highly-regarded manager, and trading several of their best starters and relievers*.

*NOTE: Milwaukee didn't trade ALL of their starters or relievers; just the ones who were getting expensive that they thought could bring back top prospects.