Dear Pohlads: Don't Do This

54 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Good one! That money is not being spent. 

They are spending it now on Correa, Lopez, and Buxton?  That cheap talent will make it possible for them to keep the team together as Ryan / Ober / Duran / Jax / Alcala / Jeffers / Castro / Lewis, and Miranda all become more expensive.  

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins have their entire core locked up through at least 2027. Do you really think trading a couple top prospects hurts them that much in the long run? Do you not believe they can produce anymore prospects between now and 2027? 

My dream trade is packaging Emma, Festa, and Raya with whatever other lower prospects is needed to get Tarik Skubal. Is that a move that is significantly hurting their long-term World Series prospects to just help this 1 year? What about Emma for Snell? Is trading 1 top-100 prospect really going to hurt their long-term chances that significantly?

I just don't understand this idea that trading a top prospect or 2 is somehow going to just ruin their future years.

Interdivisional trade,  sounds like something very feasible chpettit.  Deadline deals are generally overpay.  Its offseason deals where you tend to get more equal value.  Giving up Emma Fest and Raya,  likely is hurting, but if you are going for it,  you will need at least 1 more good reliever so giving up another top 7 prospect maybe more.   I am also not sure Detroit would think those 3 are enough.  They would probably want to swap Jenkins for Rodriguez.    

The theory is if you are going for it,  you are probably trading for a #1 pitcher,  very expensive,  you are trading for an elite reliever,  still costly,  maybe uprgrading another reliever and possibly upgrading a bat.   You would likely be giving up 5-6 of your top 10 prospects and a couple of you 10-20 prospects as well.  Just look how much we gave for Mahle.   So when looking at it from that front,  yes you are using most of your ammo for mostly a 1 year increase in chances to get to the playoffs.  Prospects are prospects,  but who would have thought SWR would be providing the value he is to the team this year.  

1 hour ago, Trov said:

Well, we have seen many social media companies value increase in the market, but report that they are losing large amounts of cash each year, explain that. 

Startups are focused on growth. The Twins aren't growing. They can't add more baseball games to their schedule.

26 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Would have the front office given Correa, Lopez and Buxton those contracts if they knew ownership was going to cut spending immediately afterwards though?

To be clear, I'm not pointing fingers at the front office for making poor decisions, I could also even be talked into not pointing fingers at ownership for cutting payroll if there was better evidence they were actually losing money. But I will 100% point fingers at ownership for not having the foresight to see this coming and for having zero tact when communicating this with the fans. Why is Falvey always stuck having to answer these questions that should be answered by St. Peter and Joe Pohlad?

IDK.  My guess is Lopez and Buxton, Yes.  Correa, Maybe not.  I was not trying to comment on how they were spending the money.   Just responding to a poster that said the money saved via young talent was not being spent.

If I were the Pohlads, I would not let St Peter or Joe Pohlad answer questions because they have no moxie.    That's why Falvey "gets stuck" with it.  Would you let St. Peter speak to the media?

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

How many teams have ever traded for a #1 starter, elite reliever, another reliever, and an upgraded bat? Dodgers got Scherzer and Turner a couple years ago. It cost the Dodgers their top 2 prospects, and a top 15-20 prospect (and a random throw in). I think our disagreement is in the definition of "going for it." Has there ever been a team he "went for it" the way you're describing? 

Blake Snell can be had for 1 prospect (look at Scherzer and Verlander deals last year). If "going for it" has to mean what you suggested then the team isn't close enough to even think about doing that. But, generally speaking, teams that are going for it aren't going after all that. If the Twins think they need a #1, an elite reliever, a second reliever, and an upgraded bat to have an increased chance at the WS this year they should be leaning towards trading some expiring deals instead of trying to add anything.

What was the dodger salary that year?  How good of a team were they?  They were an elite teaming adding to it.  If the Twins added a #1 pitcher and an elite reliever they would still not be the favorites to win the world series.  That effectively is my point.  

14 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If the Twins added Skubal and Scott they'd be pretty close to the favorites. Certainly in the conversation. But we can agree to disagree on that.

I think Philly, Baltimore, Yankees and Dodgers would still be ranked higher.  Even if they are all in the same grouping you are looking at no better than 20% shot at a WS.  If you think this is the time to go all in fine.  I just think you will have better opportunities to go all in,  and likely in years where it is not an extreme sellers market.  

Now Baltimore getting Rogers.  

13 minutes ago, Eric Blonigen said:

I would assume they would be close to the favorites, maybe a half-step behind the Yankees in the AL. Baseball trade values, for what it’s worth, thinks this would be the price for two full seasons of Skubal, plus the remainder of this season for Skubal and Scott. Would you do that? Could work out great, or we could regret that for a decade. It would give us a very strong three year window.
 

 

Since Tarik is divisional rival,  and they don't have to trade,  and there seems to be a massive premium this trade season,  I think that calculator is a tad off.  How about 4 of our top 6 prospects to get those 2 players.  That is probably what you are looking at.  

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Considering the off field financial aspects are so important to a healthy payroll, I want them to hire some Fortune 500 financial genius or media or marketing hot-shot to run the team. So yeah, I'd let St. Peter talk until he puts his foot in his mouth one time too many.

I am it sure there is one too many times.  His ineptitude with the media has not been his undoing yet so I doubt it ever will.  Falvey is plenty sharp at managing the financial aspect of the business.  A marketing guru would be great.  It sure seems like they could use some help growing revenue.   I was at the Milwaukee game with almost 42K fans.  More nights like that would be great for this franchise.

15 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

We have article after article on TD about them being cheap.  Has there ever been even one article that actually compared the Twins percentage of revenue spent on payroll to the other 29 teams?  Cheap is a relative term, right.  Isn't anyone here interested in how they have actually compared over a decade or two?  The amount of criticism by TD writers without any objective measure suggests an unwillingness to present what has actually happened.   Why wouldn't just one writer here put a little effort into illustrating what has actually happened given the amount of play this topic gets here?

If they were real journalists we'd call it lazy journalism.

7 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

If they were real journalists we'd call it lazy journalism.

It’s not a product of laziness.  These guys are devoted and put in a lot of effort.  We had articles almost daily bemoaning the reduction in spending in some form or another so there is plenty of effort.  It’s a product of a total lack of objectivity which would not be so bad if it was not presented as a factual account.

The BAM money is a glowing example.  Had we been set to receive BAM money last year, and not increased payroll, I would bet the writers here would have been all over the BAM money angle.  We had dozen of articles that completely ignored the loss of revenue from BAM even after I brought it to their attention several times.  There is absolutely no way that every author here who wrote these articles missed the numerous times I brought it up.    

This is not a last year issue.  There has not been a topic with more interest and more debate over the years than spending and there is not a more common theme than “cheap Pohlads”.  Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been one article comparing Twins percentage of revenue devoted to payroll to the rest of the league.  How is a topic with so much interest never addressed in an objective way by the writers here?  It’s not even hard to put together.  I would think the same writers that are so distraught with Twins spending would be eager to illustrate to the world that the Pohlads are cheap instead of just insisting it's so.

22 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

It’s not a product of laziness.  These guys are devoted and put in a lot of effort.  We had articles almost daily bemoaning the reduction in spending in some form or another so there is plenty of effort.  It’s a product of a total lack of objectivity which would not be so bad if it was not presented as a factual account.

The BAM money is a glowing example.  Had we been set to receive BAM money last year, and not increased payroll, I would bet the writers here would have been all over the BAM money angle.  We had dozen of articles that completely ignored the loss of revenue from BAM even after I brought it to their attention several times.  There is absolutely no way that every author here who wrote these articles missed the numerous times I brought it up.    

This is not a last year issue.  There has not been a topic with more interest and more debate over the years than spending and there is not a more common theme than “cheap Pohlads”.  Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been one article comparing Twins percentage of revenue devoted to payroll to the rest of the league.  How is a topic with so much interest never addressed in an objective way by the writers here?  It’s not even hard to put together.  I would think the same writers that are so distraught with Twins spending would be eager to illustrate to the world that the Pohlads are cheap instead of just insisting it's so.

It's not that they missed the times you, or others brought the topic up, it's just that acknowledging it didn't fit their preferred narrative, or they didn't believe it would get clicks so they ignored it.  Writing is about clicks these days.  And yes, journalists are lazy.  With the advent of the internet you have multiple times as many folks covering a given team or player or subject as you would have had 40 years ago.  One person "reports" something, gets clicks and everybody else "reports" the same thing, using the first person as the "source."  Kind of sad.

I’m not surprised that no moves were made. Falvey has made it clear they are aiming ongoing competitive success and all deals are made with an eye toward the future. With so many extra playoff teams I think the trade deadline now is a poor way to improve your club as choices are fewer and prices are higher. 
 

The time to address the obvious need for starting pitching was last off season. I don’t think it can be overstated how bad last offseason was for this franchise.