Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    For Good or Bad, On Field and Off, Twins Franchise Looks Ready to Lean Back Into the 'Twins Way'

    Get ready for a return to the grit and fundamentals (and low payrolls) of the late Metrodome years. The Twins are making it clear through their words and actions that they're keen on taking a trip down memory lane.

    Nick Nelson
    Image courtesy of Raymond Carlin III-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

    Comparing the Twins team that won a playoff series in 2023 to the last one that did, 21 years earlier in 2002, exposes a sharp contrast. 

    That 2002 group of players had come up together, honing their fundamentals and mastering the elements of "small ball" under Tom Kelly's tutelage to earn a distinct reputation, which only intensified when Ron Gardenhire took over. Those Twins gained advantages on the margins, played superior defense, and ran the bases aggressively. (Maybe over-aggressively, with the worst success rate in baseball.)

    Back then, and in the decade or so that followed, "The Twins Way" was a grounding set of principles. Now it's little more than a street sign outside of Target Field. 

    The 2023 Twins were a hodgepodge of outside additions and graduated prospects from different waves, led by an expensive free-agent mercenary in Carlos Correa. Under Rocco Baldelli, this team aimed to win with strikeouts on the mound and home runs at the plate; defense and baserunning were far from specializations. Rocco's boys weren't laying down a lot of sac bunts.

    Another stark difference between these two division-winning clubs: payroll. In 2002, they ranked 26th out of 30 teams at $41 million. No one on that mean was making any serious money. In 2023 the Twins set a franchise record with a $153 million payroll, ranking 17th in the majors. 

    Reading between the lines, and in some cases just taking their words at face value, it becomes clear that Twins leadership is longing for a return to the good old days of "The Twins Way" — or at least an evolution of it — on multiple levels.

    Getting Back to Fundamentals
    At the end of the season, Derek Falvey cast his vision for the next iteration of the Minnesota Twins: “We’re going to be a really good base running team, we’re going to be on the details, we’re going to be leaning into the fundamentals,” he said. “It would be surprising if any manager candidate said that they didn’t care about those things.” 

    With all the nostalgia for a different era packed in those words, you might wonder if the Twins thought about dialing up Gardenhire and inquiring about reunion. Or if not Gardy, maybe his favorite student. Sure enough, the Twins have reportedly interviewed Nick Punto for the managerial vacancy, alongside a few other candidates. 

    For those who are too young to remember his heyday, Punto featured (arguably too prominently) on the late Metrodome teams, serving as the embodiment of grit and hustle. He was a switch-hitting utilityman who happily handled fast-changing assignments, put the ball in play but hit for zero power, and routinely slid headfirst into first base. MLB's Cut4 once honored him with the "Unnecessary Hustle Award." White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen coined the term "piranha" to describe his ilk.

    Under Falvey's leadership, the Twins have gravitated very far from that profile in terms of their identity. But as you look ahead to 2026, you can already see some piranha-esque players written into the plans: Luke Keaschall, Alan Roden and Austin Martin to name a few. You wonder if Minnesota's ultimate managerial choice or offseason player pickups will continue to trend in this direction.

    I kind of think so. Because here's the thing: these scrappy hustle type players tend to command a lot less money than the established big sluggers.

    A New Norm for Twins Spending?
    Whether or not you choose to believe them, the Pohlads have been clear and unflinching in their assertion that their financial state of affairs had become entirely unsustainable. Meeting the demands of a payroll in the $140 million range with reduced revenue streams was pushing them deep into debt, which they brought in minority investors to alleviate. Despite the appearance from the outside that the Twin Cities market should be able to support roughly middle-of-the-pack spending, the Pohlads insist that is not the case. 

    Comments about "right-sizing" the payroll, and Tom Pohlad telling the Star Tribune recently that his family has "repeatedly chosen to invest beyond what the Twins’ revenues can support in an effort to field a competitive team," all point to one thing: a new norm for Twins payroll, or more accurately, a return to the old norm. 

    No, I don't expect the Twins to go back to a $40 million payroll. But in 2002, when the overall benchmark was much lower, that figure represented 60% of the MLB average. Today the same percentage would equate to about a $100 million payroll — a renewed baseline I suspect they'll fall short of in an all-out rebuild year in 2026.

    In fairness, it's definitely possible to win under such constraints, with the right baseball leadership. The Twins in 2002 were proof enough. The Rays have been doing it for many years. More relevantly: the Cleveland Guardians had a $100 million payroll this year and rallied to reach the postseason while the Twins floundered and underperformed. Cleveland has been a model of low-budget success, fueled by player development and savvy acquisitions. They aren't high-priced or high-powered, but they win on aggressiveness, cohesion and fundamentals. 

    Despite coming from that organization, Falvey has led Minnesota far astray from such characteristics. Everything I'm seeing now leads me to believe he's now looking to lead them back. For better or worse.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, SS
    The 22-year-old went 2-for-5 on Friday night, his fourth straight multi-hit game. Heading into the week, he was hitting .246/.328/.404 (.732). Four games later, he is hitting .303/.361/.447 (.808).

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    39 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

    You got 2 of the 5 games, or 40%, wrong. Pretty significant!  I find it interesting that you shared your statistic without actually looking it up.  Seems like you're operating on assumptions because you want them to be true, rather than whether they are actually true. 

    Please share these studies.  I tried and cannot find a single study that shows that the one and only metric for determining playoff success is the quantity of home runs and that things like pitching, home field advantage, defense, timely hitting, etc have no impact in winning playoff games.  The fact that more homers makes you more likely to win is true in every baseball game ever and is not special to the playoffs. And again, I've shown the data that the best regular season HR hitting teams do not win in the playoffs.   Building a team solely focused on power does not translate to success, as Falvey era Twins fans know full well.

    Each playoff year is a small sample size so meaningful trend data cannot be gleaned from it - this is the "playoffs are a crapshoot" theory.  Again it's interesting when saber guys just totally ignore SSS when it suits their argument.  Hitting home runs helps you win; building teams that can hit HRs and do nothing else well does not.  

    I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

    3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

    I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

    That piece supports my argument, thank you! You cannot say "the playoffs are a crapshoot" and "the only way to win in the playoffs is to outslug your opponent" at the same time - those 2 things are in direct conflict with each other.  You can have one or the other, not both. 

    The point which I'm obviously struggling to communicate clearly is that, if the playoffs are a crapshoot and you are a middle market team your best bet is to field a well rounded team, focusing more on "cheap" skills like defense, bullpen, and fundamentals, while strategically investing in a couple of the more expensive power bats, and hope that your team gets hot at the right time.  

    9 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

    I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

    I'm going to keep that link on hand everytime I have to remind people that the playoffs are just a random small sample we've put a **** ton of importance on.

    But it is still just a random small sample.  Prone to all the crapshooty randomness of any other small sample.

    4 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

    That piece supports my argument, thank you! You cannot say "the playoffs are a crapshoot" and "the only way to win in the playoffs is to outslug your opponent" at the same time - those 2 things are in direct conflict with each other.  You can have one or the other, not both. 

    The point which I'm obviously struggling to communicate clearly is that, if the playoffs are a crapshoot and you are a middle market team your best bet is to field a well rounded team, focusing more on "cheap" skills like defense, bullpen, and fundamentals, while strategically investing in a couple of the more expensive power bats, and hope that your team gets hot at the right time.  

    I think you're missing the point.  Yes....the playoffs are a crapshoot.  Yes....you can lose with any build you want to go with.  You seem to acknowledge the issue here at the end of your post, but you've also been disagreeing with it for four pages for some reason:

    Building a team with no power is going to take away a major element of winning games in any sample.  In the playoffs you don't go up against a bunch of 8th guys out of the pen or 5th starters.  So a team that relies on scraping by with 4 hits to get one run is going to give themselves a harder road to win.  (Because the quality of your opponent's pitching is going to reduce those chances in a small window)

    It can still be done, but what is being argued that you are disagreeing with is that a team full of a bunch of slap hitters with no investment in power is taking away a major weapon in the playoffs. That's all.  The ability to field a lineup that can hit bombs is a vital element to winning.

    On 10/18/2025 at 5:31 AM, old nurse said:

    You can question a comment. Now try knowing understanding developing people’s talent. It is neither linear nor does it have to be age related.. a lot of good players develop  late 

    My question mark was I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.

    "So you are saying you son’s know what a major league starter hits,  "

    The best I could come up with was my son knows what a major league starter hits? What does this have to do with my son, or what a major league starter hits? 

    And you are 100% correct player development isn't linear or about age. Because usually good/great players are pretty much like that from the start (group 1), others take a little time (group 2), and others take longer (group 3), but what we know or should know is that that the best, most consistent, longest tenure players come from groups 1 and 2. And yes you can rattle off the Brian Dozier's of the world, who was not good until age 26 (majors at age 25) and was basically done at age 30, but for every Dozier there are hundreds if not thousands of Keirsey, Gasper and Mike Ford's of the world. And ignoring that reality is well

     

    19 hours ago, ashbury said:

    A simple "it was a poor analogy that wasn't even central to my point, I withdraw it, let's move on," would have sufficed. 😀

    The question was asked why the Twins pivoted from spending money. It was an obtuse analogy, not a poor one.  They had 2 star players in Correa and Buxton, traded for or signed 3 players. They gambled and they hoped by winning that the team would be back to sellouts, a full house.  Drawing a hight three of a kind in draw is long odds. You fail, you pivot from the high stakes, and go back to penny ante. 

    12 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

    It can still be done, but what is being argued that you are disagreeing with is that a team full of a bunch of slap hitters with no investment in power is taking away a major weapon in the playoffs. That's all.  The ability to field a lineup that can hit bombs is a vital element to winning.

    Yeah we're on the same page.  I'm saying don't build a lineup with no investment in power; but also don't build a lineup by only investing in power.  And that mid market teams in the era of extreme payroll inequality can't afford to build a successful power-only team anyway (and even if they could, the Yankees and Dodgers and others will almost always do it better).   I think even Falvey has realized this by now.   Better in my opinion to identify some "cheap" competitive advantages, get to the playoffs, and hope your team gets hot in the crapshoot that is October.  I used to loathe the 2000s Twins for doing this but with expanded playoffs, extreme payroll disparities, and self-imposed payroll constraints, it's not an unreasonable approach.

    23 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

    I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

    Sure, whether it's elite power, elite on base skills, elite pitching or a combination of any elite skills, there is more than one way to win a World Series. 

    But it's a crapshoot only for the elite teams. Only twice in the last 30 years has a team outside the top ten in spending won the World Series.

    So as long as you're willing to pay elite players, regardless of their specific skill set, you get to play this particular game of chance.

    15 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

    Sure, whether it's elite power, elite on base skills, elite pitching or a combination of any elite skills, there is more than one way to win a World Series. 

     

    But it's a crapshoot only for the elite teams. Only twice in the last 30 years has a team outside the top ten in spending won the World Series.

    So as long as you're willing to pay elite players, regardless of their specific skill set, you get a chance to play this particular game of chance.

    Ya, that's the depressing part if you care about the WS more than the journey..... Because you aren't winning the WS unless you are a big spender most likely. 

    Let's put it this way: There is only one Twin would be a starter on the Dodgers, and that is Buxton.

    They are so overwhelmingly talented that even with SSS in the Playoffs they are HEAVY favorites to win the WS.  The Twins are utterly non-competitive no matter what "methodology" for roster construction you want to come up with.

    MLB needs a MASSIVE overhaul in the new CBA or the sport is doomed for the smaller market fans.




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...