The Twins Are Left With 3 Questions to Answer as Winter Meetings End

Honestly this off season has went exactly like I thought it would, for once I'm right. If they make a couple of trades they might sign a low tier FA or two. Most all of the moves will be inhouse. Not sure how anyone can be surprised. 

Just tired of reading about payroll slashing and "right sizing."

18 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

Re: the part I bolded -- I agree. I posted a variation on this elsewhere and I'll keep saying it, a little differently this time. In an organization the size of an MLB team, "budgets" are better described as "spending plans." Organizations make adjustments all the time. For us on TD to make declarative statements that they have to get under x dollars is working with incomplete data. Unless I'm misremembering something, last year's decrease wasn't created by jettisoning players -- it was created by letting free agents walk. The only salary of substance that they traded was Polanco's, and they largely respent that immediately.

Whether or not we agree (and I'm in the agree camp), they think they are close enough to contending that they aren't going to trade the big three. The alternatives are such that I don't see them trading Vazquez. Why eat salary and pay $5M for someone else? I could perhaps see them trading Paddack, but they have also shown a reluctance to go into a season with two rookies in the rotation. And given the price of pitching, I think they'll take the approach that when it comes to veterans, $7.5M on Paddack is as good of a risk as $4M on another Bundy. With the presence of a Lee and Martin, I think Castro is the closest thing to redundancy, and  his $6.4M could be redeployed to a RH bat of some sort to play 1B or be an extra OF. To me, he seems the most likely to go. 

As to 2026, let's quantify it. Pay cut for Correa: $5M. FA losses: Vazquez ($10M), Paddack ($7.5M) and Castro ($6.4M). That quartet of changes is $28.9M. Topa's club option is for $2M -- either he's dropped at that price, or he's worth keeping. Tonkin will be 36 as he enters his S3 season and Stewart 34 entering his S2, so they are very possibly non-tenders. Again, if they are worth tendering, it's because they pitched well. So very likely $30M or more freed up. If that's not enough to cover increases for Ober, Ryan, Jax, Duran, Alcala, Sands, Jeffers, Lewis, Miranda and Larnach, that's a good problem to have.  

I fully agree with your post. I do see next off season as having a quite a bit more happening. Depending on how Festa, Matthews Raya progress there will either have to be extensions of Ober and Ryan or some trades could happen. If Ryan and Ober pitch well their trade value will be very high. Secondly next off season will have the need of finding a catcher to replace Vazquez.

I feel that this team is basically in place. I think the FO feels the same way. Now with all of that said, I think we'll have a decent team but I don't think this is a playoff team. We haven't improved,aside from being a year older which may help,while other teams have gotten better.

34 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

How do they conflict? They paid for good players that helped them win when they thought they could afford them and the fans were happy. Now one year later they think they can't afford them so the logical outcome is that they would win less and the fans aren't happy. We as fans didn't know this was going to happen then, if we did know they were going to start 'right sizing', most people here would have said a 10 year deal for Correa with a de-escalating payroll would be foolish.

The conflict stems from the 2022 Twins ownership having absolutely no clue or care that the 2023 Twins ownership (who was the SAME GUY) was going to demand payroll cuts.

Yeah, it is a harsh reaction. Joe Pohald, Dave St. Peter and anyone else involved in this situation have no business running any company let alone a professional sports team. This was pure and utter incompetence. So now, why would anyone want people who were that out of touch with reality making decisions that will impact this organization's future?

Not at all what I was asking.  I am saying that many posters have been very against trading these players and say we are better served by keeping them.   It can't be true we would be better off without them and better off with them.

For these contacts to be a detriment, we would have to cut productive players to keep them or if better players could be signed with the same money.  We don't have to get rid of productive players to keep them and these three players in question are reasonably productive so I am asking for specific logic as to why "they can't afford them" instead of an unsupported declaration they can't afford them.  In other words, I am not trying to be combative, I am simply asking for you to support your position with something other than "they can't afford them".  

They could get rid of Correa and Buxton on a salary dump assuming they can find a way to get the no trade clauses waived.  For a present and future perspective, letting them go for nothing would be the equivalent to never having signed them,   Would you suggest they let them go for a salary dump?  Worst case scenario, they could trade Lopez for good prospects, elevate any payroll crunch and be better off than had we never signed him so how is any of this a net negative?

Fortunately I did not hold out much expectations for any additions/changes at these Winter meetings.  The highlight of the offseason might be the Rule V Major and minor league drafts.  We got more players in then we lost and we have to hope we uncover a hidden gem or two.    If form plays out there will be some minor activity in late January/early February - none of which will involve adding a bullpen arm.  Not that I am giving up on next season, just not expecting much of an offseason.   I was hoping we might add some speed and defense but we will see.      

10 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

What would change if every MLB team owner adapted a policy of operating at break-even?  Do you understand that the Twins relative ability to spend would actually be further eroded if all the owners were willing to forego every last dollar of profit.  The problem is not that teams care about profit.  The problem is revenue disparity.

Perhaps I missed it but It's just amazing that with all the strife about spending every off-season, not one TD writer has ever provided a meaningful account of how the Twins percentage of spending compares to other teams.  This is not that hard to do put together.  There are organizations that provide revenue figures for every team.  Yes, it's an estimate but the variables are relatively easy to estimate and the payroll numbers are very easy to put together.  Throw them in a spreadsheet and produce a percentage of revenue number.  Cmon TD writers.  Doesn't someone want to prove the Twins are cheap.

It's the same old song. Defend defend and defend some more. Let's just sit back to wait and see. Then we'll sign a Luplow or who was the pitcher they got at the trade deadline? They're not cheap. They just buy at the dollar store. You get some really good deals there. Champagne dreams with a beer budget. Oh and there's no damn BAM money. Again. Plus less TV revenue. AGAIN. Season ticket sales lagging. Again. Seems to be a common theme here. I remember just this season. The Angels had 100,000 fans for a 3 game set vs the Twins. How? Not only are they cheap. They do a piss poor job of selling their product. And to do a comparison of how much they spend is ludicrous because 20 of the other 29 owners are cheap too. 

18 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The majority of posters on TD are very much against how Cleveland has built their rosters over the past 25 years even though they have had the success among teams in the bottom half of revenue

I'm not sure the majority of posters here are "against" how Cleveland has built their teams in recent years. Personally, I think Cleveland has done a great job remaining competitive while maximizing their draft picks and making some astute trades. I wish the Twins WOULD try to be more like Cleveland. 

10 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

I can recommend some good books.

I've got a few good reading picks too. Been doing a LOT of reading this off-season!

12 hours ago, wavedog said:

I was hoping we might add some speed and defense but we will see. 

I would LOVE it if the Twins added more speed and defense. But yeah, we might be waiting a long time for that to happen. 

13 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

Read the TD comments, look at the empty seats, read the columnist - this is not a team that is beloved as it should be.  Yes I am pretty sure of this. 

You missed my point. You called them a good team. There's no evidence to suggest the 4th place finisher in arguably the worst division in baseball last season is GOOD. 

2 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

W/o seeing their books it’s pretty difficult!

Seeing real attendance - average ticket prices - TV revenue estimation - concessions estimate - merch estimate - $$ for advertising and any suites they may have……..add it up. No choice but to estimate.

The actual spend on players and a close estimate on coaching are fairly black & white.

I’ve seen these types of numbers a dozen times over the past 30 months on TD.

I have no idea how to estimate nor what the costs may be for the scouting & minor league affiliates??

They went from 15-17th in spend over a few years, down to 21-23rd in ‘24. Going from $154M in ‘23 back to the ‘21 spend, between $125-$130M for ‘24, is a big shift in approach. MLB gave them and some other Teams $8-$10M to offset TV issues (my recollection) in ‘24. 

In reality, they spent enough last year and either guys were hurt or guys crumbled down the stretch. They were 17 games over .500 on August 10th & they ended up 2 games over. That’s not ownership nor the Manager ….,players have to perform…..there was enough talent to equal or surpass ‘23 results.

Always remember the 2024 Twins period of successes were a mirage, buoyed by a 13-1 record against the worst team in MLB history. 

They were ALWAYS a mediocre team and that was entirely evident by early July. Just became painfully obvious in September. 

2 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

Comparing a Number One overall pick with Badoo seems a bit silly. Royce had a pretty bad 2 months to finish ‘24 but he had pieces of pretty good 3-4 months pieced together through a couple seasons prior.

He also got severely hurt rounding second on opening day. I'm done hoping on him. He should be viewed like Buxton. Hope for 350 PAs but don't expect it. 

2 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

W/o seeing their books it’s pretty difficult!

Seeing real attendance - average ticket prices - TV revenue estimation - concessions estimate - merch estimate - $$ for advertising and any suites they may have……..add it up. No choice but to estimate.

The actual spend on players and a close estimate on coaching are fairly black & white.

I’ve seen these types of numbers a dozen times over the past 30 months on TD.

I have no idea how to estimate nor what the costs may be for the scouting & minor league affiliates??

They went from 15-17th in spend over a few years, down to 21-23rd in ‘24. Going from $154M in ‘23 back to the ‘21 spend, between $125-$130M for ‘24, is a big shift in approach. MLB gave them and some other Teams $8-$10M to offset TV issues (my recollection) in ‘24. 

In reality, they spent enough last year and either guys were hurt or guys crumbled down the stretch. They were 17 games over .500 on August 10th & they ended up 2 games over. That’s not ownership nor the Manager ….,players have to perform…..there was enough talent to equal or surpass ‘23 results.

It’s not that hard to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate.  We have an almost 100% degree of accuracy on payroll spending.  The same is true for both local and national TV which is 60% of the revenue.  If the people who estimate revenue can just get with +/- 10% of the other 40% they would be 96% accurate. However, there is a significant amount of public disclosure of the various elements that make up that 40%.  Any reasonably skilled analyst should be less than +/- 5% which would equate to 98% accuracy.  

It's true it would be harder to estimate profits and the +/- would be somewhat higher   if we estimate profitability but we don’t need to do that to determine how the twins compare to other teams in terms of payroll expenditure.   All we need to do is complile their payroll rank and revenue rank over several years and calculate their relative payroll to revenue rank.

BTW … There are services like Statista that provide this information so it would be very easy to put together for anyone with a Statista subscription.  If you search “is Statista accurate” you will find they have a good reputation.  This could be done easily by any TD writer who wished to present an accurate depiction of Twin's spending.
 

21 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Put that question in 1,000 point bold font. It’s the only question that matters. And so far? Doesn’t feel like anything has changed. Will they get creative and aggressive winning back fans? Time for Falvey to get to work trying to put more butts in seats at Target Field. 

My only response here is that it is still very early in the offseason.  It would not surprise me to see something happen as late as Spring Training when every other team has a better idea of their strengths and weaknesses.

That being said, I have zero expectation to see any major move of consequence, on or off the field, that will impact the fans in a positive way.  (Short of selling the team that is)

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

It’s not that hard to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate.  We have an almost 100% degree of accuracy on payroll spending.  The same is true for both local and national TV which is 60% of the revenue.  If the people who estimate revenue can just get with +/- 10% of the other 40% they would be 96% accurate. However, there is a significant amount of public disclosure of the various elements that make up that 40%.  Any reasonably skilled analyst should be less than +/- 5% which would equate to 98% accuracy.  

It's true it would be harder to estimate profits and the +/- would be somewhat higher   if we estimate profitability but we don’t need to do that to determine how the twins compare to other teams in terms of payroll expenditure.   All we need to do is complile their payroll rank and revenue rank over several years and calculate their relative payroll to revenue rank.

BTW … There are services like Statista that provide this information so it would be very easy to put together for anyone with a Statista subscription.  If you search “is Statista accurate” you will find they have a good reputation.  This could be done easily by any TD writer who wished to present an accurate depiction of Twin's spending.
 

Not even the Pohlads care this much about people criticizing them for being cheap a$$holes. Are you on their payroll? 

Like I said, you're welcome to do a whole writeup about how virtuous and good the Pohlads are for the on field product if you'd like. 

Until then, I and everyone else will continue to point out the Pohlads are cheap a$$holes. 

13 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

It's the same old song. Defend defend and defend some more. Let's just sit back to wait and see. Then we'll sign a Luplow or who was the pitcher they got at the trade deadline? They're not cheap. They just buy at the dollar store. You get some really good deals there. Champagne dreams with a beer budget. Oh and there's no damn BAM money. Again. Plus less TV revenue. AGAIN. Season ticket sales lagging. Again. Seems to be a common theme here. I remember just this season. The Angels had 100,000 fans for a 3 game set vs the Twins. How? Not only are they cheap. They do a piss poor job of selling their product. And to do a comparison of how much they spend is ludicrous because 20 of the other 29 owners are cheap too. 

 I asked if the poster understood why spending disparity would actually become greater if the owners all decided to toss profit completely aside and operate at break-even.  You are throwing your hands up, ignoring the question, and making this anecdotal,  I would not argue for a second they won't sign a big free agent but it's not because of profit seeking.  Are you willing to actually address what I said?  Do you understand why profit is irrelevant in this context?  Would like to hear your thoughts specific to profitability but somehow I doubt you are willing to have a substantive discussion.

4 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Not even the Pohlads care this much about people criticizing them for being cheap a$$holes. Are you on their payroll? 

Like I said, you're welcome to do a whole writeup about how virtuous and good the Pohlads are for the on field product if you'd like. 

Until then, I and everyone else will continue to point out the Pohlads are cheap a$$holes. 

Why would you be against an accurate portrayal of the facts?  Given your constant harping on this situation. you must believe the facts would provide clear proof of how horribly cheap the Pohlad's have been.    Would love to hear why you are against compiling the information that would prove your case.   

2 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Why would you be against an accurate portrayal of the facts?  Given your constant harping on this situation. you must believe the facts would provide clear proof of how horribly cheap the Pohlad's have been.    Would love to hear why you are against compiling the information that would prove your case.   

You sound like an Elon reply guy. 

Go ahead and compile it. It doesn't actually matter because it will end with some stupid loser conclusion like "actually the Pohalds have forgone other risk free investments with an annual return of 8.8% in favor of their investments in the twins which have only yielded a return of 8.6% (ignoring annual operating income)" or something equally stupid. 

38 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

 I asked if the poster understood why spending disparity would actually become greater if the owners all decided to toss profit completely aside and operate at break-even.  You are throwing your hands up, ignoring the question, and making this anecdotal,  I would not argue for a second they won't sign a big free agent but it's not because of profit seeking.  Are you willing to actually address what I said?  Do you understand why profit is irrelevant in this context?  Would like to hear your thoughts specific to profitability but somehow I doubt you are willing to have a 

38 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

 I asked if the poster understood why spending disparity would actually become greater if the owners all decided to toss profit completely aside and operate at break-even.  You are throwing your hands up, ignoring the question, and making this anecdotal,  I would not argue for a second they won't sign a big free agent but it's not because of profit seeking.  Are you willing to actually address what I said?  Do you understand why profit is irrelevant in this context?  Would like to hear your thoughts specific to profitability but somehow I doubt you are willing to have a substantive discussion.

 

You've been beating this drum for 2 years now. I don't believe that anyone is advocating that the Pohlad’s just go out and spend big dollars year after year. It's not sustainable even if you're a billionaire. I'm pointing out that they aren't very adept at making their product fun, and more affordable for the average person who makes the wheel turn. That's not going to fly. And no one wants to hear a Pohlad employee, St. Peter   bad mouthing fans or not delivering on promises made for the quick and easy cash grab. Henry Ford wanted to keep producing the Model T. He KNEW what was BEST for the buying public. Even as he watched his market share dwindle. Rich people get things wrong too.  But you keep fighting the good fight for them. Till they do an Irsay and roll out of town as the minions sleep. Another poster noted the jersey advertisement option. If they're losing money year after year, why aren't they getting some money from that? That's 7 figure dollars.

1 hour ago, Schmoeman5 said:

You've been beating this drum for 2 years now. I don't believe that anyone is advocating that the Pohlad’s just go out and spend big dollars year after year. It's not sustainable even if you're a billionaire. I'm pointing out that they aren't very adept at making their product fun, and more affordable for the average person who makes the wheel turn. That's not going to fly. And no one wants to hear a Pohlad employee, St. Peter   bad mouthing fans or not delivering on promises made for the quick and easy cash grab. Henry Ford wanted to keep producing the Model T. He KNEW what was BEST for the buying public. Even as he watched his market share dwindle. Rich people get things wrong too.  But you keep fighting the good fight for them. Till they do an Irsay and roll out of town as the minions sleep. Another poster noted the jersey advertisement option. If they're losing money year after year, why aren't they getting some money from that? That's 7 figure dollars.

Did I say they were great, doing a good job or anything that has anything to do with your post.  No.  I said profit is irrelevant but some of you insist on arguing something else.  You refuse to acknowledge the point and rant about something I did not say.

Who would have guessed that it would be a bad thing to be informed?   "There is none so blind as he who will not see (Bill Withers).  Arguing there is no point in being informed ... That's pretty hard to respect.