The Top 20 Minnesota Twins Player Assets of 2025: Part 1 (20-16)

I'm with @DJL44, Julien wouldn't be anywhere near my top 20. Wouldn't be in my future plans at all. AAA to start the year and if he comes to spring with a new swing path and ability to hit breaking pitches he can fight his way back to the majors and back into my plans, but as of today he's not even in my plans. Don't know how that'd fit on my rankings, but certainly not sniffing the top 20.

When it just comes to the Twins building a championship team (what this list is supposed to be about according to the explanation) and not just simply trade value then I'd have Correa significantly higher than 16. The foot problems are a concern, but he's still in the top 10 for me when it comes to the most valuable pieces this team has when it comes to winning. If he can play 130 games and the playoffs he's in the top 5 for most valuable pieces they have. I think 16 is much too low unless you don't think he's playing more than half the games in a season moving forward. And I don't think that's the case. Maybe I'm just being too optimistic.

8 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The problem with these kinds of articles is how fickle the emotions of the fan base are. Here's about how things stand since well after the season ended over at BTV. I think I saw proposals for all these guy except Emmanuel Rodriguez who it seems no fanbase either wants to acquire or wants to trade away. Personally, I disagree with some of these, but that's why a site like BTV exists. To help correct fan bias.

Jenkins +58.4
Ober +54.1
Ryan +53.5
Lopez +47.8
Lewis +47.3
Rodriguez +45? Nobody is asking for him on BTV
Wallner +38.1
Lee +37.0
Jax +28.8
Correa +25.8
Duran +24.7
Keaschall +23.3
Larnach +22.6
Festa +19.5
SWR +19.1
Julien +16.5
Jeffers +16.2
Miranda +16.1
Matthews +12.9
Buxton +10.4

 

BTV as in "Baseball Trade Values?" For an article that very clearly states it isn't about trade values? 

Just now, DJL44 said:

It is nearly impossible to disentangle "asset values" from "trade values". A stock only has as much value as you can sell it for cash.

Strongly disagree. If the Twins don't trade Correa before he retires they never sold that stock so how much value did it have? The value it had was what he provided to the team while he played. You HAVE to disentangle "asset values" from "trade values." It's an absolute necessity of the front office's jobs. It essentially is their job. Because the majority of their stocks are never "sold for cash" through trade, they're "sold for cash" through playing. Discerning the difference between the value the player has being on your team and what value you can "sell it for" is vital, not impossible. It's everything.

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

How much value does Correa have each year? The value of the WAR he provided minus his salary. This is basically the same as his trade value. If a team lacks players at a particular position, then value to the team might be a little higher but not much. Same goes for a team that has a surplus at a particular position, they can devalue a player by not selling. 

If the Pohlads never sell the Twins they still have an asset value equal to what they could get if they sold them.

You've already explained multiple ways how they're different right there. The Twins don't have a SS that can step in for Correa (in my opinion) so his value to them is already different than his trade value right there. That's not something I'd say is "little," but to each their own. If you're just trying to rebuild then their value to the team is directly equal to their trade value. If you are actively trying to win then there are far more variables than just WAR minus salary.

His trade value itself isn't the same for every other team. It's not a static number. His value to the As isn't the same as his value to the Dodgers which isn't the same as his value to the Mets which isn't the same as his value to the Rockies. The makeup of each individual team and their budget and their goal for that season and the ones immediately following it change that player's value to that team. The number of teams that value that player highly then changes that player's trade value. Correa's value is ever changing depending on the landscape of the team and league. Unfortunately for us, this team doesn't seem to be changing much. So, his value to the Twins, in my opinion, is incredibly high because I don't believe they can win without him (but I also think he's going to play 135+ games next year). It's Falvey's job to determine if there's ever a time when the lines cross and his value to the team is no longer higher than his trade value and they should move him. It's why it makes sense that they're always listening on every player (even if I think he needs to be much better at how he says that in the media). Because if some team decides Correa's value to them is suddenly sky high and they offer a ridiculous package that is higher than his value to the team the Twins should take it. But if he's still more valuable to their ability to win they should keep him.

That Pohlad analogy doesn't work. Correa plays (or doesn't) every year. There's no sitting on that asset. He's "sold" every year. That's my point. That's why it's literally the front office's job to disentangle the difference between his trade value and his value to the team's ability to win. The Pohlads could move to Greece and never even think about the Twins and still have that asset there to sell in 15 years for whatever it's worth. That isn't how player value works. They have 2 very separate values. And you have to be able to separate them or you won't last long in a front office job, because you're either selling them on the trade market or you're selling them to play on your team. You have to decide which one they have more value in.

2 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

It's like saying a pineapple isn't a single fruit, it's a cluster of berries (it is, technically, but it's not used that way). The article does not clearly state it's not about trade values. It opines that it's not exclusively about league-wide trade values, but then describes exactly what trade value is based on a league-wide methodology like relief pitchers being in abundance. If this was specifically a Twins-centric evaluation, Julien would be top 10 because he could find himself in 1 of the 2 most deficient positions on the club last year in 2B or DH.
 

Baseballtradevalues accounts for projected production, controllability, upside, contract, and availability. There is no way to separate the Twins from the league in this regard because if the Twins need something, they can just acquire it either locally or from another organization. i.e. if there were 50 free agent 2B on the market, the Twins couldn't care less how good their 2B prospects are as they're easy to replace.

That quote you added literally says "whereas this list aims to capture a very Twins-specific point of view." Why would you then say "If this was specifically a Twins-centric evaluation?" The abundance of relief pitchers comment directly follows the "Twins-specific point of view" comment and the lack of catching comment. Those are statements about the Twins. You disagree with Nick's opinion, so do I when it comes to Julien, but don't just change what his list is to fit your own. 

I mean you enlarged a quote that literally says it isn't a trade value ranking and ignore the rest of the sentence that says it's Twins-specific and then go on to tell me it doesn't say it's not a trade value ranking and isn't Twins-specific. What are we even talking about? You provided the very statement you claim isn't there.

19 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Except there aren't, because you can always use money to obtain players every offseason. It all boils down to dollar sign on the muscle.

If you're looking at likelihood that a player helps the team win a championship this season as their "asset value" then I'd say their asset value to the Twins is much lower than their trade value. Nearly every other MLB team is trying harder to win a championship than the Twins are this season.

Roster construction is a pretty big variable. Simply having the player already signed and on your roster is another. Trade Correa this offseason without another SS on hand and your FA options were/are Willy Adames and Ha-Seong Kim or play musical chairs with trades. 

"Can always use money to obtain players every offseason" is all well and good until no good players want to take your money. And then suddenly Correa's value to you feels way higher after he's gone because you have Brooks Lee OPSing .600 for you at SS in 2025 and nobody else in the system even close to ready. Or maybe they bring Farmer back to be the SS in 2025. But, hey, I'm sure it'd lead to Laureano in the OF and that'd make up the difference, right? It's not a grocery store. You don't get to just take that money and pick out who you want. Having the guy on your roster already is value and a variable that matters. 

The likelihood of winning the championship doesn't change a player's value to the team. 

32 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I think your argument would be more clear with an analogy. Like The Twins are not going to trade their 5 starters for 5 left fielders of equal value since the Twins don't need 5 left fielders.

I still don't agree because assets can always be acquired or distributed as the Twins could turn around and trade their acquired 5 left fielders for 5 now missing rotation arms.

I would not use that analogy because that wasn't the point I was making in that post. Or any of the subsequent posts. My point is that there's 2 types of values. Value to the team's ability to win and trade value. 

They aren't the same thing. You've said many times that the Nationals are the only team you can see that would want/need Correa. That effects his trade value. His WAR projection hasn't changed. His salary hasn't changed. So, according to you and DJL his asset value hasn't changed. He's the same guy. But, according to you, there's only 1 team that would want/need his services, thus there would be no bidding war and the Twins would have to take or leave whatever Washington would offer. Now if the Mets or Yankees (for examples sake) were to jump in as well that would change his trade value because now that team would have to offer more than the Nats if they wanted him and the Nats would have to offer more than that still if they wanted him. So his trade value has changed but his WAR and salary still hasn't. He's the same player/asset but his trade value has changed. 

BTV is a fun little tool. They even change their numbers frequently to try to keep up with things. But the market changes. Players sign or get traded which changes the landscape of the league which changes what the trade value for individual players may be. But what Correa means to the Twins doesn't change until/unless the Twins change their roster. Those are 2 separate values. What you mean to the individual team you're on (the value Nick is ranking guys on on this list) and what your trade value is are different things.

5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

This is false. Teams routinely sell off expensive veterans with little team control when they aren't trying to win in the near-term. Value to this team specifically is related to WHEN they are trying to build their championship caliber team. 

And, like I said before, players on teams who aren't trying to win's value is equal to their trade value.

But we were talking about the Twins who at least claim they're trying to win. So, in that case, the odds don't change their relative value to the team.