What Would a True "Blow It Up" Offseason Look Like for the Minnesota Twins?

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

What if the Twins were “aggressive”.  We are seeing a lot of advocacy for putting the best team possible on the field in 2026.  What does that look like and what could we expect.  The Twins were 18-35 after the deadline which is a 55 win pace.  They could spend $60M in free agency and pick up another 6-7 wins.  The two most needed positions are 1B and SS.  Should we fill SS and hold Culpepper back.  $60M would get a very good 1B and SS but leave little left over to rebuild the BP.  Should we trade away top 10 type prospects and try to get it 70 wins 75 wins if everything goes great?

There has always been an understandable desire for being aggressive and getting final pieces to enhance our chances of bring a real contender.  This means increased spending and trading prospects for final pieces.  In other words, converting future assets to present assets.   The parallel when a team is in the position the Twins are in now is trading the remaining good players to acquire difference makers for the next run at contention.  

Houston tore down to the studs.  KC traded Grienke for Cane and Escobar.  I think you could make a good case KC does not make it the WS without those two players.  Cleveland has a long history of trading established players for prospects that contribute.  That's the norm in a rebuild.  So, is the best we can hope for to keep Ryan and Lopez?  Hope everything goes great and we win 75 games?  Is that the goal or should we take it on the chin in 2026 and take a shot at getting our own Cain & Escobar and others who can contribute to the next run for 7 years?  

Time to recognize this ship needs an extreme makeover.

Yup, you found a deadline trade to see what great talent can come back. Those trades usually require a team thinking they are one player away 

5 hours ago, matt said:

The CBA requires revenue sharing recipients to spend more than 150% of their revenue sharing money on MLB payroll, so something this low seems unlikely.

I was thinking the floor payroll is 70-80  million.  I still think the Twins can keep team as is and sign Jeffers and Ryan to front loaded extensions add relievers and Ryan O’Hearn or Hoskins or Josh Bell to a 1 year 5-8 million.  This sets us up to be a .500 team and lower payroll as we get more competitive. 

If the Twins have to spend money after a tear down to meet the effective salary floor due to existing revenue sharing, I would rather they sign some long-term contracts for their young studs and front-load them if necessary.

Spending money on older guys with no realistic future with the team is just treading water.  You only sign guys like that to plug a gap in a good, competitive team, e.g., Don Baylor.  What good does it do anybody to sign guys like Hoskins or Bell on a .500 team going nowhere???

Let's see in 2019:

Gone - from starters

            Mauer

            Escobar

            Dozier

            Cave

            Grossman

            Adrianza

In - for starters

            Cron

            Schoop

            Sano

            Buxton

            Cruz

            Gonzalez

Cron, Schoop, Cruz, Gonzalez were not one of the "youths" so many here think are wonder boys, yet the team yet the team went from 78-84 to 101-61.

The only way the Twins will continue to be lousy , is if they keep relying on AAA wonder boys.

3 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I think his point, a pretty good one, is that last spring we were told the team was $400M in debt. Now, $500M in debt is floated.

So they're claiming to have lost $100M this season.

For the record, I don't believe either of those figures. Not a chance. I doubt they're actually in debt at all. Possibly a little leftover from 2020, but even that's hard to believe. That's 5 years ago. 

 

This. The last credible estimate of Twins profitability came from Forbes who reported the Twins made $19 million in 2023. 

The article basically mirrors what I've also predicted with the Twins moving forward. The complete teardown is inevitable given the current developments of the team at present, but my bet is it will not be before 2030 when the Twins finally become competitive again. Most likely the Twins will set records for the worst losses in 2026 and 27 before the Pohlads sell the team and move on and the new owners will have a 50/50 chance to keep the team in the state or move it to a more competitive city, like Salt Lake City, Nachville, Memphis or Charlotte, which would be fatal to the sports scene in Minnesota. But I've long since written them off unless MLB Commissioner Ron Manfred rejects the partnership plan and forces the team to sell before the 2026 season starts. He will even be more pressured by Pres. Donald Trump who will not allow for teams to intentionally tank to get high draft picks and already has MN on his **** list for multiple reasons.

17 hours ago, old nurse said:

Yup, you found a deadline trade to see what great talent can come back. Those trades usually require a team thinking they are one player away 

I am not sure what we are talking about here.  Are you saying it would be difficult to get a premium prospect for Ryan or are you making a more general point that there are not many players acquired as prospects that make a significant contribution.  

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I am not sure what we are talking about here.  Are you saying it would be difficult to get a premium prospect for Ryan or are you making a more general point that there are not many players acquired as prospects that make a significant contribution.  

In general the boatload of prospects end up suspects. The Grienke trade did net the Royals 2 top 100 prospects. Cain wasn’t one of them. So indeed Ryan or Lopez should net 2 premium prospects. Neither one of them should be confused for Greinke so that kind of return shouldn’t be expected. The inadvertent quirk of your post was Odorizzi, the top 100 prospect in the Grienke trade, along with Will Meyers and Mike Montgomery who were also top 100 prospects. Now the definition of significant contribution comes to play. Meyers and Odo had good years, and as many bad years, is a couple of 3 war years interspersed with the bad ones a significant contribution versus a steady contribution from the very good players?

On 10/8/2025 at 6:26 AM, Cory Engelhardt said:

I wish this would have been written out with what returns came back in all of these deals. It’s impossible for me to see a way that all of these players were traded and we didn’t receive anything back for them that makes the mlb roster. That’s almost impossible to do, right?

Arguably having Larnach still on the roster almost feels the most unrealistic here. I could be wrong. 

Nick wouldn’t know what returns would come back. Like everyone else it would be pure conjecture.

At the trade deadline the Twins asked for one of their starting outfielders and  top prospects from Boston for Ryan. Boston counter offered.  SI reported that  currently Boston has 2 untouchable prospects and that Breslow would trade 2 of their other top prospects for Ryan.  Ryan, or Lopez, is not going to bring back one of Boston’s outfielders and top prospects. That has been established.  

27 minutes ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

Well then if they aren't getting the value they believe they are worth, then they aren't getting traded. Problem solved.

As they have fired almost all of the pro scouts I wouldn’t anticipate them making much for big trades. I know at the time there was speculation that it was budgetary reasons, but I suspect the returns weren’t as advertised upon watching the returns from the deadline trades 

7 hours ago, old nurse said:

In general the boatload of prospects end up suspects. The Grienke trade did net the Royals 2 top 100 prospects. Cain wasn’t one of them. So indeed Ryan or Lopez should net 2 premium prospects. Neither one of them should be confused for Greinke so that kind of return shouldn’t be expected. The inadvertent quirk of your post was Odorizzi, the top 100 prospect in the Grienke trade, along with Will Meyers and Mike Montgomery who were also top 100 prospects. Now the definition of significant contribution comes to play. Meyers and Odo had good years, and as many bad years, is a couple of 3 war years interspersed with the bad ones a significant contribution versus a steady contribution from the very good players?

I try not to make a point with an anecdote.  I threw in that example because there have been times when people come back with comments that suggest the only thing that matters is if the team got to the WS or won the WS.  

The comment about suspects has appeared here MANY times.  It's the reason I took the time to chronical how every player that made a significant contribution to every 90 win team since the turn of the century.   Yes, many prospects fail but that's the wrong question to ask.  The question to ask is what the relative contribution of each type of acquisition method to successful teams.  Do we want to know how winning teams were constructed or do we want to know if prospects fail?

The teams that have had by far the most success have produced roughly 80% of their WAR from players that were drafted or traded for as a prospect which I define as a player that has never produced 1.5 WAR in a season.  The split is roughly equal.  Free agency and trading for established players contributes about 20% so the whole prospects are "suspects" and therefore not valuable is not even remotely aligned with what has actually transpired.  How about this Year's Brewers team which had the most wins in MLB.  The table below shows all the players that contributed 1.5 WAR or RPs with 1.2 WAR and how they were acquired.  85% of the Brewers WAR came from players that were drafted or acquired as prospects with a little more than half produced by trading for prospects.

11 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

On Royce to the Angels... It would be nice for Royce. It would be wrong for us.

You would have to believe that he can't be fixed. You'd have to believe that the fundamentals are not good. You sell this stock at a low point because you believe it could go lower.

Just placing him on the trade block would make any trading partner suspicious... Why are you trading him now?  

 

A team as dysfunctional as the 2025 Twins needs to consider everything, talk to every team, and listen. The Angels don't have anyone in their system worth trading for if Lewis goes west. Teams will not automatically place a low value on Lewis because of his poor season. Each team will have their own evaluation of every player. We have zero idea of how any specific front office views the Twins players. In my view the Twins need to keep an open mind. There are not untouchables on the Twins roster. 

On 10/8/2025 at 7:25 AM, LeatherAntenna said:

Is this story trying to brace us for 120 losses next year?

With the right coach that is 120 wins.  Also we would win every game 1-0. 

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I try not to make a point with an anecdote.  I threw in that example because there have been times when people come back with comments that suggest the only thing that matters is if the team got to the WS or won the WS.  

The comment about suspects has appeared here MANY times.  It's the reason I took the time to chronical how every player that made a significant contribution to every 90 win team since the turn of the century.   Yes, many prospects fail but that's the wrong question to ask.  The question to ask is what the relative contribution of each type of acquisition method to successful teams.  Do we want to know how winning teams were constructed or do we want to know if prospects fail?

The teams that have had by far the most success have produced roughly 80% of their WAR from players that were drafted or traded for as a prospect which I define as a player that has never produced 1.5 WAR in a season.  The split is roughly equal.  Free agency and trading for established players contributes about 20% so the whole prospects are "suspects" and therefore not valuable is not even remotely aligned with what has actually transpired.  How about this Year's Brewers team which had the most wins in MLB.  The table below shows all the players that contributed 1.5 WAR or RPs with 1.2 WAR and how they were acquired.  85% of the Brewers WAR came from players that were drafted or acquired as prospects with a little more than half produced by trading for prospects.

	2025 Brewers (97 wins)		Acquired	WAR
	Sal Frelick		Drafted	3.3
	Brice Turang		Drafted	3.2
	William Contreras		Trade	3.2
	Isaac Collins		AaP	2.8
	Jackson Chourio		Intl	2.8
	Christian Yelich		Trade	2.1
	Andrew Vaughn		AaP	1.6
	Caleb Durbin		AaP	1.4
	Joey Ortiz		AaP	1.4
	Freddy Peralta		AaP	3.6
	Chad Patrick		AaP	2.6
	Quinn Priester		AaP	1.9
	Brandon Woodruff		Drafted	1.8
	Abner Uribe		Intl	1.7
	Trevor Megill		AaP	1.5
	Aaron Ashby		Drafted	1.2
	Acquired by:
	Drafted		4	26.3%
	International Draft		2	12.5%
	Acquired as Prospect		8	46.5%
	Trade for Proven		2	14.7%
	Free Agent		0	0.0%

Perhaps you ought to look at attendance post WS wins for the Twins, stadium opening years, division championship years and all other years in the last 40 years and then try to say what is important to the fans.  To prove that 1.5 WAR is the accurate minimal WAR for a player perhaps do a lovely table of WPA to WAR to show that 1.5 is the magic number.  Perhaps if you look at the number of players who do not produce 1.5 WAR in a season, or produce more than 1.5 WAR only once in their career you would understand the word suspects

5 hours ago, old nurse said:

Perhaps you ought to look at attendance post WS wins for the Twins, stadium opening years, division championship years and all other years in the last 40 years and then try to say what is important to the fans.  To prove that 1.5 WAR is the accurate minimal WAR for a player perhaps do a lovely table of WPA to WAR to show that 1.5 is the magic number.  Perhaps if you look at the number of players who do not produce 1.5 WAR in a season, or produce more than 1.5 WAR only once in their career you would understand the word suspects

Why we use attendance to determine the relative level of impact of acquisition methods or even specifically the impact of prospects?  We could infer winning drives attendance but the fact they had a winning team would tell us absolutely nothing about how players on that winning team were acquired.  Fair enough?

 We were discussing the relative importance of prospects in building a winner.  It seems fair enough to conclude people who frequent this site want the organization to build a winner and I think it’s fair to say how that is most effectively achieved is of interest to TDers.    

1.5 WAR is debatable but that same modest bar is used to determine if a player acquired in trade was “established” or a prospect.  Trading for established players appears to be favored by the majority here, I wanted to set a low bar for what’s an “established” player so that bar was not criticized for being too high.  Why?  Because, if we moved that bar to 2 for example, the percentage of players acquired as prospects would actually go up and trades for established players down.  We can quibble over but if you want it higher it would increase the percentage of players acquired as prospects which would widen the already wide gap between acquiring established players vs prospects.  I don’t see much concern here for 1 WAR players or how we acquire them.   The number seems reasonable even conservative in terms of determining the impact of trading for prospects vs trading away prospects.  

How would you better measure the impact of the various types of acquisition measures than to take winning teams and determine the acquisition method for the players that contributed in a significant way?  Frankly. WPA would be another viable measure but I doubt it would be any more accurate than more for this exercise.   The alternative ism for all of us to assume whatever method we favor is the best without actually looking back at winning teams to see how they were built.  History overwhelming suggests that prospects (drafted and traded for) are by far the most influential to winning.  It’s not even remotely close.  Do we want the team to follow the practices that have been the most successful? 
 

33 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Why we use attendance to determine the relative level of impact of acquisition methods or even specifically the impact of prospects?  We could infer winning drives attendance but the fact they had a winning team would tell us absolutely nothing about how players on that winning team were acquired.  Fair enough?

 We were discussing the relative importance of prospects in building a winner.  It seems fair enough to conclude people who frequent this site want the organization to build a winner and I think it’s fair to say how that is most effectively achieved is of interest to TDers.    

1.5 WAR is debatable but that same modest bar is used to determine if a player acquired in trade was “established” or a prospect.  Trading for established players appears to be favored by the majority here, I wanted to set a low bar for what’s an “established” player so that bar was not criticized for being too high.  Why?  Because, if we moved that bar to 2 for example, the percentage of players acquired as prospects would actually go up and trades for established players down.  We can quibble over but if you want it higher it would increase the percentage of players acquired as prospects which would widen the already wide gap between acquiring established players vs prospects.  I don’t see much concern here for 1 WAR players or how we acquire them.   The number seems reasonable even conservative in terms of determining the impact of trading for prospects vs trading away prospects.  

How would you better measure the impact of the various types of acquisition measures than to take winning teams and determine the acquisition method for the players that contributed in a significant way?  Frankly. WPA would be another viable measure but I doubt it would be any more accurate than more for this exercise.   The alternative ism for all of us to assume whatever method we favor is the best without actually looking back at winning teams to see how they were built.  History overwhelming suggests that prospects (drafted and traded for) are by far the most influential to winning.  It’s not even remotely close.  Do we want the team to follow the practices that have been the most successful? 
 

Your comment was negative about the Word Series was all that matters to fans. That is fairly close to tru for the Twins fan. Attendance proves that. Attendance goes down payroll goes down.  

1.5 war at some point in the career means you are an established player. Julian, Outman, Lewis, Miranda, Wallner, SWR and Bradley then are established impact players by your convoluted system. There are quite a few to thousands of posts that differ from that opinion 

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

Your comment was negative about the Word Series was all that matters to fans. That is fairly close to tru for the Twins fan. Attendance proves that. Attendance goes down payroll goes down.  

1.5 war at some point in the career means you are an established player. Julian, Outman, Lewis, Miranda, Wallner, SWR and Bradley then are established impact players by your convoluted system. There are quite a few to thousands of posts that differ from that opinion 

I am trying to have a polite but you are just hearing what you want to hear and then sniping back.  I already told you that the WS comment was only an aside to the point I was making because there is always someone that says but did it result in a WS win.  The point we were discussing is the role of prospects in building a team based on your comment that prospects were merely suspects.

You also apparently ignored the explanation of why I used such a conservative number for WAR.  One reason is that in a given season that seems like the minimum number that most people would agree was a contribution.  If I use a larger number, it is an absolute certainty that more trades would go in the acquired as a prospect bucket and increase the percentage of players identified as being acquired as a prospect.  Do you understand this completely nullifies the argument you are making.  Using a higher bar would widen the gap in favor of prospects.  Using this conservative measure, Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee best teams have only produced roughly 22% of WAR from Free agents and trades for established players.  

I agree that it makes more sense to use a metric we all could agree would be more representative of an established player.  I used a very conservative number because I understood the metric would likely be challenged by those who consider prospects suspects.  Therefore, I used a measure that would understate the influence of prospects and least in comparison to established players.  If we used a metric that represents the type of player that is typically called for in trade, I would estimate the current number of roughly 11% of WAR would be cut by 40-50% and end up around 6-7% at most.  
 

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I am trying to have a polite but you are just hearing what you want to hear and then sniping back.  I already told you that the WS comment was only an aside to the point I was making because there is always someone that says but did it result in a WS win.  The point we were discussing is the role of prospects in building a team based on your comment that prospects were merely suspects.

You also apparently ignored the explanation of why I used such a conservative number for WAR.  One reason is that in a given season that seems like the minimum number that most people would agree was a contribution.  If I use a larger number, it is an absolute certainty that more trades would go in the acquired as a prospect bucket and increase the percentage of players identified as being acquired as a prospect.  Do you understand this completely nullifies the argument you are making.  Using a higher bar would widen the gap in favor of prospects.  Using this conservative measure, Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee best teams have only produced roughly 22% of WAR from Free agents and trades for established players.  

I agree that it makes more sense to use a metric we all could agree would be more representative of an established player.  I used a very conservative number because I understood the metric would likely be challenged by those who consider prospects suspects.  Therefore, I used a measure that would understate the influence of prospects and least in comparison to established players.  If we used a metric that represents the type of player that is typically called for in trade, I would estimate the current number of roughly 11% of WAR would be cut by 40-50% and end up around 6-7% at most.  
 

The people who created the metric called in indefinite due to the defensive metric component. There is no difference between a 1.4 WAR position player and a 1.5. Calling a prospect a success with a single season of 1.5 war and ignoring everything else is incorrect. You are getting a prospect to build a team, not to plug a hole for a year. A signing of a player for a one year contract you would likely have to determine the success by ROI. A 1.5 WAR for a Ty France is getting what you paid for. Had Conforto even provided 1.5 WAR for the Dodgers, that would have been a poor contracts  Saying a player that is purchased as a DFA is the same as a player with multiple years in the majors but not 1.5 WAR, and a minor league prospect the same thing is not an accurate description.  

On 10/8/2025 at 1:43 PM, Brandon said:

I was thinking the floor payroll is 70-80  million.  I still think the Twins can keep team as is and sign Jeffers and Ryan to front loaded extensions add relievers and Ryan O’Hearn or Hoskins or Josh Bell to a 1 year 5-8 million.  This sets us up to be a .500 team and lower payroll as we get more competitive. 

I would tend to agree with you. I think they’ll meddle in the middle for sure and watch for two words. Attendance and compete. The problem with Nicks proposition and most others that see them shedding guys is one thing. Attendance. From what I have seen and heard is in all actuality the Pohlads could care less about how the team does, but what always seems to be a sticking point for them put through Dave St. Peter’s mouth is attendance. Every year what they expect and what they shoot for. It’s the main sticking point why they didn’t tear the team down to the studs in 2011-2012 like the Astros and Cubs at the time when they really should have. They continually semi competed despite rolling out one 90 loss season after another. They are gonna do the same thing even when I think they should trade any guy that has value for prospects. The Pohlads I don’t believe will ever swing hard to one side or the other for that one reason even though they maybe should. They will never let attendance crater even though it gives them a better chance to compete and succeed in the future. That’s why you always hear the word “attendance” and that they want to continually “compete.” Compete means something different to them and the meaning changes depending on how much risk a risk averse front office and ownership structure wants to take on. They won’t blow it up in one offseason when maybe they should.

Whatever the FO does, just don’t straddle the middle. Blow it up or make the moves necessary to strongly compete in 26   That would require money spent on free agents and a couple of shrewd trades so not sure how likely that is. 

I strongly believe Ryan would fetch more trade capital than Duran.  Am I way off base?