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

    Baseball Gods to Tom Pohlad: 'Aight, Bet'

    This spring, Tom Pohlad went out of his way to proclaim his intention to invest in the 2026 Twins if they earned that kind of reinforcement. They've earned it. Your move, Tom.

    Matthew Trueblood
    Image courtesy of Jeffrey Becker-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

    It wasn't equivocal, and it wasn't compulsory. This April, as part of a slow-motion goodwill tour in which he's tried to rebuild the fan base's faith in (or even tolerance for) his family, Tom Pohlad piped up. He gave Dan Hayes of The Athletic a quote that left little wiggle room. That even seemed to be by design. You can't gain much goodwill by going halfway.

    "As we go throughout the year and more opportunities present themselves for us to put action to words, so long as we do that, I’ll be happy," Pohlad said. And later: "We owe it to our fan base as much as we owe it to [Derek Shelton], [Jeremy Zoll] and the players, to do everything we can to improve our team at that point.”

    We should presume he meant it, because whatever goodwill (and time) it did buy him was nowhere near worth the backlash he'll receive if he goes back on that asseveration. However, it was an easy time to say those words. The Twins were 13-17 when Hayes's article ran, which was right on schedule; most fans, pundits and projection systems forecasted a losing season for them. In fairness, they're still sub-.500, too. Since that day, however, they've gone 40-37, and they find themselves right in the thick of the race for the AL Central, as well as a possible Wild Card berth. They've proved themselves resilient, and they've played near the top of their spectrum of possible outcomes based on their talent. Unequivocally, this team is in position to buy at next week's MLB trade deadline.

    It's time, in other words, for Pohlad to pony up. In fact, the baseball gods have offered him no quarter. Although this team (frankly) is not all that good, they're also plainly not bad, and they're playing in one of the weakest divisions and leagues in recent memory. They have a glaring need for pitching help, and a strong farm system with which to pursue it. They have, by any reasonable reckoning, plenty of money to spend. The stars all aligned. The dictate is clear, and Pohlad's own words have painted him into a corner.

    Admittedly, it would be strange (and ill-advised) for the team to go all-in and trade top prospects to bolster this squad. They're just entering a competitive window, not peaking or trying to maximize the final phase of a cycle. They can get better easily, though, and Pohlad's money can do a lot of that work. Here are five guys they could acquire, for whom the prospect cost could be minimized if the Twins take on the salaries involved.

    Quote

    Kevin Gausman, Blue Jays

    RHP Blue Jays Age: 35 FA: Nov 2026 Sal: $23m
    There are days when, as they say, the splitter ain’t splittin’, and on those days, Gausman gets frighteningly hittable in a hurry. The rest of the time, though, he’s as steady and sturdy as a starter comes these days. He fills up the zone and gets ample swings and misses, especially with that splitter. He can dominate, and he has a solid postseason track record. The Blue Jays, who look unlikely to emerge from the quagmire into which they’ve sunk in the standings, are likely to deal Gausman, rather than let him walk for free this winter. His salary is substantial, but Toronto is one team who should be willing to eat the money to maximize the return they realize in a trade. There are many harder-throwing starters a team might pursue this month, but few who are as likely to have a positive impact on a postseason run.

    Kevin Gausman is a tough, durable veteran starter—someone who could start a playoff game and give the Twins a chance to win even against a tough lineup. He's an impending free agent and is still owed over $7 million. If the Twins are willing to take on that money, he wouldn't cost that much, and he could be a difference-maker for them both in the regular season and come october.

    Quote

    Luke Weaver, Mets

    RHP Mets Age: 32 FA: Nov 2027 Sal: $9.5m
    A well-established high-leverage reliever having his best year on a massively disappointing team, Weaver is just about perfectly situated to be traded for a haul and to be a main character come October. He’s always had good swing-and-miss stuff, and is filling up the strike zone better than ever, working with a simple three-pitch mix and excellent command. The Mets are slated to pay him $12.5 million in 2027, and for them, that’s a drop in the bucket, so they might even pay down some of his salary to maximize the return in a trade. Neither on this year’s moribund club nor on next year’s is he likely to have a greater impact on the organization’s fortunes than he can have as a trade chip on a market starved for top-flight right-handed relievers.

    A major bullpen upgrade is the most obvious way the Twins could get better this week. Weaver is under contract for 2027, too, so while he would cost a good prospect or two, he could help them not only this year, but next. He's an ideal fit for their situation, as long as Pohlad is willing to shell out the relatively high financial cost for a non-closer.

    Quote
     

    Antonio Senzatela, Rockies

    RHP Rockies Age: 31 FA: Nov 2026* Sal: $12m
    Quick, someone rescue this guy from Coors Field and see if there’s even more to unlock. After a career full of promise (enough so that he signed a long-term deal with the Rockies in 2021) but often sidetracked by injuries and/or pitching at elevation, Senzatela has embraced a move to the bullpen and taken off this year. He still throws 97 with his four-seam fastball, but now, he pairs that with a vicious cutter in the 92 MPH range, which both misses some bats and induces ample weak contact. If he never (or very rarely) had to pitch in Colorado, his four-seamer might even turn out to be the good pitch everyone briefly hoped it would turn out to be. He’s stuffed the strike zone and begun manipulating swings better by simply relying on power out of the pen. A team picking him up would have a chance to benefit from his experience working multiple innings come September and October, and in November, they’d even have a chance to retain him for $14 million in 2027. That’s a high price for a middle reliever, but if he shows you two months of relief ace-caliber work after escaping Colorado, you might give that a shot—or even move him back to the rotation at age 32.

    It's a similar situation to that of Weaver, but Antonio Senzatela offers the bonus of not being obligated to pay up for 2027. The salary taken on for this season wouldn't be terribly onerous, and if it pans out well, the team could elect to bring him back at a moderate price.

    Quote

    Dustin May, Cardinals

    RHP Cardinals Age: 28 FA: Nov 2026* Sal: $12.5m
    It’s great to see May come through a multi-year run of miserable injury luck to pitch the way many long believed he could. Not has his good season with the Cards been solely about being available. He’s throwing more strikes, thanks in part to a rejiggered approach that favors four-seamers, cutters and changeups at the expense of sinkers and sweepers. He still has an extremely lively arm, and his stuff is playing better this season, thanks to his newfound ability to fill up the zone. As an impending free agent on a team that still views itself as building for a future brighter than its present, though, he’s a strong candidate to be dealt. Unless the Cardinals can strike a deal with him this month to convert his mutual option for 2027 into a multi-year commitment, he’ll be on the market, and should slot nicely into the back half of a playoff-caliber rotation.

    Dustin May could be a huge upside play for the Twins, and although the mutual option on his deal for 2027 is almost certain not to be mutually exercised, even a fistful of starts that get the team over the hump and into the postseason could be a huge windfall. The Cardinals will want something good for May, but his salary does give the Twins leverage, if they're willing to eat that money.

    Quote

    Andrew Kittredge, Orioles

    RHP Orioles Age: 36 FA: Nov 2026 Sal: $9m
    It’s not a trick they were hoping to turn, but the Orioles just might get something in return for Kittredge for a second year in a row. After trading him to the Cubs last summer and watching him dominate for Chicago down the stretch and into the playoffs, the O’s reacquired the righty so they could exercise the club option on his deal for 2026. Unfortunately, he’s missed some time, and the results aren’t especially pretty even when he’s been on the mound. Meanwhile, the team is floundering for a second consecutive summer. The stuff remains good; he’s still inducing ground balls; and he’s throwing strikes, so Kittredge still has trade value. There’s little reason for Baltimore not to move him again and look ahead to 2027.

    This should, at this point, be the bare minimum. The Twins need help in the bullpen. Andrew Kittredge is one of several available right-handed hurlers who could assume a high-leverage role for them and slightly upgrade the relief corps, and who are making somewhere between $7 million and $12 million. If the Twins don't at least trade for someone like Kittredge, Pohlad will have failed to keep his promise to the fan base and to the team.

    The good news is that this team is in the hunt. The even better news is that the season has left much less uncertainty than one might have worried it would even a month ago. The only bad news is for Pohlad, and then only for his bottom line. He said he wants to help Zoll make this team better. Now, he gets to prove that he meant it.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    13 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

    It's been called a "trap" in this thread.  That's the right word.  Especially since you are part of that weakness.

    No one is arguing that they’re going to win it all, just that you can’t if you don’t make the playoffs. And while I’d love to see another World Championship, I’d also love to see the Twins playing some meaningful post-season baseball. I’d prefer either to the alternatives.

    21 minutes ago, mluebker said:

    No one is arguing that they’re going to win it all, just that you can’t if you don’t make the playoffs. And while I’d love to see another World Championship, I’d also love to see the Twins playing some meaningful post-season baseball. I’d prefer either to the alternatives.

    Haven’t you heard?

    We might have to play the Dodgers (or equivalent) if we get to the World Series, so we’ve decided it’s not worth trying to get there. 

    Time to start building for 2028.

    22 hours ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

    Gomez, Morris, and Nance are good.  Rogers has provided some decent consistency.  Funderburk is up and down. The last month the bullpen has performed so much better.  The back end is still questionable.  Right now Adams and Sands sub 95 mph fastball are not good enough.   I actually think Anderson has some ability.  

    Ryan is asking for 7 year $210 million contract.  

    The Twins won't pay that I'd imagine. If they move both Jeffers and Ryan before Monday, the fan base will go nuts.

    46 minutes ago, mluebker said:

    No one is arguing that they’re going to win it all, just that you can’t if you don’t make the playoffs. And while I’d love to see another World Championship, I’d also love to see the Twins playing some meaningful post-season baseball. I’d prefer either to the alternatives.

    I can understand that goal....I'd probably crack a joke about our playoff misery if I was keeping that theme going but neither of us needs that PTSD.....I just don't see it with this crew.  Trading low level prospects isn't the part that bothers me about buying either, it's missing out on assets for players I don't see sticking around that bugs me.  I think there is hope on the horizon, I'd rather have all the added talent to that group that I can get.

    13 hours ago, GNess said:

     

    I get you prefaced your post by noting it was tongue in cheek.

    Your analogy comparing playing at Nicolett and playing in the NFL falls short as if that reflects in any meaningful way the differences between any MLB teams particularly those that qualify for the playoffs.

    Yes, 87 was a shorter postseason, but the Twins were underdogs vs Detroit and St Louis. (4-1 vs Detroit in the ALCS and 4-3 in the World Series)

    As far as being part of the weakness simply because my view differs from yours is nonsense. I am just sharing my opinion on TD. I can't imagine how my or your words here would have any bearing whatsoever on the course of action the Twins will take at the trade deadline.

    1987 Twins had to win only one single series to make the World Series, and the team had Bert Blyleven and Frank Viola who pitched 4 of 5 starts vs. the Tigers. Yeah, 3 days rest between starts for both. That's not happening in 2026. The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

    There's nothing in common in the playoffs then vs. now. Getting lucky for a single series? That can happen. Getting lucky for 3 or 4 series' in a row? Far less likely.

    image.png.e00000bf9cc11f9cb2c3a802043b6b06.png

    The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

    image.png.e3171d7807b03c9cfd0838bb6f6f42c7.png

    44 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

    1987 Twins had to win only one single series to make the World Series, and the team had Bert Blyleven and Frank Viola who pitched 4 of 5 starts vs. the Tigers. Yeah, 3 days rest between starts for both. That's not happening in 2026. The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

    There's nothing in common in the playoffs then vs. now. Getting lucky for a single series? That can happen. Getting lucky for 3 or 4 series' in a row? Far less likely.

    image.png.e00000bf9cc11f9cb2c3a802043b6b06.png

    The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

    image.png.e3171d7807b03c9cfd0838bb6f6f42c7.png

    We're all aware of this, including the poster you quoted. He said as much.

     

    4 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

    Then why am I seeing people advocate for minor roster changes because anything could happen?

    Because some of us view the cost of those minor roster changes as trivial compared to the opportunity, no matter how low those odds might be.

    By the way... the twins are 3 games out of 1st round bye position and have ~10% chance of getting a first round bye according to Fangrpahs

    3 minutes ago, amjgt said:

    Because some of us view the cost of those minor roster changes as trivial compared to the opportunity, no matter how low those odds might be.

    By the way... the twins are 3 games out of 1st round bye position and have ~10% chance of getting a first round bye according to Fangrpahs

     

    2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

    Because anything could happen?

    Just spitballin' here

     

    So we agree "anything can't happen" but also that "anything can happen"

    Got it.

    1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

    1987 Twins had to win only one single series to make the World Series, and the team had Bert Blyleven and Frank Viola who pitched 4 of 5 starts vs. the Tigers. Yeah, 3 days rest between starts for both. That's not happening in 2026. The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

    There's nothing in common in the playoffs then vs. now. Getting lucky for a single series? That can happen. Getting lucky for 3 or 4 series' in a row? Far less likely.

    image.png.e00000bf9cc11f9cb2c3a802043b6b06.png

    The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

    image.png.e3171d7807b03c9cfd0838bb6f6f42c7.png

    Really puts the changed path to World Series in perspective.

    15 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

    Then why am I seeing people advocate for minor roster changes because anything could happen?

    I think we're just going to have to come to an agreement that:

    a) you think people dreaming on a 30% playoff chance and their "anything can happen" attitudes are crazy

    b) we think you telling us all the reasons why we wont win the world series and using that as justification for not trying for a playoff push is crazy

    1 minute ago, bean5302 said:

     

    So we agree "anything can't happen" but also that "anything can happen"

    Got it.

    Please point out the post where i said "anything can't happen."

     

    Winning a WS is tough. Tougher these days since you have to win multiple series. I doubt anyone here would say otherwise. TD's readership is mostly pretty well informed.

    That's not the same as "cant happen."

    In fact it WILL happen, for one team. They'll go through those multiple series and emerge as WS winners. I guarantee it.

    Some teams will be better equipped to get through the postseason, for sure. But the only teams for which it CAN'T happen are those that don't get to the postseason. 

     

    BTW, this is now the third time, at least, you've put words to my name that I didn't say. Please stop.

     

    1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

    The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

    True and nice graphics.

    Yes to win it all in 87 the Twins had to win 8 post season games, while in 2026 the Twins would have to win 13 games to win it all. 

    Yet, a team in 2026 still has to make the playoffs to win the world series (12 teams get in 18 are eliminated through the 162 game schedule.)  

    Also it isn't unreasonable for supporters of the Twins to root for the Twins to be amongst the 12 who earn the right to compete in the championship tournament.

    This doesn't mean most are advocating for the team to sacrifice significant future assets for a long shot bid - there is some middle ground I suspect where the Twins could add a few players at a moderate asset cost which could enhance their chances of winning the division or earning a WC berth.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    USAFChief
  • Twins Daily Contributor
  • Posted (edited)

    For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

    Conversely, one could reasonably believe it's easier now. Much eeasier. You need a chip and a chair. Teams used to have to win their respective league to have a shot at the WS. I'd say beating the entire AL over 162 games is tougher than finishing as one of 3 division winners or the 3 best also-rans.

    The 1987 Twins had to win the ALW, one of 2 divisions rather than 3, and there were no extra chances awarded to 2nd, 3rd or 4th place regular season finishers. The 1987 Blue Jay's won 96 games, losing the ALE to Detroit on the last day of the season. Do you suppose they'd say it's tougher now to win a WS?

    You have to get in the postseason to have a chance. The postseason might be tougher. Getting there is certainly much easier.

     

    Edited by USAFChief
    4 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

    For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

    Conversely, one could reasonably believe it's easier now. Much eeasier. You need a chip and a chair. Teams used to have to win their respective league to have a shot at the WS. I'd say beating the entire AL over 162 games is tougher than finishing as one of 3 division winners or the 3 best also-rans.

    The 1987 Twins had to win the ALW, one of 2 divisions rather than 3, and there were no extra chances awarded to 2nd, 3rd or 4th place regular season finishers. The 1987 Blue Jay's won 96 games, losing the ALE to Detroit on the last day of the season. Do you suppose they'd say it's tougher now to win a WS?

    You have to get in the postseason to have a chance. The postseason might be tougher. Getting there is certainly much easier.

     

    Reasonable post. 

    53 minutes ago, GNess said:

    True and nice graphics.

    Yes to win it all in 87 the Twins had to win 8 post season games, while in 2026 the Twins would have to win 13 games to win it all. 

    Yet, a team in 2026 still has to make the playoffs to win the world series (12 teams get in 18 are eliminated through the 162 game schedule.)  

    Also it isn't unreasonable for supporters of the Twins to root for the Twins to be amongst the 12 who earn the right to compete in the championship tournament.

    This doesn't mean most are advocating for the team to sacrifice significant future assets for a long shot bid - there is some middle ground I suspect where the Twins could add a few players at a moderate asset cost which could enhance their chances of winning the division or earning a WC berth.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Two things: Bringing up '87 (even with acknowledgements) is not helpful IMO.  It's a whole new playoff world now for those comps to have merit.  Baseball is a game with many random outcomes in small samples leading to a playoff setup with more rounds only compounding that nature.

    To your point here: That's reasonable, but that path also includes knowingly bypassing the chance to add assets for players that are highly unlikely to be retained.  The balancing act comes down to choosing what you place more value in for lost opportunity.

    I don't view low odds to survive multiple rounds worth that trade off for a team that can't muster a .500 record or even have a positive run differential.

    3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

     The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

    The thing is, the data supports the idea that, yep, there's a lot of luck involved. 

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

    4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

    For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

    Conversely, one could reasonably believe it's easier now. Much eeasier. You need a chip and a chair. 

    Used to be tougher to get into the post-season. For a long time only two teams did.  Now it's tougher to make your way through the post-season.  Between those endpoints, getting in got gradually easier, getting through got tougher.

    The common factor is that one WS winner emerges under any of these systems.  The toughness factor strikes me as about equal, overall.  At least, I don't feel that the eventual champ is more, or less, worthy than 100 years ago.

    Not in disagreement, just an alternative way to look at it.

    4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

    For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

    One more thought showed up after I hit Submit.  Remember 1993?  The Giants won 103 games and missed the post-season by one game.  Everyone knew that the divisions were going to be reworked for the coming season.  Many voices moaned that this would be the last true pennant race, even though there already were two divisions per league.

    They weren't exactly wrong about that.  A race for the final wild-card spot isn't the stuff of myth and legend to tell the grandkids.

    1 hour ago, ashbury said:

    One more thought showed up after I hit Submit.  Remember 1993?  The Giants won 103 games and missed the post-season by one game.  Everyone knew that the divisions were going to be reworked for the coming season.  Many voices moaned that this would be the last true pennant race, even though there already were two divisions per league.

    They weren't exactly wrong about that.  A race for the final wild-card spot isn't the stuff of myth and legend to tell the grandkids.

    We've had some really memorable Game 163s and I do think a playoff race can provide a spark....but context matters.

    We knew those Twins teams as consistent contenders.  They had an established past and promising future with that core to resonate emotionally.  I can't imagine anyone would argue the 2026 team falls in that category.  

    3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

    It's way better for more teams to have hope at the end of the year. If I was commissioner, every team would make the playoffs, with lots of byes.... seeding would be very important. 

    I personally hate that.  I think it has really hurt the trade deadline and diluted the playoff field.

    In sports where there are less random outcomes that is a defensible position, but to me baseball and hockey (in particular) need to have a much smaller playoff field.

    I'd want to encourage competitive behavior in other ways.

    6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

    I personally hate that.  I think it has really hurt the trade deadline and diluted the playoff field.

    In sports where there are less random outcomes that is a defensible position, but to me baseball and hockey (in particular) need to have a much smaller playoff field.

    I'd want to encourage competitive behavior in other ways.

    I'm thinking of the fans across the country, and keeping interest all year. So many cities have no reason to watch for months.... casual fans didn't watch mediocre to bad teams right now.

    17 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

    I'm thinking of the fans across the country, and keeping interest all year. So many cities have no reason to watch for months.... casual fans didn't watch mediocre to bad teams right now.

    I agree baseball has a problem with that, I just prefer a different solution to it personally.




    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...