Riverbrian

I suppose it can't be helped. The casual fan that screamed at the Twins for not spending like the Padres did last year has already forgotten how the Padres did and are back to screaming again. The money argument is insatiable. Yankees fan are screaming at the Yankees for being cheap. You will never satisfy those who equate money to winning. Never.

It's a plausible theory in my head but there is no hard evidence to support it so I'm ok with "irresponsbile. On the article and the reaction to it. I've always understood the advantage that money provides for the big money teams so I'm not going to diminish the value of having it to spend... However... I have never considered money impossible to overcome and will never consider money as an excuse to get angry with ownership or the front office or as an excuse for not making the playoffs. Articles like these are just fuel for the fire of those inclined to burn over things like this. It all sounds like normal business operation to me.

I'm going to do something irresponsible here and something I hate doing because it is irresponsible. I'm going to float a plausible theory that exists in my head (Maybe my head alone) with no inside information at all. Take it all with a grain of salt but I can't help but wonder if the club didn't sail over budget last year and a correction was coming regardless of the TV revenue situation. Here are the clues that lead to my theory: 1. The team from the beginning was always in on signing Correa as a free agent. 2. For a team like the Twins... the money for a free agent in this price range would have to be part of budget plans... Perhaps 35M AAV. He ended up signing for 33.3M AAV but at the time... 35M AAV would have to be part of budget plans if you are trying to sign him and they were trying to sign him by all reports. 3. December 13, 2022 - Correa signs with the Giants for 13 years. 4. December 16, 2022 - 3 Days later... The Twins sign Christian Vazquez for 10 Million AAV and Joey Gallo for 11 Million. This takes 21M out of the 35M that they were using to get Correa signed. I find it interesting that Vazquez and Gallo were signed very quickly once Correa was off the table. 5. December 22, 2022 - Giants have concerns with his medical and back out of the deal. 6. January 11, 2023 - After the Mets signed him to a deal and attempted to lower his contract because of the same medical concerns. Carlos Signs with the Twins... AAV 33.3. 7. Assuming that the twins spent Carlos Correa ear marked money to sign Vazquez and Gallo. His sudden availability may have required an over budget conversation with ownership which of course was approved because he is here. 8. August 1, 2023 - The Twins do not acquire ANYONE at the trade deadline. Is it OK to assume... over budget was a consideration. Irresponsible food for thought from me. Take it for what it's worth.

It is important to understand that in consideration of the contract that he signed with us. He no longer has the type of trade value that will return "a couple of top 50 minor league prospects. When a free agent like Correa signs a large contract like he did with us. He is (typically) signing for more money than other teams are willing to pay him. That fact... immediately takes his trade value to zero because nobody else is willing to pay that contract... that's why we got him in the first place. Once you consider the contract... you need to consider the medical reports (Mets/Giants) which will further decrease long term contract interest. After you consider both of those things... you need to consider that Correa had a really really down year offensively so now you have to drop your trade value down even further below zero. The only way the Twins can get "a couple of top 50 prospects" in exchange for Carlos Correa is if the Twins were willing to EAT a large portion of the contract. In other words... send money to the acquiring team to bring his financial obligations down to a level that the acquiring team is comfortable with and therefore willing to give up two top 50 prospects. I have no idea how much money that would take but I assume... A LOT. So your next consideration is this: If the Twins need to commit a lot of money to make a trade happen. The club will be without a SS with dead money taking up payroll needed for other areas of improvement. This is not going to happen. I hope this helps. A trade of Carlos Correa is not going to happen and when making plans you can write down Carlos Correa at SS. Lock it and throw away the key.

OK... that's fine. However... I'll let others discuss the subjective preferences between Corey Provus, Dick Bremer and others. To me it's like debating a blue chair or red chair in the same living room. I am suggesting that they may want to use this opportunity to redesign the living room instead.

I agree with what you are saying. The OUT is still the most important defensive stat on the planet. If a CF robs a guy of a home run... not only is he... like you say... saving a run right there but he has also created an out that wouldn't have existed without an incredible play. That catch that very few can make just reduced the opposing team from having three outs to work with to two and that variance is huge. The Out trumps all defensive stats because it causes the biggest variance of any stat. Going from two outs to three is enormous... going from 3 outs to 4 is enormous. If an outfielder drops a can of corn... he has just given the opposing team 4 outs to work with... which not only produces a baserunner that shouldn't be on base but also gives the team an extra out to play with and therefore a larger opportunity to string some hits together and produce even more runs. I will never take defense for granted for that reason. A stolen out or an extra out is a huge variance that greatly increases or reduces the odds that an opposing team can use to hang a crooked number on the scoreboard. Defense is important... so don't let yahoo's like me minimize it. However... this is not entirely what we are talking about. We are talking about zone ratings. UZR, DRS are zone ratings that divides the field into zones and tracks how often balls are caught in those zones historically and then tries to quantify it. The overwhelming numbers of chances are routine chances in high catch percentage zones which means the actual plays that separate the men from the boys are few and far between to the point that one play every 2.5 games will determine what will end up being a large difference in expressed defensive value. Zone ratings also don't really factor in starting position. If the outfielder is shifted closer to a low percentage zone... the catch may be routine but he is going to get the low percentage catch zone benefit and look like a superstar. The reverse is also true if an outfielder is shifted closer to a low percentage catch zone and therefore can't get to a high percentage catch zone and the ball drops where players usually catch it... The outfielder is now penalized rather severely for a catch that is quite difficult to make due to positioning. For these reasons... I question the weighting of the non-routine catch in UZR and DRS because of the frequency or lack of frequency of non-routine with routine overwhelming. Since UZR and DRS are the primary defensive component that gets folded into WAR... I no longer take WAR seriously. For anyone to take WAR seriously you have to believe that Varsho with a .674 OPS was a better player than Vlad Jr. I stand here and tell everyone who likes to throw around WAR... If you want to trade me Vlad Jr for Varsho. I'll take that deal.

Varsho Rds is 29 compared to Kiermaier's 18 compared to Taylor's 5. According to these numbers... no matter what we saw with Taylor in the OF last year. The Folks in Toronto were witnessing a level of defense so amazing that a new word beyond elite needs to be invented to describe it. According to these numbers... Michael A. Taylor would be booed out of the stadium because they have witnessed the superman defense that Varsho provided. Varsho WAR 3.9 OPS .674 Keirmaier WAR 3.9 OPS .741 A. Taylor WAR 1.9 OPS .720 Let's add Vlad Jr WAR 2.0 OPS .788 A CF will average 2.5 total chances per game. Non Routine plays occur once every 2.5 games. I will need someone to explain the weighting of the defensive metrics that are folded into WAR like I'm 12.

When was the last time Cleveland did something significant in the free agent market? They will do significant things elsewhere and be competitive.

I get easily confused with weights and measures. I was driving 90 in my Kia the other day up in Canada because the sign clearly said 90. So just to make sure this isn't a kilometer conversation... I gotta ask: When comparing defensive measurement to all of the other baseball measurements... what is the value of three defensive much betters? How many offensive much betters are the equivalent of three defensive much betters? Can a team win 101 games with Polanco at SS? If I'm baking a cake and the recipe calls for a pinch of salt... and if I don't have any salt in the house... Do I have to run to the supermarket? 🤔

It'll be interesting to see what the front office does this off-season but I like the depth and once you have depth... I feel it's time to raise the bar on your acquisitions. I never look at anyone as a bench player and I will never look for a bench role. The minute that you are shopping for a bench player... you are shopping for a lesser player. Searching for a lesser player is a waste of a 26 man spot. Injuries and poor play have taught all of us that there is no such thing as a bench player. Eventually you will be forced to ask that that lesser player to not be a lesser player. Look for players who can play up and down the roster. I like the infield as is: Lewis, Correa, Polanco, Julien, Farmer, Kirilloff, Castro. When I look at the roster... I see two needs. A Big Bat and a Big Starter. Now if you are trading Polanco to clear 10.5 off the books. I can understand that. I don't think Polanco will get the player I want by himself but if his 10.5 could be put to use to land an even better hitter or a starter of Gray ability... ok... then I'm on board. However... to be clear... If we are moving Polanco because of a perceived bench role or needing roster space or because the infield is crowded... then I'm against it. Move Farmer instead. Polanco is the better player.

You and I are in the same boat when it comes to return for anybody for that matter. No idea. We are back into the value discussion though. I assume his injuries plus the 10.5 is going to lower his trade value to the point that we don't get a significant enough player back... even though as a player in 2024... i believe that Polanco could be a plus plus player. Who knows. I certainly don't. But... if Polanco can return a plus plus OF or plus plus starter. I'll drive him to the airport myself. 😉 This whole discussion started with Farmer > Polanco. If choosing between the two... I'm taking the better player.

Polanco OPS was .775 vs Right Handers and wRC+ 115 vs Right Handers. Against lefties he was OPS .823 and wRC+ 128 But you did make me recheck and that's a good thing because it turns out that I sold Farmer a little short...he was .781 OPS vs lefties like you accurately expressed... I'm not sure where I pulled .729 from but I did. Now you can't say I COMPLETELY DISMISSED the salary difference when I typed a paragraph on it. I'm not comfortable downplaying Kyle Farmer in order to defend my choice of Jorge. Kyle did a nice job for us. However he is 33 Years, 2 Months and 18 days old. Jorge Polanco 30 years, 3 months old. Kyle is in his last arb year. Polanco has another club option before you have to make a decision on him. I'm not going to look at stats vs left handers exclusively to pay someone 6.5 million when he will face right handers twice as much no matter how heavy you platoon him. With that said... I don't mind Farmer returning to the team next year but if I have to choose between the two... It's Polanco every time.

With all due respect it's not fair to say. Polanco's career OPS vs RHP is .146 higher than Farmers. 70% of pitching is coming at ya from the right side. Last Year -- Farmer had 222 AB's vs Right Handed pitchers and Farmer had 114 AB's vs Lefties Polanco actually out performed Farmer vs. Lefties last year: BA: Polanco .310 Farmer .289 HR Polanco 4 Home Runs in 87 AB's. Farmer 2 Home Runs in 114 AB's OPS Polanco .824 Farmer .729 Over his career Farmer has 1294 PA's vs Right Handers and 551 PA's vs Left Handers. Farmer is going to face twice as many RHP than LHP. Financially... This isn't 10.5 Million Dollars vs. the minimum. It's 10.5 vs 6.5. If you are spending 6.5 million... don't spend it on a short side platoon specialist... Take the better player. If the reason to move Polanco is financial to free up money... OK... but Farmer should go to. Free up 17 million. Neither player has the trade value to acquire what we really need by themselves. Polanco is the better player and younger and comes with yet another club option. Whoever you choose for your roster... that chosen player is going to play... take the better player.

Statistical improvement would be incredible considering his OPS was .921... Incredible but not impossible. Health is the improvement I hope for. I believe if he is Healthy... he is not going to do any sophomore slumping of significance. Taking that .921 OPS from 239 PA's to 600 PA's would be huge for our squad. That would pace out to around 40 HR's 20 SB's. That's a superstar.

AL 5th seed beat the NL 6th seed. The Rangers won 3 more games than the Twins in the regular season. The Twins won 3 more games than the D-Backs in the regular season. Texas ranked 9th spending 196 million. 41 million more than the Twins. Arizona ranked 21st spending 116 million, 38 million less than the Twins. The Rangers ranked 3rd in team OPS during the regular season with a .789. They had playoff OPS of .792 The D-Backs ranked 17th in team OPS during the regular season with a .730. They had a playoff OPS of .734 The Twins ranked 7th in team OPS during the regular season with a .754. They had a playoff OPS of .672 The Rangers Ranked 18th in team ERA during the regular season with a 4.28. They had a playoff ERA of 3.83 The D-Back Ranked 20th in team ERA during the regular season with a 4.48. They had a playoff ERA of 3.49 The Twins ranked 6th in team ERA during the regular season with a 3.87. They had a playoff ERA of 3.40 Both teams got significant contributions from Rookies. Brandon Pfaadt produced a 3.27 ERA as the #3 starter over 22 innings striking out 26 in the playoffs, Brandon statistically performed better than Zac Gallen in the playoffs who tossed a 33.2 innings striking out 24 with a 4.54 ERA. Brandon Pfaadt threw a 5.72 ERA during the regular season. Both teams added at the trade deadline. Texas rebuilt their starting pitching staff at the trade deadline. Any explanation on how the Rangers and D-Backs did it or comparison to the secret formula used by teams who have reached the final series in the past... I will leave to others. But, I'm sure the Padres approach will still be the way to do it. My only explanation is that the Rangers won games at the right time better than the other 11 participants. Congrats to the Rangers on winning their first championship. The Rangers were the oldest active franchise in the 4 major sports without a championship. The new oldest active franchise without a championship now is... the Minnesota Vikings.

You may be right. I haven't noticed blow your mind marketing coming from that side of the front office over the years. On the other hand. They just moved on from an established in the living room 40 year vet in Dick Bremer and I don't have the feeling he was insubordinate or stealing copy paper. So? Maybe they see it? Maybe? We will find out.

We are now closer to the same page. It feels good to get away from Stephen A. Smith. Sorry about that Powertrip distraction I threw out there to attempt getting a different train of thought going but we have managed to find our way back it seems. 😎 I disagree with "Anything that distracts from the actual game of baseball is going to hurt ratings". I'm simply going to change that sentiment to "Anything that entertains during the actual game of baseball is going to help ratings".

They are indeed two separate things. Access to the product is much much more important than the who does the broadcast because it opens up more availability and potentially more consumers. The announcer actually is much much less important because the difference between Dick Bremer on PBP compared to Corey Provus on TV PBP is incredibly slight using the same traditional broadcast format. Ratings are not going to sky rocket because Corey ends up being a little better because he doesn't have a Bremergasm on a routine fly ball to CF. 😉 They tie together because with this increased potential availability comes the task of now reaching the increased available. I'm not sure others on this thread are appreciating the potential (Necessary) churn that could take place depending on what they come up with to replace the cable model. Some of the responses seem rooted in the maintenance of the status quo. Churn... we are going to lose 60 year olds who don't want to spend the additional money required to view the Twins. They need to be replaced by younger viewers who cut the cord a long time ago and have the attention span of a puppy being called by 25 people at the same time. There was nothing wrong with Dick... the guy was a pro, he showed up for 40 years and did his job extremely well and there is nothing wrong with Corey Provus... the guy is also a pro. If others subjectively view one over the other it doesn't matter much to me when the traditional broadcast model is the overall issue that is about to be thrown into the churn machine.

I agree that the best way to reach more viewers is to put more games on broadcast TV, fewer on premium cable channels and end the streaming blackouts. I agree 100% with what you say in that last paragraph. The regional sports network model provided short term revenue at the cost of exclusivity that prevented larger audiences from accessing your product and that short term thinking does indeed come with a cost. It was short term thinking and over time that model has produced a product that is 7 years older on average than the NFL. 15 years older than the NBA. Baseball needs to reverse that. OK...Here we are... baseball has just unshackled itself from the constraints of cable (hopefully they have because they can always jump right back in). This is great news for the long term health of the sport... Now what? Is it wise to take the same broadcast model from the old world and simply place it in the new world and call it good. I say it's not wise and that's my overall point. Those consumers that are now available without the constraints of the regional sports contract are the same consumers that participated in focus groups that told the baseball execs that baseball is too long and slow. It's the same research that prompted baseball to introduce the pitch clock. These new potential consumers have already watched an inning or two of baseball and decided that Dick Bremer and an ex ball player doesn't hold their attention and they have stated such in the research. Baseball is at a crossroads... they got to convince the loyal viewer to now pay a subscription fee and they got to convince a larger available audience that baseball isn't Dick Bremer and an ex ball player anymore. They are going to lose loyal 60 year olds that don't want to add the cost and they will need to replace them with younger viewers who cut the cord in large numbers and where not entertained by the past production model. I highly recommend walking into the new territory without the old world pulling you back. I don't know how else to explain it. As for ESPN... and however this became a subject. I don't want to get into the weeds about ESPN or talking head programming since it isn't what I'm suggesting. I'll just say it's false to assume that revenue during the day isn't important to ESPN. Of course production costs are important considerations no matter the time of day... that goes without saying. But please consider that there 168 hours in a week. After you take out the overnight hours, There is no way ESPN is going to minimize potential revenue for at least 72 hours of available non-sport event hours. If Sportscenter running over and over again didn't produce revenue... they would do something else. If Stephen A. Smith didn't produce revenue... they would do something else. The Bottom line... we collectively choose what is broadcast to us. We vote every day with our time. If you don't think Finding Bigfoot should be on the travel channel. You'll have to convince those who watch it to stop watching it. Baseball has to convince those not watching it to start watching it.

It's not... but OK... let's go ahead and say it is because you believe it is. Let me be clear that others have taken my Powertrip example to Stephen A. Smith level and then used that made up Stephen A. Smith logic against me. I have no inclination to sit and debate the annoyance of Stephen A. Smith or Bar Rescue or the Macreana when I never said Stephen A. Smith. I'm not even saying Meat Sauce when I use the Powertrip morning show example for the type of change necessary. I am simply talking about change from the current traditional structure in an attempt to be more palatable to audience that wasn't finding the traditional format palatable. I'll let everyone else create their own personal boogeymen as reason to resist necessary change... I can't follow that path. At this point in our conversation... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you understand that baseball is entertainment. All forms of entertainment chase numbers. I'm not saying Stephen A. Smith but you do understand that Stephen A. Smith is well compensated by ESPN because he has viewers. If he didn't... we wouldn't even know his name. I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt that deep down you understand how entertainment programming is chosen. If people watch it... it stays on the air. If people don't... it's gone. That's why you lose some things you like and gain somethings you don't like along the way. I have a rather extensive list of music on my spotify account and I don't have one Taylor Swift song in that extensive personal library and I'm personally happy with that. However... I don't expect Spotify to drop all Taylor Swift songs to appeal to me. I expect Spotify to appeal to whatever brings them bigger numbers and Taylor is much more popular than Sniff-n-the tears... I realize this even as I'm cranking Drivers Seat at top volume driving on the interstate. So let me ask you this... Has our discussion devolved into a Sniff-N-The Tears vs Taylor Swift discussion. 😄

At no point did I propose "annoying". Why would anyone propose "annoying" when looking to increase audience?

Thank You... You understand exactly what I'm saying. It was going to be impossible for me to have a discussion about what is needed because: 1. Very few if any was going to leave the comfort of what they know. They were going to search for a better version of Dick Bremer. Change never comes easy. It takes a powertrip comment to shock them out of it. 2. Everyone's individual minds eye was going to see my morning show comment individually and in the worst possible form with no other point of reference. 3. The Twinsdaily forum is going to be littered with the AVID fan... not the CASUAL fan. The avid fan can sit through 9 innings of baseball in it's current form. The avid fan has been sitting through 9 innings for decades... they don't see the problem... they don't want change... they are being served while the casual fan won't sit through 9 innings of baseball... they can barely make it through half of an inning. The traditional format isn't holding their interest. 4. There are more casual fans than avid fans by a large large large margin. Converting casual to avid is the key to the sports future. Converting someone who kinda follows to casual is key to the sports future. 5. A better version of the same thing is like trying to get more customers into your restaurant by painting the walls blue after years of red. Before you even get into demographics that are out of the prime demos. There are two components to audience measurement. How many and How long. How many consumers and how long do they consume. Not only does baseball need more consumers... they need them to consume longer. Cory is fantastic... he's a pro but we have posters who have way too much faith in Cory Provus being the answer.

I agree with a lot of what you say but here's the deal though. Baseball is about to unshackle itself from the severe limitations of the regional sports network. The old world clinging to your backside as you enter the new world isn't recommended. Finding a better version of Dick Bremer as things change isn't wise. It may make the old guard happy but the old guard won't get the T-Mobile money that baseball wants. I found some numbers online from 2021. 81% of people over the age of 65 have cable. 66% of persons 50-64 46% of persons 30-49 34% of persons 18-29 I'm sorry I can't confirm the accuracy of these stats and I'm sorry that I don't have updated 2023 numbers but I honestly didn't look that hard for them because we all know about the decline of cable. Baseball demographics are not that far from cable which has served as it's main delivery source for decades. Oddly enough. It's a new day. A better version of Dick Bremer isn't the way forward as baseball finally gets away from the short term dollar of the regional sports network to the longer term of being everywhere on every device.

Well... now you've got a booth of 1,000 analysts and we had a poster who didn't want any more than two in the booth.

LOL OK... it seems my suggestion didn't go over well and I expected that. Alright... I'll meet all of you half way. Take the concept and back it down a notch to somewhere in between Circle Me Bert and giving away Justin Bieber tickets. Crank Calls to Steve Lombardozzi on the other hand... That would work perfectly in between pitches.