Riverbrian

In regards to our catching situation. I'd rather the Twins just slept in the bed they made. I'd rather they don't pay the over inflated trade prices necessary or the over inflated free agent prices to acquire someone who will play 120 games at most because of the maintenance that catchers require. Please consider these points. 1. Jair Camargo was given a 40 man spot last year. 2. There are two reasons that you give someone a 40 man spot. 2a. To call them up to the majors. 2b. To protect them from another team claiming them. 3. If you don't feel that another team would claim them. You wouldn't need to give a player a 40 man spot. For example Ricardo Olivar needed to be protected or exposed and was not protected. The Twins either didn't think Olivar interested other clubs or didn't care if other clubs were interested. 4. Camargo was protected. The Twins must have felt that other teams would be interested in him. 5. Since he was protected. It suggests that THEY DIDN'T WANT CAMARGO TO BE CLAIMED, 6. Christian Vazquez produced a .575 OPS in 2024. Camargo got 7 AB's because the Twins couldn't afford to give up that incredible Vazquez production. 7. Despite giving Vazquez 7 AB's over 20 games on the 26 man roster. Camargo is STILL ON THE 40 MAN roster. In other words. The Twins simultaneously feel that Camargo isn't good enough to replace a .575 OPS but good enough that another team would put him to work. He's good enough for others but not good enough for us. What they did with Vazquez and Camargo last year was a huge deal. Vazquez will not be here next year. Will Camargo be here next year? I don't know but he is still on the 40 man roster for some reason. The front office can stop buying or trading for new blankets and pillows and just lie in this bed they made.

By golly... that catching is sure expensive to acquire. How many games do you think we would get out of this Feduccia fella?

The very second that framing gets removed from the equation. I'll say Yippee loud enough to be heard in Crookston. As for today... In light of the value attached to catchers in the marketplace. I'd would have been hyper focused on the development of catchers. I would have started day one and done my best to pile them up and trade the extras for the value returned. The Dodgers trade extra catching value despite drafting in the upper 20's every year. However... At a minimum. Catcher is such a defensive position... so much so that there are many light hitting defensive catchers across the baseball landscape that still cost 4 million. Why can't teams (plural) at the very least... produce a catcher or two on the farm with the defensive skill necessary but can't hit a lick. I know we want them to hit and catch but the market is already paying 4 million for catch only. It just leads questions that I can't answer. How bad do the Twins think Camargo was that he couldn't get some exercise on the 26 man roster last year with a .575 in front of him blocking the way? How bad is the sum total of catchers across the league if Camargo still has a 40 man roster spot despite not getting exercise with a .575 in front of him? How bad is the sum total of catchers across the league if McCann is the answer to any question. The Market value of catching is so inflated and it has been for years. The Twins (And other teams) by failing to cash in on that inflation... have simply dropped the development ball and every time they dip into the McCann bucket they extend the dropping of the development ball with no end in sight.

I think it's bad strategy trying to force the spending of more money by taking away money that they have to spend. Sounds like a good way to get the team moved to Nashville. "Pining" isn't really accurate. I could care less about moves like this. I have no idea what Gasper will be. But he didn't cost 4 million so let him be who he will be. If all he has to do is clear the Margot bar... then we can spend that 4 million elsewhere. I did have a pretty good idea of what Margot was and he certainly was... and he was for the entire 2024 season. I'd rather not spend 4 million here and 4 million there and 4 million over there when that 12 million could be combined to bring in something actually better then the guy with options making the minimum.

Agreed... McCann was a much better hitter and still not good enough. In the end... It's like choosing between a 5 dollar cup of coffee at Starbucks and 5 dollar cup of coffee at Caribou. Make your own. Spend that 5 dollars on something else.

Exactly... You are spot on. I can't see anything that makes sense here. What teams wants Vazquez at the entire 10 million when Jansen and Sanchez costs 8.5 million? How much money will the Twins have to eat just to move Vazquez in order to clear some cash to possibly spend? McCann is basically Vazquez value wise. They are carbon copies of each other with McCann just one year older. McCann cashed in a big year with the White Sox in 2020 for a 4 year 40 million contract with the Mets in 2021. 2 years later... the Mets traded him to the Orioles with the Mets eating 19 million of the remaining 24 million getting a low level prospect in return. So, the Orioles valued McCann for two years at 2.5 million AAV in order to part with a low level prospect. So if you consider what the Mets ate. Now consider the Vazquez similarity. He cashed in a decent year with the Red Sox and Astros in 2022 for a 3 year 30 million contract with the Twins. Look at Vazquez and then look at McCann and then look at how much money the Mets ate to get McCann of their roster for the remaining two years of his contract. The question remains... How much money would the Twins have to eat to shed Vazquez? Which leads to the next question to make the proposed scenario work. With Vazquez and McCann performing nearly the same over the course of their big contracts and similar age. If the Twins don't eat significant money in a trade. Why would any team trade for Vazquez for more money when they can just sign McCann for much less especially when McCann was better offensively last year? If the Twins have to eat significant money which I assume they do. Trading Vazquez, eating money and signing McCann would leave how much to spend on Pete Alonso? I assume... not much if you could convince a team to take Vazquez with McCann STILL ON THE BOARD. This is why Camargo sitting on the bench for 20 games on the roster watching Vazquez produce a .575 OPS is a HUGE deal. Camargo would make the minimum for 3 years before reaching arbitration. Camargo making the minimum frees up money that could be spent elsewhere and all he had to do was clear an extremely low bar set by Vazquez. Yet the Twins didn't believe that Vazquez could do that. So he sat and watched. Develop catchers or Die via the yearly commitment to poor offensive veteran catchers one after another after another after another.

We committed 2,241 Plate Appearances (36%) to players who were significantly below average at the plate in 2024. We paid Max Kepler 10m to OPS ,682 over 399 PA's. We paid Kyle Farmer 6.25m to OPS .646 over 242 PA's. We paid Manual Margot 4m to OPS .626 over 343 PA's We paid Christian Vazquez 10m to OPS .575 over 315 PA's 30.25 Million spent on players that kept their jobs all year long despite being rather not good enough at the plate. I'm simply not inclined to be concerned about Mickey Gasper making the minimum. I will only become concerned about Mickey Gasper on the 40 man. A. If he remains on the 40 man all year and also remains in AAA all year while 36% of the team MLB AB's are committed to players who are significantly below average. If he is just another Severino or Camargo hanging on the 40 man all year that they refuse to turn to while those above are struggling. I'll then be concerned about Gasper. B. He makes the team and remains on the 26 man roster all year despite significant below average performance at the plate. If he is just a cheaper version of a bad baseball player that you can't get rid of. I'll then be concerned about Gasper. Would I rather pay Margot 4m or pay Gasper the minimum? Gasper please and thank you.

If he hits. Let me be the first to say...Welcome to Minnesota.

Pretty impressive company kept by Matt Wallner. Dear Front Office, Please let Matt Wallner face left handers in 2025. Even if he is only producing 112 MPH exit velo's against them. Sincerely, Riverbrian

This is the question. I honestly don't know what the Fishers will get out of the deal or if outside investors or the city itself is going to take all of the Casino revenue. I'm sure it's complicated. However... If I was an owner talking with other cities about relocation. If I'm talking with Las Vegas. I'm asking for a Casino attached to the stadium for the additional revenue. I'll sink money into it which is easy for me to say when it's not my money. 😎 Once the Braves started pulling in non-traditional revenue from the Battery. Why wouldn't the A's ask for that for that diversification. If the A's get it. The other 28 teams will be surely start putting pressure on cities to provide the same. We will hear the same thing we heard when the Metrodome wasn't producing enough suite sales or parking money to the club that the newer stadiums of the 80's were now producing. I don't know the details of the agreement but if the revenue from the entire complex (all or a portion) ends up in Fisher's pocket. It's a game changer regardless if the Fisher's reinvest it back into baseball. Who knows... The only thing that I can assume. This new stadium regardless of market size is going to produce more revenue than Oakland's crappy old stadium ever could. That's why they are leaving the highly populated Bay Area for a smaller population in the middle of a desert with an average July temperature of 165 degrees. I was in Las Vegas in July once. It was 110 degrees at 12 Midnight. I left a sweat trail walking the strip. As my sweat flowed from the sidewalk into the storm drains. I single handedly increased the water level of Lake Mead and probably provided enough to keep the Bellagio Fountains going for about a month.

Agreed... Although... I'm not sure that they would simply take on his contract. The nature of free agency itself puts himself out of everyone's price range. A team with a newly developed gaping hole at SS would be the only candidates in my mind to take on the entire contract. And that is kind of funny... just like you mentioned. The most obvious team with a gaping hole at SS... would be the Twins if they traded Correa.

Who hits 4th? Whoever lands in the 4th spot on that given day. Here's how I would construct a lineup? Space your lefties and righties out... don't pile up the left handers so a left handed reliever can come in and take them out in the 5th inning. If you are going to pinch hit them in the 5th inning and the Twins have consistently done this. Don't place them 1, 2 and 4 in the lineup so one lefty can just remove every single one of them from the game in one fell swoop. Then... You put your best hitters at the time at the top of the lineup. What do I mean by best hitters AT THE TIME. If Kepler is in a 1 for 16 streak. You can move him down in the lineup. He doesn't have to stay in the 4 spot rain or shine for some psychological reason or for some I need to know where I am in the order for stability reason. If you move him down because he struggling for a stretch and he heats up in the 8th spot. You can move him back to the 4th spot. Using that simple criteria. On Opening day... using the current roster against a right hander and projecting who I think would be the best hitters. Assuming that Wallner and Larnach are in the lineup to represent the lefties. I would rank them in that order. Assuming that Castro and Lee are in the lineup as switch hitters standing in the left handed batters box. I would rank them in that order. And Assuming that Correa, Lewis, Buxton, Miranda and Jeffers are in the lineup as right handed hitters. I would rank them in that order. Starting with the lefties... I would space them out Wallner 2, Larnach 7 I would then space out the righties, Correa 1, Lewis 3, Buxton 4, Miranda 6 and Jeffers 8 Leaving the Switch hitters to space out with Castro into the 5 spot and Lee in the 9th. Leaving you with a lineup on opening day 1. Correa SS (R) 2. Wallner RF(L) 3. Lewis 3B or 2B (R) 4. Buxton CF (R) 5. Castro LF (S) 6. Miranda 1B (R) 7. Larnach DH (L) 8. Jeffers C (R) 9. Lee 3B or 2B (S) This batting order is for opening day or the opening weeks. It would not be static. It would adjust according to actual performance on the field and availability. The players will let you know who should be at the top of the lineup, therefore getting more AB's based on performance not projected performance. Just keep them spaced out. If Royce Lewis starts the season 0 for 20. You can move him down to the bottom of the order in the RIGHT HANDED SPACING. If Correa then starts to heat up, you can them move him back up based on his starting to be Royce Lewis again. I love Royce Lewis and I think he is a superstar. However, Royce only hit 6 or below in the order just one time in 2024. He was pretty locked into 3, 4 or 5 in the lineup. Which is a big deal when you consider his .620 OPS after the all-star break. I know we were not over flowing with offensive options post all-star break due to the key injuries of Correa and Buxton but... .620 OPS after the all star break is an EXTENDED slump with no reaction or consequence from management in regards to his place in the batting order. Be Fluid... It's ok to move them around in the order. Best of the bunch at the time toward the top of the lineup. Space them out so opposing managers can't easily counter move. The answer to the question... Who should replace Kepler at the 4 spot? Nobody specific. Whoever pencils into it that particular day. The players will let you know.

I wish I had your skills. 😉 You were able to say what I was saying perfectly in just one paragraph. For the reasons I listed and the reasons you listed more concisely. A Correa trade would return very little player value. It would only provide a dump of salary that would require either X amount of money or X amount of additional players/prospects in return to right size the remaining contract. The money left could in theory be spent elsewhere in order to improve the club but before you can spend the money, you have to find out what it would cost... just to make one team interested so you can get your hands on the remaining cash just to spend it on improvement elsewhere (including a SS). By the time that happens, where could it be spent? Who will be left to spend it on? Not to mention the No Trade Clause that Boras and Correa could utilize to further limit trade options in the off chance you actually could find a trade partner willing to take on the bulk of the risk inherent in the contract. Myself, if a trade happens, I'll be surprised. Stranger things have happened. Until this stranger thing happens... I'm just going to enjoy watching C4 play SS for us.

In my opinion, this discussion doesn't have much legs to it without one key question answered? No way we could possibly know but the question is this: How much money would the Twins be required to eat for just ONE TEAM to be interested in his contract? He has 4 years left for a guaranteed total of 133 Million left to be paid out. Followed by 4 years of vesting options for a potential of 8 years. If he reaches 575 Plate Appearances in 2028. It would trigger a vesting option of 25 million as a 34 year old. If he reaches 550 PA's in 2029. It would trigger a vesting option of 20 million as a 35 year old. If he reaches 525 PA's in 2030. It would trigger a vesting option of 15 million as a 36 year old. If he reaches 502 PA's in 2031. It would trigger a vesting option of 10 million as a 37 year old. If Correa doesn't reach those triggers he then becomes a club option year by year for the remaining years. The vesting options are decent protection for the Twins. Assuming of course that the mere reaching of 575 PA's means productive player worth bringing back the following season. So just focusing on the 4 years remaining before the vesting options. 37.3 million, 32.8 million, 31.8 million and 31.3 million. When he signed with the Twins. He signed for the biggest contract he could get. The Giants and Mets did offer more initially but they pulled it back leaving the Twins with the best contract offer. That alone tells you that the Twins most likely paid more than others were willing to pay. That alone tells you that the Twins will have to eat some money to move his contract to get where others are willing to pay. UNLESS... he has somehow increased his value in the two years since signing the contract. The first year of the deal - 580 AB's and a .711 OPS The 2nd year of the deal - A fantastic .905 OPS but only 367 PA's due to injury. I love Correa... I'm glad he's a Twin and playing for my team. My comments are not slams on Correa. It's important to ask this question. Do the first two years of his contract indicate a value increase so teams who wouldn't pay more two years ago are now all of sudden willing to pay it? Two years less on the contract will increase the value some but two years older should also decrease the value. So... the question remains. How much money would the Twins be required to eat to make his contract palatable to just one team... let alone multiple teams?

Additional non-traditional revenue streams. Hotel, Bars, Restaurants, Casino, Retail, Parking plus the traditional revenue. Baseball in Vegas is going to survive quite well until the other 29 teams add similar additional revenue streams. Baseball in Vegas is more likely to trigger the other teams to request new venues from local government with non-traditional revenue. Target Field just became outdated.

With what was left in store... You surely could have added more.

Twinsdaily should come up with a naming contest. What we need is an interesting term that we can unfairly apply to this type of player. Every off-season... we make trades on the fringes, we sign players on the fringes. All teams do these sort of deals and every off-season these players or deals are torn to shreds. Yet, all teams must make them. We should be able to label these players with a unique term. This will make it easier to just shove them in a box.

I know I was speaking his language.

I believe it is Those players can be removed from the 26 man roster if need be. In the end, if that approach doesn't work and it may not... it could still potentially make things better next year because they got some major league exposure or at least some valuable data on players who will be on the roster next year. Develop or Die by locking yourself into the annual off-season search for under performing Margot's. If we get a Solano type performance out of a cheap one year contract... it at least helps in that year with no benefit for next year. Win Loss. If we get a Margot type performance from a one year contract. It kills us in the current year with no benefit for future years. Which is a Loss Loss. The Twins knew Margot was a one year guy. They negotiated his buyout from the Dodgers in the trade. He kept his roster spot ALL YEAR!!!

All 3 can be sent down. None of those three were in the top 9 in utilization. The point is the utilization of players who are not getting the job done. Not consistently playing the sub par performance is the key to an elevated Twins lineup. It's what we can do. It's the only thing we can do. Everyone likes to focus on the top... I'm saying we should focus on the bottom because we can't focus on the top. It's what we can do.

Key to an elevated Twins lineup? In my opinion... the key to this elevated lineup we seek isn't going to be specific players. The key is going to be avoiding the consistent utilization of below average players. Let's look at team stats from last year for peer comparison. I'll choose runs as the category to begin our journey because ultimately runs are what all teams are trying to create offensively and then use AB's and OPS for utilization. The Twins finished 10th in runs scored last year (742 Runs). Not Bad but let's compare utilization with the D-Backs who were ranked #1 (886 Runs). It's also worth noting that Arizona also led the league in OPS last year as well. Sorting by AB's let's look at the OPS of the 9 players Arizona and the 9 players our Twins utilized the most. Carroll - 589 - .750 / Castro - 558 - .716 Saurez - 571 - .788 / Santana - 521 - .748 Gurriel - 513 - .757 / Jeffers - 412 - .732 Marte - 504 - .932 / Miranda - 401 - .763 Walker - 479 - .803 / Kepler - 368 - .682 McCarthy - 442 - .749 / Buxton - 355 - .859 Pederson - 367 - .908 / Larnach - 355 - .772 Perdomo - 337 - .718 / Correa - 319 - .905 Moreno - 305 - .733 / Margot - 315 - .626 Arizona get 503 more AB's out of their top 9 (4107 - 3604). 503 extra AB's from your top 9 is about the equivalent of a good every day player. 503 AB's would have ranked 3rd in AB's on the Twins so it's a fairly significant difference. The lowest OPS from the Arizona group is .718 with SS Perdomo ranking 8th in AB's with 337 AB's. In Comparison our Twins had 3 players in our Top 9 with lower OPS that the 9th ranked Perdomo... including the guy with the most AB's last year which was Castro at .716. Kepler and Margot were the other two below... well below. With Margot coming home with a shouldn't be in the major leagues low of .626. With that trio... The Twins committed a total of 1,241 AB's to average or well below average offensive performers with league average being .711 and if I include Castro's .716 as an example of average... then I must include Perdomo giving the D-Backs a total of 337 AB's of Average and Zero AB's to well below average. Let's look at the top 3 AB leaders for the Twins. If Castro, Santana and Jeffers could be added to the D-Backs making it a D-Backs top 12. Castro, Santana and Jeffers would have ranked 12th, 8th and 10th in OPS respectively. The top 3 OPS Dudes in the top 9 AB's for Arizona Marte, Pederson and Walker combined for 1,350 AB's. The Top 3 OPS Dudes in the top 9 AB's for Minnesota Correa, Buxton and Larnach combined for 929 AB's. That's a 421 AB difference. 421 AB's would have ranked 3rd in AB's for our Twins. What does this tell me? It's bad baseball playing over and over again that ultimately kills you. If you insist on rewarding bad baseball with consistent playing time. You better have your best players filling in that hole with consistent playing time. The Twins don't have healthy enough superstars to make up that Margot and Kepler ground that was lost. So in a nutshell, The Twins are not going to sign impressive top end Free Agent X... We all know that. This means the Twins will have a large problem trying to add at the top end of the talent spectrum and there is no reason to believe that Correa, Buxton and Lewis will turn into 500 AB guys due to injury history. So what can we do if we can't add to the top? Don't ADD TO THE BOTTOM. It's the thing that we can do to elevate the lineup. In other words... If you can't add an Alonso... Don't add a Margot.

What's the rationale for a static order? What is gained by a static order? What is lost without a static order? Is it fact or theory? Are there numbers easily pointed to that show the importance of sticking with an order.

Alex Verdugo spent the most time in the cleanup spot for the Yankees last season. Kyle Schwarber was the lead off guy for Phillies. If there is a mold... it's sitting on a shelf... plaster free.

I'm sorry. You have an interesting style that's hard for many us to follow. I hope you can forgive us for that. Not many can do this but you started with Field% and with amazing deftness, you seamlessly segued into Total Zone Runs above average. You went from a percentage stat to a counting stat like David Copperfield or Houdini. You should say Ta-Da when you post.

I'll let RpR respond but 1,000 is better than .993 Kepler should have been playing CF.