ashbury

I am surprised the Oakland Coliseum parking lot didn't provide savvy GMs with good choices this year. One time, an entire abandoned church was selected via Rule 6 by the Atlanta Braves, despite the expense of transporting it, and their team chaplain holds weekly services there to this very day. For all I know, the A's may have left behind their full roster of AA prospects on that enormous, barren expanse of asphalt in their haste to leave town.

baseball-reference.com has 'em. For Salt River: https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/team.cgi?id=53cb1207 There are only 6 teams, so it's not too inconvenient to look them up one at a time. Here's their league page: https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/league.cgi?id=0e7661c4 Maybe you'll find the mlb.com page more convenient for whatever purpose you have: https://www.mlb.com/arizona-fall-league/stats/

I dunno. Tell me.

Doesn't need to be like that. Bases empty and/or not a close score, it makes no difference what resources the opposing manager has. But if the other team has a lefty or two they can bring in each time the game hangs in the balance with one of our corner guys due up, it's a disadvantage. The solution of course is for the new batting coach to figure out what the previous one(s) apparently could not, namely how to bring these lefty hitters to the level of accomplishment they need to be once they reach the majors. I don't think Keirsey, Wallner, or Larnach showed the extreme L/R splits in the minors like we've seen in the majors (Keirsey being the smallest of major league SSS of course, but he still managed to fit the unfortunate pattern). It's uncanny how our lefty hitters, possessing normal/small L/R splits in the minors, seemingly all get spooked by LHP when they come up, deer-in-headlights style. Referring to handedness is of course shorthand. There's the old cliche that "I don't care which hand he throws with, I want a pitcher who can get lefties out," and the corollary for batters is obvious. Correa hits righthanders exceedingly well (even if he succeeds even more against lefties). Lewis is a little hard to figure, given his second-half swoon, but the overall stats for his 2024 show a guy who was playable when facing a right-hander and did better than that against left-handers. L/R splits are something almost every batter has, and you can live with that, as long as he's playable either way. The key is, when are they playable. Correa is totally playable against RHP, and Lewis shows no sign that he isn't playable against them, either. Wallner and Larnach, just going by results so far, are simply not playable against LHP, Adding Keirsey to this mix, based on empty results in a mere 4 PA in 2024, threatens to be toxic unless solutions are found pronto. Or, maybe Buxton can hang in there for 150 starts in CF, and make my concern moot. 😀 There are various solutions to this L/L/L alignment in the outfield, a few of which I've alluded to and there are obviously others. My point is that I can't simply ignore it, when deciding whether to roster both Larnach and Waller. They aren't good enough, yet, to let me.

The problem with these two corner outfielders is the starting center fielder. Specifically, that the CF starter is frequently unavailable, and at the moment the best defensive candidate as his backup (Keirsey) also bats left-handed. If Buxton is out for extended periods, you'd have an outfield of LH bats who are each highly unproven when the opposing team throws lefty after lefty at you. It's not their fault, but housing both Larnach and Wallner present roster problems when things go even slightly amiss.

Just to be clear, I wasn't intending to throw shade on anyone taking part in the TD GM idea. Just a whimsical* take and an explanation** of why I'm not taking part. I'm genuinely frustrated; playing armchair GM is no longer fun for me. * okay, curmudgeonly ** as though anyone asked for one

"If healthy." Mrs. Ash is getting tired of hearing me scream every time I run across this phrase in an optimistic article at TD. Also, with regard to those 2015 Royals, I'll mention again something I ran across while looking up stuff in another context. According to baseball-reference.com they were in the top half of payroll across the majors that year. No, they didn't spend like they were the Dodgers or Yankees, but they did pay their players - and in particular they paid to have some elite bullpen arms. Our 2025 Twins will be comfortably in the bottom half of payroll and will not be going out and acquiring bullpen talent at market prices.

I'm the GM and it's my job to plan the off-season? Here's the plan: I turn in my letter of resignation. Ciao, Joe and the rest of the Pohlads! As GM I've demonstrated my ability to run a team, and now I'm tired of the budgetary restrictions. I'll wait for a job offer from a major league team that is actually major league in its aspirations, and in the meantime I will be available for consulting gigs, plus I'll go work the Venture Capital side of the street to make ends meet. I'm not playing these lose-lose games anymore. C: Ryan Jeffers ($4.70M) 1B: Jose Mirands ($0.80M) 2B: Brooks Lee ($0.80M) 3B: Royce Lewis ($2.30M) SS: Carlos Correa ($36.00M) LF: Trevor Larnach ($2.10M) CF: Byron Buxton ($15.00M) RF: Matt Wallner ($0.80M) DH: Edouard Julien ($0.80M) 4th OF: Austin Martin ($0.80M) Utility: Willi Castro ($6.20M) Utility: DaShawn Keirsey ($0.80M) Backup C: Christian Vazquez ($10.00M) NA: Dead Money Here ($0.00M) SP1: Pablo Lopez ($21.50M) SP2: Joe Ryan ($3.80M) SP3: Bailey Ober ($4.30M) SP4: Chris Paddack ($7.50M) SP5: Simeon Woods Richardson ($0.80M) RP: Jhoan Duran ($3.70M) RP: Brock Stewart ($0.80M) RP: Griffin Jax ($2.60M) RP: Jorge Alcala ($1.50M) RP: Cole Sands ($0.80M) RP: Justin Topa ($1.30M) RP: Louie Varland ($0.80M) RP: Kody Funderburk ($0.80M) NA: Dead Money Here ($0.00M) Payroll is 0.99% over budget

Spot on, pitch perfect. Now do one about Joe Pohlad. Anyway I am against trading Doris. HR in the clutch can win many a game.

Rooker didn't achieve positive value for a major league team until his age-28 season. When I refer to regret, I don't mean genuine loss, or that anybody made a mistake, just the feeling of what-might-have-been. Roster rules prevent any team from comfortably waiting for a guy to make it big for a few years in his late 20s. But Severino could bring a team some productive seasons as a DH, even taking into account that DH is a very challenging job to get and then keep.

Winder has reached and demonstrated his ceiling. Severino, on the other hand, I have premonitions of Brent Rooker levels of regret - one down year on an otherwise upward progression doesn't close the book on him.

My daughter just said Solano needs to retire right now, when I read her this. We raised her right.

I'm on the Prospect-Hoarder end of the spectrum, but I would not actually count on any of these players being major league contributors yet. It's fine to have a plan for when they go beyond knocking on the door, and actually kick that door in through their performance at AAA - a plan as to who else to demote or who else to trade or who else to cut. But none of them can be who you plan 2025 around. That courts disaster, of 2024 ChiSox proportions. Debuts in 2025? Maybe some of them. Game-changing? That's wishful thinking.

Derek Falvey's profit-sharing check from the Pohlads depends on getting out from under $21M+ of payroll. Simple as that.

Wow, this is actually promising. Expectations haven't been met. Change is called for, expertise moreso than loyalty is my preference at this time. DSP has a seat on the board of directors, so this news raises the likelihood of a sale of the club, in my own mind anyway and lacking insider information. New owners will bring in their own board. More than ever this is Falvey s team. The buck stops with him.

When they start hoisting pennants at the ballpark for a 90- or 93-win season, I'll make sure to pay special attention to your tables. Nor did any other WS-winning team. Because those teams had high enough payrolls. You aren't even listening. Yes and I corrected that oversight for you. You're welcome. Your focus on 25% is mean-spirited toward players in the first place, but I explained why it's misguided as well - because only a failing team pays 25% to anybody. See the Nationals for the past few seasons as an example. The Twins likewise weren't paying anyone 25% until they right-sized their payroll. 25% is effect, not cause. It's the effect of dropping payroll. Selling off those players will not improve a team's chances at the WS. What you are consistent about is trying to sell us on lowered expectations. And you're outraged that I'm not buying. You can't deny the fact that a WS has been out of the reach for below-average payroll teams for the past 20 years, so you set a new expectation of maybe 90 wins every now and then (elusive for the Twins since 2019). Yes you do. Who won the Beancounters League pennant this year? Whoever it was, it's boring.

Nice try but I did not say that. What I presented was a clear and precisely defined benchmark. You want to use mushy terms like success. Were the 2023 Twins successful? I would say so, but that's partly influenced by personal experience I've talked about previously. I would not call the 2024 Twins successful, even though they would rank only slightly lower in your spreadsheet of win totals and whatever else - but they did exceed my own pre-season estimate for wins so maybe I should be pleased with them. Neither team reached 90 wins, but different people would react differently to a 90-win team too. And the standard for success will vary by franchise; my son in NYC is amused by the angst of his Yankee-fan friends right now. So your 90-win standard misses some successful teams like our 2023 Twins and overvalues others. A World Series win, by contrast, is unassailable. No one hates that. And the data I provided is likewise clear cut. No team since the 2003 Florida (sic!) Marlins has won a WS while carrying a below-average payroll. Your post which I responded to specified a 20-year window, and that team is outside that. The team's change of name is a reminder that reaching for events that far back may not carry much relevance to today's marketplace for players. Still, let's be generous and say that 1 time in the past 22 seasons, such a payroll won the WS. That's not 1-in-22 odds for one particular team - that's 1-in-22 for 15 different teams each season, half the league, so if your rooting interest happens to be for one team, it's more like 15 times 22, or one in every 330 years. Not the simple "once every 30 years" you suggested if every team in the majors had an equal chance. Once every 22 years, a Hunger Games team wins the lottery, and the other 14 Hunger Games teams are supposed to take heart from it. Once every 330 years, that team might even be yours! The teams in the bottom half of payroll have vanishingly little chance. Meanwhile the top 15 payrolls have won 21 out of 22. Indeed several of those winners were only barely over the dividing line and I am not saying $200M is a guarantee of success since it obviously is not. So if you root for one of those teams, in a vacuum your odds are more like 1 out of 15 teams with a chance, times 21 over 22, thus... let's call it 1 out of 16. A good deal more competitive than the simple one-out-of-30, and a huge distance better than the 1 out of 330 bottom half. Trying to win it all with a sub-par player payroll is close to an impossible task. 15 teams try to do it every year, thinking this is the year, the year that they can thread the needle to play their young and inexpensive prospects. It hasn't been done since 2003. Nothing makes sense but you can get additional insight, and then you go on to disparage the insight. Good one. No one should care about payroll capacity. Mark Twain is (probably incorrectly) credited with saying "a person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read," and I feel the same way about payroll capacity. An owner with deep pockets who doesn't reach down into them has no advantage over an owner who can't. Ranting about 25% for one player is a subtler form of player disparagement for ownership/management apologists, when it's the small payroll itself that is the cause. The team that's in the top 15 payroll, and thus has some legitimate shot at winning it all, has very little chance of paying 25% for any player. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Don't trade the player, up your game. I can't close without commenting on this gem. Apparently Derek Falvey reads the news in order to learn what his budget constraints are. Nope, Falvey is on board with it all. Of course, when his contract is up, he may look at the same analyses you and I are trying to discuss, and depart for greener pastures. Unless perhaps he is being given a significant profit-sharing arrangement already, or is offered even something like whatever longtime-and-loyal employee Dave St Peter currently has, a seat on the board. New ownership, if it's not just a smokescreen, could shake everything up, of course. The distinction between Falvey and the current Pohlad ownership group is practically non-existent. “Happy Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favor.”

The easiest way to pay one player 25% is to have a small payroll in the first place. The large-payroll teams were above $200M, ten of them now, and no player this year earned a quarter of that. Turn the question around more usefully, based on that insight. The interesting question is, when is the last time a team won the World Series while being in the bottom half of the major leagues in total payroll? That's a clear-cut metric, not some nebulous "mid-market" or "succeeded" concept. While you look that up (hint: your beloved 2015 Royals are NOT the answer to the question, because b-r.com shows them as top-half payroll that year), I will mention that our Twins were not in the top half of payroll last season, they were not in the top half this season, and it seems pretty clear they won't be in the top half of payroll in 2025 either. It's pretty fair to assume they aren't going to win the World Series. Since it's hard to find a team in the past 20 years who succeeded by winning the WS, period, while spending less than MLB average on payroll, one is of course not going to find any team that succeeded in that regard while paying 25% to one player. In other words, whether you intended to or not, you asked a trick question. There's a statistical bias to the framing of the question, and a cause-and-effect fallacy, on top of flexible definitions of terms. Said another way, the 2024 Washington Nationals didn't fail because they paid Patrick Corbin 25 percent, they paid Patrick Corbin 25 percent because they were failing. Somehow disposing of Corbin would not have saved their season.

It is imperative to have at least two, preferably three, deep-pockets teams all wanting to get Correa. While sites like Baseball Trade Values can sometimes give close estimates of what a prospect or average veteran would be worth in trade, when it's an above-average veteran the range of possible trade values is extremely wide. That is to say, BTV isn't "wrong" on such a player, but the exact value not only isn't knowable, it isn't even a thing. (And to their credit, they do list ranges of value.) In addition to dollars per WAR, and remaining contract value, for such a player there is also the "yeah, but we have him and you don't" factor. Possibly the Yankees were the only team who wanted Josh Donaldson, and so the return on him (plus other assets we gave up) was basically a couple of guys the Yankees didn't have room for anymore. That may or may not be the case for Correa, a much better player at the moment. If luck is with you, you can add the "and one of your rivals might get him" factor. You need at least two teams "in" on Correa to take from a pure salary-relief trade to a trade between relative equals. The number of rich enough teams is small, and the subset of those who are lacking good up-the-middle defense is smaller, so I'm not holding my breath. BTW I'm not against trading Correa for good prospects, if the next step is to trade from that expanded prospect pool to obtain meaningful help for the 2025 edition of the Twins. If it winds up a salary-relief deal with the only team who will take him, then yes, I hate it too.

Concur, because I vehemently disagree.

That's simply not how the major leagues define the term. These players would not have been eligible for the Rookie of the Year award, had they excelled. BTW I think Carlos Correa has never been sent down on minor league options, so all three of his are intact. Do you consider him a rookie too?

I take issue with the assumption built into this article. Buxton does not enter this off-season healthy. Watching him in the outfield during the dozen games he played after coming off the IL, I believe he declined to attempt plays that any CFer is expected to make now and then. He was favoring something, and as a result he was only a fraction of the Byron Buxton that we know. It could be that the missing fraction is never coming back. But in any case he wasn't healthy at season's end. He played through it because the team needed him.

Can't speak to Camargo, but Jeffers had almost identical success in holding down the running game as Vazquez.