TheLeviathan

Wallner feels like he still has upside. Larnach does not. I'm hoping Larnach is dealt for a reliever this offseason.

Cashman one definitely hurts in pass coverage. Especially with Smith also out and limiting what we can do with Metellus.

I wonder if we see him back this week. Like.....maybe he's actually healthy enough to play they just held him out purely to avoid that slop.

I would add that I thought that 50 yard field goal was dicey call with how bad Santos first kick was. Glad we're done with that garbage field.

QB School Review

Honestly? No. If we're going to be a 60-65 win team, I don't care for an extra 4-5 wins at the expense of peak trade value. We got Joe Ryan by not clutching on to Cruz and his leadership/presence. We got Lopez by selling high on Arraez. Keeping them to essentially put lipstick on a pig in 2026 doesn't interest me at all. Zero. Zilch. Now....if I were in charge and the Pohlads were gone? I'd deal Lopez, extend Ryan, and invest in this team. Given the low likelihood of that happening, however, I think shopping them both is the only reasonable thing to do.

What a comeback! My observations: 1) Run the damn ball more. This game turned around when we let the new OL and the new RB pound the Bears into submission. KOC was way too cute early. 2) B-Flo was way too vanilla early. We weren't even playing a containment style rush very well. There were a lot of third downs where we deliberately weren't pushing the pocket. I think somewhere midstream he said "Eff it....bring the house. Big boys go eat" because the pass rush looked totally different in the second half. 3) JJ was late getting to a lot of throws. Even on completions like the out route to JJ (not the pick) and the Oliver 2 pt....he just was a second or two late to his progression. Ball got there, but they lost opportunities due to giving defenders time to recover. 4) Skule got bullrushed into JJ's lap on 125% of the dropbacks. I'm pretty sure I did that math right. On the plus side: 1) Hargrave is a beast. He's still every bit the disrupter he was. Hopefully he's getting enough breaks to stay healthy and dominant. LDR had some big splashes too. I thought Turner played better than Greenard. 2) DBs looked fine even without Smith. 3) O-line had some nasty in them in the second half. We bullied the Bears. 4) The coaching advantage in the second half was enormous. Both our OC and DC had bad first halves, but then the second half showed they are on a completely different level. 5) Mason was a steal.

I don't think it's wrong to oppose a firesale, I just don't think the reasoning is completely sound. Ultimately the most important question is: who do we think is on this team, helping them win in 2028? If the team isn't going to cut a check for Ryan or Lopez, then the time to deal them is now.

This team won't be good in 2026. They should be investing plate appearances in guys like Martin. Trade Larnach and don't sign any Ty France types. Let the kid play and see if there really is something solid there.

I know this sounds logical, but it is missing key elements that are crucial to evaluating future courses of action: 2028 is three years from now. In baseball, that is a very long period of time. Assuming 2025 Lopez/Ryan is a 1:1 swap in 2028 is dangerous. To show but a few examples....at this time three years ago Jose Miranda, Gio Urshela, and Nick Gordon were all at an OPS+ over 110. Devin Smeltzer was a 105 ERA+. Tyler Duffey was still a thing. When you make the decision to deal 2025 Joe Ryan to help your 2028 team, you have to bake in the reality that A) Joe Ryan may not even be a Twin at that point or B) May not be nearly the same player. None of that is to say we should deal Ryan or Lopez. Or that we are on a fast track to 2028, but just to point out that some of this is a bit spurious in presentation.

Settling on "I'll watch the Jets game I guess" is a choice no football fan should seriously face.

The noon game slate for opening weekend is really bad.

I don't even think winning fixes this. Let's say they go out and have a top 5 record next season by the All-Star game. I don't think the attendance will have shifted at all by July. The issues are deeper. Fans feel double betrayed - betrayed by the payroll slash in 2023 and betrayed by the "We're selling the team!.......Psyche!" move during a horrible season. It's going to take a total reversal in behavior at the ownership level, for a sustained period of time, or it won't matter. Or just sell the damn team.

Attendance has been bad long before the trade deadline. Ownership sent the message after 2023 that winning was not the top priority. It's really as simple as that. All roads lead back to the Pohlads.

He's 20.

I'm all on board, great article Nick. Give him the extension and start putting down a roadmap for how to build a team around him. It wouldn't shock me if that was the impetus for drafting the most major league ready, glove first SS in this most recent draft. They're looking at him being the lockdown defender on the team they hope Jenkins is leading. Whatever pick we end up with this year, I wouldn't be shocked if it was a Langford type who basically comes straight to the majors. I think it's also worth pointing out that locking him up prior to what is likely a nasty CBA battle is prudent as well.

An NHL style contract system would do baseball a world of good.

I'd deal Lopez this offseason for sure. Ryan....extend him.

Fully agree. I keep hearing Salt Lake City and laugh. Like....that town absolutely cannot support baseball.

Well said, the problem with this argument is the strawman that anyone is defending owners. You can want a salary cap, a floor, revenue sharing, redesigned arbitration/early career pay-outs.... AND want more money for players. They aren't even close to mutually exclusive.

On April 1st you get the bottom fifteen teams and I get the top ten teams in payroll. Who do you think gets a bigger payout from Vegas on that? If it's me. You're right. If it's you.....then you should reconsider just how bad your argument is here. And I think it's pretty damn obvious which that would be. Shall we pull up the odds in Vegas from April and confirm?

Way too convoluted IMO. The NHL probably has it best.

Cool....60% players/40% owners. Now what's the excuse? Salary Caps are irrelevant to player earning power. Only the above negotiation matters on that front. A floor, on the other hand, absolutely forces more money to players. What the cap does is force teams to be competent, not just rich. It's best for the league to force their owners to be competent rather than just rich.

Owners won't agree to share media revenues without other things coming into play. Yes, sharing media revenues would do a world of good, but they aren't even agreeing to that amongst each other. The salary cap is merely devised by taking the percent of revenue allocated to the players and splitting it among thirty teams. This is how the other leagues do it. The cap itself is irrelevant....the negotiated revenue split is the issue. Other player unions agreed to caps for increases in their portion of the shared revenue - baseball should do the same. And demand an aggressive floor to make sure that money is spent. I've posted elsewhere but what you say/believe about parity and the issues with revenue disparities is simply not true. Baseball gets to dodge parity questions because the nature of the game masks incompetence/competence/money when pure, random luck happens in the playoffs.