Nashvilletwin

No, that is not necessarily true. At the deadline we hopefully will want a player that will make an immediate impact for the remainder of the season who will help us get to the World Series. That is what we all should hope for.

All could be true, but it could change the definition of “poor performance” a bit. The margin of error, so to speak, may be a little lower for those players. And, btw, trading one or more of those vets would likely mean the return are prospects - not a player looking to be an immediate contributor. Also, sure it’s “pretty easy” to trade anyone if you are just looking to clear a spot and don’t care about the return or would be willing to eat some remaining salary. But getting a good return for any of those vets may be harder to come by than suggested. Of course, it also presumes you want to trade one of them - they all may be performing as or better than expected and are important contributors (oh, and DeSclafani doesn’t count - his spot on the roster would need to be filled by a pitcher).

The first derivative of the Margot trade is that it essentially eliminated Larnach and Martin as contenders to break camp with the team as the last (13th) position player on the roster. The second derivative is that it puts more pressure on Wallner and Kiriloff, and maybe Castro (the pre trade #10-12 position players) as really the only candidates who can be sent down if someone heats up in AAA or is just ready to be brought up. So if Lee is brought up, which we all expect at some point in the not so distant future, then, barring injury, one of those guys will be sent across the river. Moreover, the trade makes the bar that much higher for a Larnach or Martin to be called up because then a second one of those three would need to be sent down as well - assuming Lee is brought up. The Margot trade actually stinks for several of the younger players on the edge of making and/or staying with the big club.

Could be the next Steer or CES….

I think you are right for the time being. But given the depth at AAA, if this team is contending at the deadline, we shouldn’t rule out a Mahle type deal (hopefully it works out better this time). Patience my friend.

Don’t forget Helman and Goodrum too. ERod starts at AA maybe, but he should be banging on the door too. This depth means a Mahle - Steer/CES trade would be very possible at the deadline. Hopefully, with more success.

Yep, that’s it and, unless there are injuries or someone way underperforms, there are really no position battles left. Let’s hope for a boring, predictable spring training breaking camp with that roster and everyone healthy and playing well.

A decent deal overall - pick up a legit “one and done” to more reliably fill a roster need and swap two fairly similar minor league prospects. Two thoughts: 1. This deal fits the FO’s more recent MO - adding veterans with some proven capability on “one and done” deals. This year we have two - Magot and Santana; last year we had three - Martin, Solano, and Gallo. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t really get invested as a fan in these guys - just not worth the effort. 2. This deal should tumble Martin down our prospect board. Barring injury, he’s looking at another full year in AAA. Another year older with new players coming up means it just is a lot less likely he’s in this team’s future plans. He (and Larnach) should be praying for a Steer/CES type deal. If I were his agent I’d be pushing hard for a trade. Boy, his career really hasn’t turned out for him and the Twins really haven’t done him any favors.

I agree! All cool.

Nah, someone needs to keeping pointing out how ludicrous it is for some of my fellow DNers to keep bashing the Pohlads year in and year out for how cheap they purportedly are. 👍

So making decent deals for players is not investing? Is your point that to be considered an “investment” the number has to be higher or needs to be an overpay? So if we had paid more for Buxton or Correa, that would count as full credit instead of 1/2? That’s ridiculous. A dollar is a dollar. Wait until the arbitrations and extensions kick in starting next season - then we will have the ability to keep our talent, instead of wasting it on the one and done types. I’d argue that the team is actually making a big investment in their young talent this year by clearing the way to develop them, and, yes, pay them in the future.

First, I said I suspect that the team is run more or less to earn a small profit give or take. Second, I agree. I do not know. But I point to the Forbes analysis that someone posted supporting that contention. Second, the level of estimated revenues and costs would seem to support the ideas, particularly how payroll fluctuates with revenues. Third, I personally could understand running the team not to lose money, but I’m having a hard time really thinking the Pohlads are looking to take huge cash out of this business of theirs. Fourth, operating expenses, not just payroll, go up every year. Let’s just be a bit kind - the Twins are a pretty well run organization doing a lot of things the right way. And the fam experience at Target Field is pretty much top notch across the board. So, until proven otherwise, I will just stick with my contention that the team is run with a target small margin and the Twins are at the lower end of that spectrum. You are free to keep banging the drum about how cheap the Pohlads are.

First, there are lots of TDers who think that the Pohlads are so wealthy that their only concern should be to deliver a WS win to the community. And no matter how much they spend, it will never be enough. Lots. Second, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You and others don’t seem too excited about this season. Others, including myself, are incredibly excited about the team that has been put together. And way more excited than what we put together at the start of last season - even though last year’s payroll was higher. Third, who says the Twins are done spending? Maybe they have a bit in their pockets to spend at the deadline to try to get us over the top. Fourth, no one on this site - including yourself - has any idea how much the Twins have made or lost over the years. Again, I posit that the Twins probably run the “business” on an annual basis to eke out a little bit of profit with a few years in the red and a few more in the black. Moreover, I posit that relative to the other franchises in the league, the Twins earn lower margins than the vast majority of them. Please, some one prove that wrong so I can jump on the “Pohlads are cheap” bandwagon. Fifth, the Twins have made long-term investments. Lots of them (Correa, Buxton, Lopez) with lots more on the way (with many approaching arbitrations and extensions on the way). Patience my friend, the investments are not only there, but are also in the plan. At the moment, I’ll take the team the Twins have pulled together this season as better and more exciting than last year’s with plenty of great entertainment on the way. And I’ll take the over on the Twins vs. the DBacks and any other small - mid market franchise this season. Would another “big” name or two (with a big contract) have been nice? Yeah, sure. I know you’d prefer to have kept Polanco. But this roster is solid, exciting and should be more than competitive.

Ted, we love your work, but this payroll stuff is just getting so old. Please, please would someone, anyone, show the actual data proving that a) there are major league owners consistently losing money on an annual operating basis and b) the Twins earn excessive operating margins/profits vis-a-vis the rest of the major league franchises. The reality is more than likely that the data would show the opposite. Seriously, would someone please prove just how penurious the Twins actually are relative to their annual operating profits and the other owners. I have no interest to carry any water for the Pohlads (yes, they are extremely wealthy and many TDers wish they would just spend willy nilly without a care in the world), but, until we see the actual data, could we just focus on enjoying the show and lay off the divisiveness?

We TDers shouldn’t sleep on Helman. He’s a really good ballplayer who could prove to be a valuable backup this season. If he has a good spring, that might just inspire enough confidence that others theoretically ahead of him in the OF pecking order could be moved.

There is a lot of solid thinking in this conjecture. And I agree with you that Lee and Julien are ahead of Kirilloff in terms of whom we’d prefer to keep long-term. Having said that, we still have a hole at DH against RHs (some TDers think Larnach is best suited for that role). Kiriloff can be that DH, play a corner OF and 1B. So Kirilloff trumps Larnach at this point. But if Lee does break camp with the big club then only one of Kiriloff, Larnach and Martin do as well without an injury. I could see Kiriloff staying as primary DH against righties and Larnach and Martin start in across the river. Or we trade Kiriloff as he’d have the most value of those three, but still not that much.

Given our pen, I’d take 20-24 starts, an average of 5+ innings per start (125-135 innings) and an ERA of 4.00 from each of our #4-6 starters (Paddack, DeSclafani, and Varland). In those 65-70 starts, we could expect to play around 0.550 ball, or win about 37 games, at a minimum.

Several advantages Martin brings to the team vis-a-vis Larnach when thinking about a late inning substitution role are: a) he bats rightie so he can spell Kepler, Wallner, Julien or Kiriloff (the last three being our weakest “splits” hitters against lefties by far); b) he doesn’t strike out, has a high on-base, and can get the ball in play (even on an off-speed pitch, lol) - so he has greater value as a pinch hitter; c) he has speed so he can pinch run too (or is just more valuable on the base paths) and probably has more range in the OF; and d) he can play multiple positions, including CF, LF, 2B, 3B, and SS. Larnach’s only advantages are a bit more power and prior MLB experience.

Ok everbody, let’s look at these numbers. Let’s assume they are, or nearly are, correct. If so, a couple observations: 1. Only three teams lost money on an operating basis. Three. That’s it. So where are all the owners willing to lose money on an annual basis? 2. The three that did lose money all had less revenue than the Twins. Given the amount of relatively fixed costs needed to operate a franchise, it’s likely that they just didn’t have the revenues to cover the nugget. Having said that, possibly the Blue Jays were willing to lose money. 3. The Twins operating margin is a mere 5%. That’s pathetic for any reasonably run mature business. Are you really going to begrudge them that sort of margin? 4. But wait, how about some other small mid-market teams? The Rays, Reds, Tigers, White Sox, Brewers, Padres, A’s, Guardians and Rockies all made more profit than the Twins on close to or less revenue. Boy, their fans must be really livid - those gouger owners. TDers - it’s just a fallacy that some/most owners are willing to lose money on an annual operating basis year after year to win a championship for themselves or their communities.

I wouldn’t if I were you. I’d cheer for the Brewers or Cardinals like you said. You have two good options; I’m sure their owners are better people than the Twins’.

Perf! Go for it Roy! (Tin Cup reference).

The world is full of these hypocrisies. Everywhere you look. But the sad truth is that there is a market for MLB franchises from municipalities. Can’t escape that. Too bad it’s not different. What did our late, great Happy Warrior, Hubert Humphrey, say? I think it was if the Twin Cities lost the Twins and Vikings, “we’d be a cold Omaha”.

I’m not sure history supports that conclusion. But directionally, you are, of course, correct.

Well, I certainly respect your frustration. It would be nice if the message from “The Nephew” were different. But it wasn’t. I guess your choices are to: a) make a bunch of money, buy the Twins and run the team your way; b) leave the Twins and pick a new team to follow that more aligns with your expectations of ownership (Mets or Dodgers might be a good place to start); or c) maybe try to change your attitude a little bit so you don’t find your long-term team so frustrating (because, well, that’s neither healthy nor fun). Personally, I’ve adopted c) a long time ago and am still working on a) - lol. In any event, we’d hate to lose you as a fellow TDer. But if that’s the case, best of luck to you.