LA Vikes Fan

Agreed. I see 350-400 ABs for another OF next year without an injury to one of the other 4 guys. One of those 4 gets hurt and that guy does not and he could get 500 ABs. Who do you want taking those ABs, Roden, Martin, or one of the guys now in AAA? To me, Roden has shown the most and has the best chance to be the right answer. Also, Roden has hit LH pitching well so far so he can help there and eliminate the need to have Martin around just to have a RH bat. The choice if the roster stays as it is now and Larnach is gone is this - keep 2 of Lewis, Martin and Roden. Based on performance to date, Roden is one of those 2, probably with Lewis. Give Roden a 1B mitt and get him working there. Now.

Well said. Let's not discount Roden just because there are other shiny objects out there that we think might be better. You know what? They might not be better.

Roden has one advantage over his competition (Jenkins and EmRod) - he's actually hit MLB pitching at an acceptable level for an everyday player. Roden hit .291/.376/.392(.768) in 91 PAs last year with an equal 12.8% BB and SO rate. That is significantly better than either of the other two guys. Now, I think Jenkins in particular has a much higher ceiling. Not so sure about Rodriguez. EmRod may wind up striking out 30%+ of the time at the MLB level without the walk rate or power to justify that kind of a lineup drag. I don't see any reason to move on from Roden or send him to AAA. I think you give Roden a 1B mitt, have him work on that during the off-season to improve his versatility, and bring him to Spring Training with a direct opportunity to win a starting job in a corner outfield position or at 1B. He may not be a player who can consistently have an OBP above .370 and a OPS above .750 with a low strikeout rate like he was last year in a limited sample size. But he might be. That is a really valuable player, especially since he's not a defense liability and he can run some. I would not be adverse to putting him in ta trade package to get quality player but I don't see any reason to just to trade him for another prospect. Don't trade away guys who show they could be assets just because you think another guy might be a good player in the future but hasn't shown that yet. Let's keep him around and give him a chance.

I think the scenario you put out is the most likely scenario out there. The Pohlads sell roughly 75 to 80% of the team to the current minority owners or some combination thereof. They then retain enough of the team still be in the pro sports business and get whatever juice comes from being the part owner of a professional sports team, sit in the owners suite at games, etc. Who knows maybe Tom still gets to be the operational partner although you would think a new GM would be hired.

Good post. I see that distinction and don't completely disagree with you. I still think Larnach has enough value to take the risk of a $6.3 million arbitration result because you never actually have to pay that money if you don't want to. It's my understanding that the team do not have to sign a player based on the arbitration amount. They can release that player and walk away but they have to pay the player termination pay the player is released during Spring Training. As long as the release comes before the start of the season, the player could be owed0, or at most 30 or 45 days prorated pay based upon the arbitration award. So let's say Larnach gets an arbitration award of $6.3 million. His contract technically runs for one full championship season which is 180 to 186 days depending on the schedule. So if Larnach got a $6.3 million arbitration award, that's a $35,000 a day contract based on a 180 day championship season. Talk about detail that only a lawyer could love. Here's what that really means. The Twins can take Larnach to arbitration and their risk is at most 45 days of pay if they release him prior to the start of the season, which is $1.575 million. If they release him in the first 16 days of Spring Training, they're obligated to pay him 30 days of pay or $1.05 million. If he is released prior to Spring Training starting, the obligation is zero. So the risk of tendering a guy like Larnach a contract, then going to arbitration if he won't sign for the amount on that contract, is that the Twins would be out (1) $0 if he is released before the start of Spring Training, (2) $1.05 million if he's released in the first 16 days of Spring Training, and (3) $1.575 million if you keep him throughout Spring Training, can't find a taker, and then just release him before the start of the season. There is no world in which you take the risk of having to pay a full guaranteed contract unless you actually sign the contract, which you have to do before season starts to keep the player. In other words, there's almost no financial risk to the team of going through the arbitration process unless you actually sign a contract. So to me, if my highest risk is something like $1.57 million and I think that there is any possible taker out there, I tender Larnach a very team friendly contract before the deadline, go all the way through arbitration if he does not sign it (I don't cut a later deal), and have him come to Spring Training, all the while trying to trade him for value. That way you cover yourself if you have a rash of injuries and need the player, although he is likely to be less than thrilled with the team at that point, and the total dollar risk is limited if you can't cut a deal and just release them at the end of ST. $1.575 million risk is negligible in the overall scheme of a $315-$350 revenue million operation, which is the Twins total revenue as publicly estimated.

Wow, I'm not one but it would be tough to be a wealthy sports guy on this board. The level of innate distrust is pretty amazing although in fairness the Pohlad family has earned it. I would not be surprised at all if the new limited partners came in with the idea that they might eventually buy a controlling share of the team and there may be a preexisting agreement on when and on what terms that could happen. I have no particular insight other than what I read and years of experience litigating over corporate deals that involve buy-ins and limited partners so feel free to discount my thoughts and conclusion. My thoughts are that it wouldn't make a lot of sense for sophisticated business to make a minority investment in a money-losing enterprise unless they thought they could or at least have the option to get majority control, and/or they had a strong sense that that enterprise would be more profitable in the future. You then add in the fact that the investment came at a time when the Twins needed cash so the investors had real leverage, and the fact that the deal occurred shortly before a new comprehensive labor agreement would come into place. I think that there is probably a 75% chance that the new partners bought in with an eye to purchasing a majority share in the team and at least a 50% chance that the framework by which they could do that is already at least partially in place. Maybe it's as little as a a right of first refusal or a right of first offer, or maybe it's a set valuation formula that would be used with options to increase their share at various points in time. All of this leads me to believe that is it is more likely than not that if the new labor agreement provides cost certainty and/or a way to get increased revenue sharing or media right payments the Twins will have a new majority owner within the next few years. That could be as early as the second half of 2027. Whether that's a good thing or not depends entirely on who the new owner is, what their plans are, and what their level of investment will be in the future, but I do have to say that jumping over the Pohlads bar is a fairly low hurdle to clear.

Here is the approach I like and it mostly uses guys we already have. Step 1. We need a high leverage LH reliever. Well, we got one who will soon be a free agent, AJ Minter. He was great for us. Give him the projected $8-12M a year on a 2 year deal. Step 2. Take a starter who can now go only 5 innings and has lost a tick or 2 on their fastball and make them a longish reliver/6th starter in waiting. Hmmm, we got one of those guys too - Baily Ober. Step 3, add in Hoffman, Morris, Gomez, Nance, Funderburk to Ober and Minter and we're 7 relatively proven guys into an 8 man bullpen. Step 4. Add a quality late inning/setup guy. Would love David Bednar, Morejon, Gregory Soto, or Bryan Abreau, would take Paul Sewald or Evan Phillips. If we can't get one of those guys, take Festa if healthy or add Adams. Done. Leave Zebby, Abel and Rojas as starters. One of them will be the 5th starter and the other 2 are starting depth in AAA, along with CJ Culpepper, Gallagher, Quick, and Bohorquez.

Makes sense and it's interesting to see that Roden has a similar profile. Roden in 2026 at the MLB level - .291/.376/.392 (.768) with 117 OPS+, and an identical 12.8% BB and SO rate. His stats and pretty red Statcast page screams "competent MLB starter" in 2026 (all of 91 PS). Kind of shows how random this stuff can be. Who knows, Roden may have gotten the famous "I played a lot in September aginst other team's prospects" stats jump, it might be a one season one or two month hot streak (see Martin 2025), or it might be real. I say we keep GG around and see how next year and maybe even the year after go in AAA. I'm ok with trading him if we're going to upgrade somewhere else like C, the bullpen, or at 1B. If not, keep him and play him every day in AAA. He has a potential future and he's all of 22, turning 23 in January. Way too early to know if he has a future in MN.

Good to know. Claude gave me a number of $127 million so it's pretty close to what Fangraphs has, I think the ultimate point still stands unless Claude's estimate of the Twins CBT number for the guys they currently have in 2027 is off by more than a marginal amount. The hoped for take away is that a "floor" of $171.2 million in 2027 really only effectively requires the Twins to spend about $30 million to augment their current roster assuming they re-sign none of their current free agents. They can meet that number by simply re-signing a couple of guys they should be trying to keep at market rates and locking in a guy like Pablo Lopez or even Joe Ryan longer-term or signing a kind of a mid-level free-agent relief pitcher. The floor proposed by MLB does not require them to go out in the FA market after some of the bigger names or even those a tier below the bigger names. They can meet that floor by keeping some of their own free agents and paying them roughly market rates. I think that's the goal of the proposal. BTW, I don't think you come off as anti-AI at all. AI is just a tool, it's not some omniscient being that is never wrong. It is absolutely worth double checking AI results with other sources. Chances are none of the sources are completely right, including AI, so what you did is exactly the right thing to do.

My view is you don't give Shelton that option. These guys are gone when the final roster decision is made if you got somebody better. If that means going so far as to have to release them, that's what you do. The upside is that you'll be able to either get value for them in a trade, even if it's not the value you were hoping for, or you will have them on the roster because the guys you thought were better turn out to not be better or at least not ready to be given a chance to be better now. The downside is you wind up paying a guy's arbitration salary less the major league minimum because someone will pick him up for the minimum if they're signed and released. That's a risk we should be willing to take to get the potential upside. In my mind, that's what successful organizations do, they don't pinch pennies because they're afraid of risk.

This, and it applies to both players. Larnach is a problem to have if EmRod and to a lesser extent Roden are healthy and showing promise. Lewis "clogs up" the infield if Houston is ready to take over SS or 2B, or we trade for a 2B, and need 1B for Clemens because we don't want him to be a super utility. On the other hand, if what we saw in the small 50 AB tryout we gave to EMRod is who he really is and Roden is the guy he was in 2025 and not the guy he showed in his 100 AB tryout in 2026, it sure would be nice to have Laranach around. In other words, there are a lot of moving pieces here. Both Lewis and Larnach could have value on the roster or be completely redundant. That's true you before you consider who we might get in a trade or trade away, which adds even more uncertainty. That's why you don't make a decision now or at some arbitrary deadline like the tender deadline. You grow some cojones and wait on that decision until you have to make it because the circumstances are likely to change in a way that could impact that decision. Tender them both, come to terms with them both if you have to. Try to trade them from the day after the World Series ends until the last day of Spring Training if you have to wait that long. The only way you lose that bet is if you have players for their positions that you like better and you can't get anything in a trade for one or both, and I mean not even a decent AA player or high upside A ball lottery ticket. You go in with a competitive mindset and that you lose one or both guys if you have better players even if you have to eat their salary. It's a $5 million or $6 million bet per player. I think it's worth making that bet given the cost of player acquisition and development. The conservative cost certain approach would be to try to trade them before the tender deadline and then nontender them if you can't get a return. That's a lousy bet. Pay the money and take your chances. Go big or go home, don't hide your checkbook when it's time to take some risk to make some money. You can't reach your ceiling if you don't jump so grab your balls and jump for a change.

Thanks, I also ran this through AI (Claude) to see how it apples to the Twins, First, the difference between the "headline" payroll number we read and hear about and the proposed floor number is what's included in the number. The headline number is simply the published Cash payroll number based on the annual salaries of the players on the roster. The proposed "floor" number is the number used to compute the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT). The CBT number includes player benefits like pensions and health insurance, each team's share of the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and uses the average annual value of every 40 man contract rather than the cash actually paid that year, including the AAV for players on the injured list and 40 man players in the minors. What this means for the Twins in 2027 is that the cash payroll or "headline" number for 2027 as the team as currently rostered is scheduled to be roughly $114.7 million as compared to the roughly $111 million "headline" payroll for 2026. The CBT number for that same roster in 2027 Is $142.1 million AFTER removing all players scheduled to be free agents. That 2027 number includes giving all of the arbitration eligible players the amount they are projected to receive by MLB Trade Rumors and using $6.8 million as the total for the pre-arbitration players filling out the roster. That 2027 CBT figure includes a $5 million increase in the cost of player benefits for 2026. The CBT number for the Twins in 2026 was roughly $127.1 million. The bottom line is that to compare Twins payroll from 2026 as then projected into 2027 with the proposed MLB $171.2M floor you need to compare the CBT numbers. When you do that, the result is that the Twins would need to spend an additional $29-$30 million on player salaries than they are currently projected to spend on the guys they actually have for next year to meet the $171.2 million floor. In other words, the gap is roughly $30 million, not $60 million. Effectively, the Twins could close that gap by re-signing Ryan Jeffers at somewhere between $16 million and $20 million a year, re-signing A. J. Minter for somewhere between $7 million and $10 million a year (the amount he's projected to get) and giving Pablo Lopez a raise from $21.7 million scheduled for 2027, to say, $25 million by signing him to a three or four year deal with a $25 million AAV. You do those three things, and you've added somewhere between $25 million and $35 million to your CBT payroll depending on where the salaries fall within the ranges stated. In other words. If the Twins (1) keep exactly the same guys they currently have, (2) let their free agents walk except for Jeffers and Minter who are re-signed in the salary range projected by the sources online, and (3) either give Lopez a modest raise to sign into a longer-term deal or sign a decent but not great $3M relief pitcher, they have met the proposed floor. I hope this wasn't too boring. When I was trying to get to do was to see if this proposed salary floor meaningfully impacted a team like the Twins by requiring them to spend significant additional money on outside free agents. The bottom line is that it could do that but at least the Twins could meet that required burden by simply re-signing guys they already have at what appear to be market rates. Frankly, I think that's the whole point of the proposal; to put the lower spending teams in a position where they re-sign players they already have as they become more expensive in the market, not to increase demand for free agents. This is very similar to the "Bird exception" in the NBA deal, an incentive for teams to keep players they have developed which purportedly keeps fans interested because the personnel on the teams don't change so much year to year. Looking at the MLB owners proposed floor this way, the floor proposal actually starts to make some sense from the owner's perspective by driving fan engagement even though they're spending more money on players, and frankly also from the player's perspective as it pushes the lower revenue teams into the free agent market for players they already have and allows players to stay on teams and in cities where they and their families are comfortable without sacrificing significant free agent dollars. At least that looks like the theory.

I think we're all of one mind - Larnach is a good guy coming off of a pretty good year who does not fit on the 2027 Twins roster because he hits LH and can't field or run very well. Really the only issue is do you let him go for nothing if you can't trade him. My only difference is that I'm a bit more of a risk taker than some. I say try to trade him before the tender deadline of November 20. If you can't, tender him and then keep trying to trade him. Push only really comes to shove at the end of ST whenever that is in 2027. By then, EmRod may break his hand again, Buxton may get hurt, we may trade for someone else or get someone back in a trade that changes the calculus, etc. I'm willing to bet that we don't get "stuck" with a $6M surplus LH OF at the end of ST that we can't find a way to use. We will find an opportunity to get something for him so let's not set an arbitrary cutoff date to trade or let him walk. Play it out, show some cajones, and we'll get a deal or we may wind up needing him as an injury replacement for the assumed roster.

Love both those deals and am willing to add in Martin or a 20-30 prospect if necessary to make it work.

I have a question maybe one of you can answer. The MLB proposal of a floor of 171.2M but that's not a real salary number. Peter put it well, that floor "bakes in lots of other costs". Does anyone know what those other costs are and how much the Twins spend thereon so we could get an apples to apples comparison of what the real proposed spending floor would be as compared to our current payroll?