LA Vikes Fan

I think you make an excellent point. A simple cap and floor system is not, by itself, going to provide the competitive balance we seek. It has to be combined with increased revenue sharing such that the floor is closer to at least $100 million. It can’t be $50 million or $75 million. Using current economics, it seems to be a reasonable range would be a floor of about $100 million and a cap of about $225 million. There is still going to be big advantages for some teams, but it will raise the floor spending for others, give teams an incentive to at least chase midtier free agents that can improve their team, and should keep the middle level of players from being simply discarded for Younger, cheaper models. That should provide a more competitive environment. Unfortunately, therein lies the rub. The only way that works for certain lower revenue teams would be to have increased sharing of TV and other media revenue, which doesn’t really work for some of the teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, etc., who were being asked to share their revenue. It also frankly also goes against the grain of some of the baseball owners who don’t want to spend money and are only interested in squeezing out short term profit. I think the real underlying issue here is that you have a subset of the owners who simply are not particularly good business people, only interested in squeezing nickels out of not great situations, and have no vision that includes putting a better product in the field at increased expense in order to generate increased revenue. It will be interesting to see if the inclusion of private equity makes the situation better or if the private equity money is even more short term focused, and therefore simply makes the situation worse. Could go either way. Anyway, I completely agree that a simple camp and floor system is not going to solve the overall problem unless it’s part of a new system that includes increased revenue sharing. In other words, become more like the NFL and NBA. I don’t see the baseball owners as a group, or the players for that matter, having that kind of vision. They look more like a group of people desperately trying to hold onto what they have as it erodes than they do a group of people willing to take risk to increase the pie. Unfortunately, the most likely result of that attitude is a slow erosion of baseball’s profitability and position in the sports landscape. In short, a continuation of what is already occurring.

Agree with that, but the MLBPA is controlled by and beholden to guys like Bryce Harper. The view at the top is no cap means guys like me can make more and more money. The players view is that the way to help the bottom is to raise the minimum salary and give players free agent rights sooner. I think that's just as one sided and economically unviable as a salary cap with no floor. The top earners in baseball are willing to help the bottom as long as it doesn't in any way restrict what they can make. Current union leadership listens primarily to the top earners. Put the owners tight fisted positions together with that, add in a powerless commissioner who is interested in preserving what we have rather than growing the pie and what's the end result? Gridlock. And that's what we got.

And that is one of the reasons that the NFL and NBA are more popular than baseball. No matter who you cheer for in those leagues, you have a chance to win a championship. Well, unless you cheer for the Vikings.

Preach.

Yes, at least from what i read. A salary cap would be combined with a salary floor. Unfortunately, this creates opposition on the owner side from the teams that spend little money like Oakland/Vegas, Tampa, Miami (why is it h that the cheapest teams are in Florida?), Pittsburg, etc. Seems like a math problem to me (revenue share plus gate receipts minus non-player p expense = floor), so I don't think a floor should create owner opposition. It's an absolute if they want the players to even consider such a system.

Agree here and with Whitey333 to a degree. Every prospect is a suspect until they prove otherwise. Still, it is better to have a highly ranked system and the more good prospects you have, the more likely a couple will hit. The Twins really aren't any worse at getting prospect hits than other teams, we just are trying it so often it feels worse than it is. I completely agree on Emma. I know he's young and I hope I'm wrong, but at this point I think he becoming a longshot to make it at the MLB level. He's never hit above .258 at the AAA level, his power is more occasional than consistent, and his big calling card is drawing walks. Hmm, isn't that walk thing also true of Eddie Julien? It's a lot easier to draw walks in the minors than the majors because guys who walk people in the majors get sent back to the minors. I think Emma is still at least one good AAA year away from having a real shot at the MLB level. He's a late 2026 or 2027 prospect, not a 2026 prospect. Same for Jenkins because he just got to AAA. If we're going to get outfield help to start 2026 it's Martin and/or Roden, and if it's in May or June 2026, it's going to come from Gonzalez.

I think the Twins approach makes perfect sense. The Division is wide open, why relegate yourself to non-contender status before the season even begins? For those who would say we are non-contenders even with Ryan we are just going to have to agree to disagree. My thinking is that IF (and its a big IF) the starting pitching stays healthy and we can cobble together a bullpen, the pitching alone is good enough to stay above .500 and that's title competitive in the AL Central. It's even more competitive if Detroit is dumb enough to trade Skubal out of the division. It's also the right way to play it given the trade deadline fall back option. I disagree with the poster who said you get better value in the offseason. That's only true IF you're trading MLB players for MLB players. IF we trade Ryan (or Lopez or Buxton for that mater), we're tearing down to rebuild. We aren't looking for MLB players; we're looking for a prospect haul and we'll take guys 2-3 years away like Gabriel Gonzalez when we got him from Seattle. By the way, that's a trade that's looking like it might be a good one since Polanco is in New York after having one lousy year and one good one, and Gonzalez is our best MiLB hitter and the second most likely to be an above average MLB hitter behind Jenkins. When do you get the best prospect haul? At the trade deadline when teams convince themselves they are just one #2 starter away from the WS so go for it now. And this is all without considering the message trading Ryan would send to the team and the fans, how it would depress interest and attendance even further, and how having veterans around helps develop young players faster. Keeping Ryan makes sense on both a baseball and business level. I don't agree with a lot of what this FO has done and is doing but keeping Ryan for the first half of 2026 makes the most sense to me. I'm glad to see that's the play.

You're probably right or close on the years and total value for Ryan. Where I differ is that I would actually think about making this happen if he's interested. The contract is back loaded so we could trade our way out of it, or maybe some of it, if the team is uncompetitive in 2028-30. The real risk is injury but you got to take some risk. Given the inflation in BB salaries, I think it's likely that a All Star starting pitcher will be getting $40M a year or more by 2030. A pitcher like Ryan will be more than $30M a year by 2029 and 2030. It would be the team betting on itself to improve on field performance and thus improve attendance, tv rights value, merch sales, etc. to cover the contract. Might provide some excitement to the roster and the fans now when this team desperately needs a reason for people to get excited. By the way, signing Ryan O'Hearn for 2 or 3 years at an AAV of $12-15M might also get people excited. Just sayin'... Well, forget that. Pirates just signed O'Hearn for 2 years $29m. At least I was right about the salary range.

I have to agree with your basic premise - the kind of player that will really improve the team is not going to be available for the Ober on down starting pitchers. I also agree that we shouldn't trade starting pitching for anything other than a premium prospect(s) or an MLB ready guy who is better than the guy we now have in that position. We should NOT trade starting pitching for relief pitching or depth players. I think a trade of starting pithing that meets those parameters is very unlikely and I'm against anything less.

I'm not sure where all this uncertainty comes from - this off season will be a half measure. Ehy? Because they honestly don't know which way to go and we don't either. Everything we've seen so far tells us we ae still in evaluation mode and that we know the starting lineup for 2026 with one possible exception at 1B. The lineup is Martin (LF), Buxton (CF), Keaschall (2B), Bell (1B), Lewis (3B), Wallner (DH), Jeffers (c), Lee (SS), Roden (RF). The only possible change is to sign or trade for a 1B like O'Hearn (my choice), Mountcastle or Casas - Boston traded for Contreras and Baltimore signed Alonso so those two should be available relatively cheap in prospect cost. That's the lineup guys. Would love to see them spend the money to sign O'Hearn for $10-15M a year, put him in the 4 hole, move Bell to DH and the 5 hole and everyone else down one, put Wallner back in right, and make Roden the 4th OF. More likely, Wallner is the DH, Bell plays first and the cornerr OFf spots start with Martin and Roden. Even if you sign O'Hearn that still should leave you $10M or so to sign 1 higher end guy like Pierce Johnson or Seranthony Dominguez, or two lower end pieces like Coulombe or Rogers. Larnach is traded for prospects because he's not worth MLB talent. In other words, a half measure now - not a tear down and rebuild but not a contender either - followed by a full measure in July. The first half of 2026 is all about finding out what we can on Lewis, Lee, Martin, Wallner, Roden, SWR, Bradley, and the guys I think go into the BP right away from Opening Day - Festa and Prielipp. By midseason if we aren't contending for the division, that's when you explore a trade of pretty much everyone and lean into the tear down. If we are, we trade to fill a hole and strengthen the bullpen and go for it. I don't expect much in the offseason other than above at most.

I think you’re right about Festa. He is the most logical candidate for the bullpen. High velocity, lots of SOs, struggles second time through, arm trouble. I would start him out in a high leverage role to see if he can handle it. He could be the closer of the future. I would put Prielipp in there as well. Both have arm issues that make a starter role unlikely long term. That still leaves Matthews, Abel, Morris, and Rojas to start in AAA. Put Klein and Raya in the AAA bullpen as next guys up so they can transition there.

No. The guy to swing for from Boston is Abreu. Not worth Lopez or Ryan, but worth Ober plus a good pitching prospect not named Prielipp, Abel, or Matthews,

I don't think you and I are so far apart. I really do question whether the current "core" is good enough even if augmented by 3-5 Solid or better MLB players like O 'Hearn and Fairbanks. Still, I see enough to make it worth one more shot, particularly with a new manager. What I would like to see is the addition of a middle(ish) of the order FA bat like O'Hearn or a trade for a guy like Duran or Abreu, which I know means giving up multiple pitchers since I would not trade Ryan or Lopez for either player or anyone like them. It would have to be Ober plus a Matthews type prospect. Sign 2 FA relievers, one of whom has to be a potential closer like Fairbanks or Johnson, or at least at the level of Seranthoney Dominguez, plus a lesser LH guy like Coulombe or Rogers, Festa moves to the bullpen as the #2 closer. Lopez, Ryan, and Buxton stay but only for now. If the Twins are competitive and look like they have potential in the first half of 2026, you roll the dice and maybe even add at the deadline. If not, the bloodletting begins in earnest. It is 2025 all over again or maybe even bigger. Ryan, Lopez, Jeffers, Lewis, and Buxton are all available as is Bell, O'Hearn and the veteran relievers you signed. Stock up on highly ranked prospects and point to 2028. In other words, give it one more half season to see if these guys can contend and give them a chance by adding some talent. If they can't, blow it all up and re-stock for 2-3 years down the road.

Pretty much everything.

Preach. Ownership has a shot here to create a new narrative. It won't be easy, and it won't be cheap, but it has to be done. Better not blow it because there may not be another chance any time soon.

I think the hard part here is what can Tom do relatively quickly to show there is a change. Also, what is the baseline from which we measure the change? Changes in the business side, back office, etc. may be meaningful but we won't know that, so those kinds of things don't change the fanbase's perception of the team or indicate a shift to a "go big or go home" from the previous half-measures. In other words, he may be doing big things that we can't see or don't understand so we think it's just more of the same. For example, Falvey said he has $20M to spend. That may be a big move from before - Joe may have said don't spend any money but we'll never know that is a change. That puts Tom in a tough spot - he needs to do something visible to show that things really ae changing, but you don't want to do something just to do something and Falvey may not be the guy to pull off anything big even if you want to do something big. Two obvious answers. The first is improve the on the field product with one or more free agent signings or a trade. For a FA, there isn't much left assuming we aren't in on the $15M plus guys or guys to far on the wrong side of 30 other than relievers. The name that stands out is Ryan O'Hearn. He would be a big upgrade at 1B and Bell can move to DH/backup 1B. That means Wallner in RF (not ideal) with Roden/GG/Jenkins/Emma/Fedko either in AAA or on the bench. However, if we did sign O'Hearn and then cut/traded Larnach and Outman so Martin and Roden are the 3rd/4th OF, we've really improved the team while still leaving open a spot for one of the young guys to take now or by mid-summer. Same if we made a trade for a quality OF like Abreu in Boston by giving up a real SP like Ober, SWR, or Bradley plus a strong developmental guy. Sign at least one good reliever like Fairbanks or Pierce Johnson and a lesser light like Coulombe or even Taylor Rogers and it looks like you're at least trying. If we got the equivalent of O'Hearn or Abreu plus 2 quality relivers, then I would start to think "maybe things are changing". The second is to engage with the fanbase. Get your ass out of the owner's box and sit in the stands with the fans. Rotate sections and talk to fans so you see what motivates the people who care enough to buy tickets. Give free or heavily discounted seats to organizations, schools, boy and girl scout troops, the Y, whoever you can. A kid gets a report card of all As or even half As and half Bs, he or she gets two bleacher tickets so they can go to a game with their Mom or Dad. Mom and Dad or group members get a coupon, so everyone gets a free or very cheap hot dog and a soda and the chance to buy a hat for $5. The Dodgers sell a simple kid's hat for $10 at the stadium, and they sell thousands a year. All of sudden, half the kids in school are wearing the hat. The kids, groups, and Mom or Dad will love you for it. Do it and publicize the crap out of it. Fill the seats even if they aren't paying much but fill the seats. A baseball game with 30,000 fans is so much more electric and fun that people actually want to come back. It also motivates the players. Don't be afraid to take criticism and deliver a consistent message of "we haven't been good enough. We are going to get better. Give us a chance and you'll see" and then deliver. Sign kids up for the kid's club and then give them something that actually has value - a chance to win tickets, stories, chances to meet players, etc. Go old school if you have to but get people engaged. Sorry for the rant, but that's what I would do.

I agree. I'm not sure why we can't acknowledge what appears to be the obvious - Royce Lewis the is the Twins primary 3B unless he shows he can't hit. He did not hit well last year, although better post ASB (.723 OPS) vs. pre ASB (.585 OPS). He hit well in 2023, not bad in 2024. He hit well in the 2023 playoffs so he's shown some ability to hit under pressure. Lewis will get 2026 as the primary 3B and probably 2027 unless his hitting falls off a cliff. Lee, on the other hand, has not shown that he can hit well enough to start on a MLB team. He will get a shot at SS, mostly because we don't really have anybody else for the start of the season, and maybe he gets better and locks down the position. Lee is much more at risk of falling out of the infield mix in becoming a UTL than Lewis is. Let's stop ignoring the obvious and projecting an infield with anyone other than Lewis at 3B. They are talking about Keaschall in the OF because we may get to a position where Culpepper shows he can handle and needs to be in a starting spot. If Keaschall can play well in the outfield, that opens up the possibility of him playing RF or LF to keep his bat and speed in the lineup, while giving Culpepper a spot at either SS or 2B to get him in the lineup. Alternatively, Lee can go to the bench which is where his bat plays unless it improves (I think it will). We also have Austin Martin, and the host of AAA OFs who potentially could have an OF spot -GG, Emma, Jenkins, and Fedko. Oh, and let's not forget that Matt Wallner is actually the incumbent RF even if he really projects more as a DH/5th OF, and that's assuming he can actually hit.235 or better rather than the lousy .202 he had last year. Having all of these guys available potentially for the SS/2B/RF/LF and DH spots is actually a good thing for a team that needs to get better. We need to have lots of candidates who have a shot at being the guy for a spot. I do think we need to get one thing straight at least for 2026 - absent injury, Royce the is the everyday third baseman. Let's not concoct scenarios where he somehow disappears or moves to another position, particularly if those scenarios are designed to find a place for Brooks Lee to play. That ain't happen unless Lewis falls off the cliff at the plate.

That article says the Pirates 2024 numbers are - revenue is $292.4, expenses are $294.6M for an operating loss of $2.2M. Makes sense to me.

That's a a good point if the $210M number is accurate. I can't find that anywhere. I did find an article that said $110m in revenue sharing per team, and I've seen "estimates" ranging from $50-&70M for the Royals to "somewhere between $100 and $200 million per team", a range so broad as to make the number almost meaning less. The Baseball America article says the Pirates bought in $84M in gate revenues which supports the idea that they cover payroll from the gate since they have such a low payroll. The article it is based on says the Pirates pay in $70.4M into the revenue sharing pool and pull out $121.9M for a positive $51.6M addition to revenue. Remember, the way the revenue-sharing pool works is that each team puts in 48% of their local operating revenue into the revenue-sharing pool and then each team pulls out the same amount. So the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. put in over $200 or $300 million apiece and pull out the same $121.9 million that the Pirates pullout after only putting in $70.4 million. Bottom line is I can't find anywhere that says Pirates get $210 million in additional revenue from the revenue-sharing pool. Maybe there's something that says that's what each team pulled out but doesn't take into account what they put in? I don't know, I just can't find that $210M number anywhere. Can you tell me what the sources? Here are links to the articles I reference, hopefully since I suck at computers and might not be giving you what you need to access the articles: https://dkpittsburghsports.com/team/site-stuff/feed?page=0&content=pirates-losing-money-bob-nutting-investigation-mlb-dk https://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under the new collective bargaining,million USD%2C if not more ttps://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under%20the%20new%20collective%20bargaining,million%20USD%2C%20if%20not%20more

I think you misread the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pirates covered their on the field payroll from gate revenue in most years, especially since their payroll has been in the bottom 5, normally between $70M and $90M. That leaves about $171.7M in additional expense not covered in the reported case of the Pirates. That money is for the minor league system, front office and support staff, travel, player development, logistics, draft and signing bonuses, outside legal and accounting, admin expenses, etc. Payroll at 30-35% of total revenue is about right. That article doesn't say the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone, that article says the Pirates cover their on the field payroll for players from gate revenue. In other words, the Pirates cover roughly 30-35% of their overall expenses from gate revenue. Whether they are profitable depends on other revenue sources. The idea that the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone isn't correct. Look, I'd be happy to get out the pitchforks on the Pohlads if they were making a killing on the Twins and not re-investing. The numbers I've been able to find don't show that. They show revenue of roughly $342M in 2023, and revenue of $324M in 2025 against expenses of $300-330M. That all tracks with the published Pirates and Braves numbers since the Twins run higher payrolls than the Pirates and much lower than the Braves, and those two teams run between $171.7M (Pirates) and $256M (Braves) in non-payroll expenses. If you run the numbers that I've seen in places like Forbes, the Twins are probably a little better than break even in 2026 with a $110-120M payroll, with maybe a 5% gross margin. If somebody a has complete numbers that show something else, I'd love to see them.

I agree with this to a point but I just don't know the answer to the short term 1B issue this team has. I would love for them to trade for a Colby Mayo or even Ryan Mountcastle and commit to trying to find a long term answer at the position. I'd even support signing Ryan O'Hearn to a 2-3 year deal at the predicted $11-15M a year, but it sounds like he doesn't want to come to MN because he wants to go to a contender. Failing that kind of trade or signing, we just don't have a youngish 1B on the way up to play. I get trading for a 1 year stop gap at 1B unless we are going to commit to moving Larnach there (and teach him to hit LH pitching) or move Wallner there (my choice), but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. I'd love to hear that we have someone else in the system but I just don't see that guy.

Guys, if the Arraez of 21 019-2023 was available I would try to sign him in a heartbeat. The problem is that guy is not who Arraez is any more. He's a slow, plodding singles hitter who hit .292 with a .327 OBP and .392 SLG with a 99 OPS+ in 2025 after going .314/.396/.392 in 2024. His OPS plus the last 4 years? 107, 100, 108, 99, i.e, basically a league average guy who is a lousy fielder with no power and no SB potential. In other words, in 2025 he was less than Austin Martin at the plate without the upside from stolen bases Martin has, can't field a position whereas Martin is an above average LF from all the stats, and he is 10-12 times the Austin Martin price. If you don't want Martin starting every day, you don't want Arraez on your team. Greggory is right, the only sane argument for bringing him back is if you can get him back to what he was when he was in MN. The objective evidence says you can't. Is Josh Bell any better? Yes, although not a lot better in the field on the basepaths, but Bell brings 20-25 HR power and RBI potential that Arraez doesn't have. If you gotta choose between those 2 for a 1 year deal, Bell is the better choice and it isn't really very close. Look, I get that we all want the team to get better, many of us would question (or hate on) Falvey if he signed Aaron Judge or cured cancer, and at least I have very positive nostalgic visions of Arraez when he was in MN. Unfortunately, those visions don't win baseball games. Arraez isn't that guy any more. Falvey may only have clearly won 2 trades in his career but Arraez for Lopez was one of them. Luis won't help us much this year and he's not along term answer for after this year. I don't think Bell will help a lot either, but he's going to help more, was cheaper, and will be easier to trade because of his track record and power. Let's not forget Bell hit .267/.353/.489(.842) after the All Star break last year and had a 110 OPS+ for the season after a lousy start. Picking up Bell may turn out to be a mistake, but picking up Arraez would definitely be a mistake IMHO.

Agreed. Lee stunk at 2B last year. He's either a SS or a UTL. Give Keaschall a chance to lock down 2B. Martin hit well after 8/1, give him a chance to lock down LF. Batting order is Martin (.374 OBP in 2025), Keaschall (.302/.382/.445(.827)), and Buxton (35 HRs, .878 OPS). 4 hole is a fight between Bell(1B) and Wallner(DH), with the loser hitting 6. Jeffers and Lewis hit 5 and 7 depending on production, Lee 8 and the 9 spot goes to however wins the RF competition between Roden (he'll get the first shot), GG, Emma, and Jenkins. Squint hard and its a middle of the pack offense. Squint really hard and the RF winner turns out to be #4 hitter, everyone else moves back one, and we're a top 10 offense. Look at it clearly and it's better than last year but still not too good.

This. Why the hate on this move? If the hate is because "we should have signed someone better like Ryan O'Hearn", I get it. I would have preferred that also. But the hate seems to be "we're blocking young talent". There is no young talent the plays first base and is ready to play in 2026. Clemens is old "talent", Julien is failed "talent", and the guys who played IB and AAA are "probably don't have MLB quality talent". As for playing Keaschall at 1B, why would we do that now? He certainly wasn't great at 2B last year but he wasn't terrible and what time he could be a better-than-average defensive 2B. Newsflash – he ain't blocking anybody either. Lee is actually a better SS than 2B (he stunk at 2B last year) and the jury is still out on whether he can hit enough, Payton Eeles is gone, Fitzgerald is over 30, and Tanner Schobel has yet to conquer AAA so he is unlikely to be MLB quality in 2026. IF Culpeper gets to MN this year, it won't be until at least July and in the unlikely event that he is blocked by spotless health and stellar performance from Keaschall, Lee and Lewis (wouldn't that be dreamy), we can trade Bell or Keaschall could also potentially play in the OF. Look, this move hardly makes us instant contenders but it's incremental improvement AND suggests we aren't punting to a complete tear down. Beats the crap out of trading Lopez, Buxton, and Ryan for AA and A ball prospects, that's for sure.

Do you like Mayo or Mountcastle better? Mayo has the high upside allure but a bad MLB track record. Mountcastle has faded the last 2 years, bit has shown he can hit MLB pitching. Tough choice