Woof Bronzer

If the Twins are trying to compete in 2026, why would they downgrade at catcher? They need to drastically improve the roster, not make it worse.

Exactly the point. The team wasn't good, so they needed someone better than Bader if they wanted to get better. Signing those 3 guys and expecting to compete was stupid. It didn't work. If the goal was competing, signing Bader was a failure.

You simply have not been following the Twins for the past 3 decades then. Yeesh.

If you think getting 5 WAR out of 3 cheap vets is the way the turn the Twins into a contender you truly do not understand baseball. The Twins need much, much more than "supplementary" players. The Twins need better players, full stop. I am truly sorry that you don't seem to understand that guys like Bader, France, and Coloumbe do not turn the Twins into contenders. Do you think Wagaman, Bell, and Arcia are going to help the Twins win the Central next year? Bent out of shape lol, I'm just saying the Twins plan of contending next year is going to fail spectacularly if all they add to a 57-win roster are 0-1 WAR guys, just like it failed spectacularly last year when they tried to win the Central by signing Bader, France, and Columbe. Sounds like you think it'll work. Difference of opinion, that's fine. But hey, this season should give you plenty of opportunities to get excited about cheap contracts for bad players - enjoy the losing!

Nobody is defending the Pohlads. They are terrible. But there are objectively worse owners in baseball alone. Pirates and Rockies owners have been actively trying to lose for several years. And then there is John Fisher who LITERALLY TOOK THE As AWAY FROM OAKLAND. Again, the Pohlads are terrible, but they haven't moved the team to Des Moines.

I'm happy you were able to find joy in the contract of an 0.8 WAR player amidst a 92 loss season.

The front office's plan by signing those 3 guys was to win the Central. That plan failed miserably. The point of baseball is to win games, not sign great value contracts for washed up vets on 1 year deals. France was the 30th best first baseman last year. If you think that was a success amidst a 92 loss season, great. Enjoy the losing.

You don't seem to be understanding. The 2024 Twins won 82 games. The plan for 2025 was to run it back and add a few pieces. Those pieces turned out to be France, Coulumbe, and Bader. The 2025 team with these 3 was on a 72 win pace before the sell off. The team with those 3 was 10 games worse than the team without them. Is it all their fault? No. Do "value" contracts turn teams into competitors? No. Do 0.8 WAR players move the needle? Absolutely not. If the 2026 Twins are to compete they need several needle movers, not 0-1 WAR guys. They're solely signing 0-1 WAR guys. The Twins could have 13 great value contracts for each of its hitters, similar to France. It would be the worst team in MLB history. The point of baseball is to win games, not sign a bunch of value contracts.

I agree, Falvey is terrible at his job.

Thanks for the advice, I think I'll keep commenting though. I didn't say the France contract was a bad deal, but what I said was who cares, France produced 0.8 WAR for the Twins and 0.8 WAR guys do not move the needle, they're a dime a dozen, and the Twins ended the year on a 57 win pace. The 2025 plan, to build around the core with guys like France, Bader, and Coulombe and compete for the Al Central, didn't work. They did not help this team contend. So yes, I'll say it again: France, Bader, sand Coulombe did not help this team win games. Falvey is doing the same exact thing this offseason. It didn't work the last 2 offseasons. But sure, THIS time it'll work great! Continuing to invest in replacement level players ensures that the Twins will be a replacement level team for years to come.

Because you said the deal "worked out well". My opinion is nothing "worked out well" when you end up with a 57-win pace, and signing guys like Ty France and expecting to improve the team's fortune is why this franchise has won 1 ALDS in 3 decades. But maybe you like the losing?

So well in fact that the Twins ended the year on a 57-win pace.

One eighth measures or bust!

Falvey seems a bit confused here, if the goal is to "contend" then you need to get better players than the ones you have, not worse ones. I thought part of Falvey's deal was modernizing the sabermetrics side to make data based decisions. Maybe Derek doesn't have access to the statistics and sabermetrics we do?

Why? There's no evidence Brooks Lee can be a productive MLB SS. We have far more evidence of Bad Royce than Good Royce. If you expect Wallner to be anything other than Wallner I can't help you, he is what he is. And Larnach doesn't even have a spot in the lineup.

This is similar to the talking point I hear about the bullpen. "The pen can't possibly be as bad in 26 as it was in September." Okay....how? They've signed, what, one AAAA guy? The Twins are drawing from the same pool of talent as they were in September. If fans want a better bullpen we actually have to build a better bullpen with better players than we had last year. It's funny, one of the things Falvey gets credit for is "modernizing" the sabermetrics side and bringing data-based decision making to the baseball ops. In year 10 Derek is tossing out all the data and just crossing his fingers that the team is better than what all the sabermetrics (and eye tests) indicate. We've come full circle back to the Terry Ryan era, except the Twins now ignore BOTH sabermetrics and the old school eye test! It's just delusion all the way down.

AKA the same plan as last offseason. And that worked out great!

Not arbitrary at all. Both the NBA and NFL championship series in 2025 featured teams in the bottom half of payroll. The poster claimed that MLB has the most parity of all the sports, so my point is in response to that absurd claim. I think it would be ridiculous to call MLB "the king of parity" if it's been several decades years since 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll compete for the championship, but that's just my opinion.

Exactly. "Parity" doesn't mean a different team wins every year. It means every team has a chance every year. Can't say that about 15 MLB teams each season.

Yeah this is the issue, he defines "competitive imbalance" You used the existence of dynasties to prove that salary caps don't work. I'm saying dynasties are not the result of salary caps. What would you consider the Dodgers? You still have not answered the question: when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll played in the Series?

A salary cap provides the "variety" you are looking for. Without it, the Series will almost always feature teams in the top 10 in payroll. You must enjoy seeing the Dodgers in the series every year! You still haven't answered my question: when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll competed for the World Series? Because that's what happened this year in both the NFL and NBA.

You are confused about the point of a salary cap. The point of a salary cap isn't to have a new champion every year. The point of a salary cap is to even the playing field so teams don't have undue advantages due to things out of their control like geography and market size. The advantages come from smart GMs, owners who want to win, and the players on the field. Dynasties are still possible under a cap; the cap ensures that it's not only the rich teams that can become dynasties, but any team that's good enough. Your own post shows clearly that salary caps succeed in this goal. When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll met in the WS? That's what happened in the last Super Bowl. When is the last time 2 teams in the bottom 1/3 of payroll met in the NBA finals? That's what happened last June. How about the last time a bottom 5 market (Cavs) made 4 straight WS? Edmonton would be the smallest market in MLB. When is the last time the smallest market MLB team made 3 straight finals? The NHL is probably the best example of why caps work. For years and years Florida was a laughingstock in a terrible market (about 1000 hockey fans in Florida and half of them cheer for Tampa, zero youth hockey presence, no history, etc) and many people suggested hockey wasn't sustainable in South Florida. Now it's one of the best fanbases in the game. What changed? They started winning. That's it. They invested in the team and got better and now they are one of the best organizations in sports. And that was only possible with a cap.

You're conflating two extremely separate topics. Yes, a cap won't turn Falvey into a genius, but a cap can allow, for example, the 26th and 21st highest payroll teams (NBA in 2024-5) compete for the championship, both teams in much smaller markets than the Twins. When is the last time two teams in the lower 1/3 of MLB payroll played for the Series? For that matter, when's the last time a team in the lower 1/3 of MLB payroll won a Series? Pretending that salary caps accomplish nothing is as silly as saying a salary cap is going to make the Twins into champs overnight.

So you are saying the Twins could, in the span of 1 season, turn any player on the MLB team or in their system into a great 1B. However, they actively choose not do this for some reason, instead intentionally developing all homegrown 1B into such poor players that the team is forced to spend limited resources on external MLB 1Bs on 1 year deals every year. Is that what you are saying here?

This is the saddest thing I have ever read here. The Pohlads have damaged us all, my friend. On that we agree.