Woof Bronzer

Leave it to the Twins to take a season in which fans finally enjoyed a playoff victory and the playoff atmosphere at TF was electric....and throw all that goodwill away by cutting payroll. For an organization who puts so much emphasis on spin and PR I find it shocking (and probably telling) that they think this is going to go over well. They're going to broadcast the games. They're going to get revenue from it. Do your job, Dave St Peter, and negotiate a solid deal, and quit whining about it. There is zero excuse for cutting payroll. Every year the team should have the highest payroll ever in team history; that's how economics works, Derek. Surely the smartest guy in the room understands inflation, right? The Twins have been consistently in the 18-22 range in terms of payroll relative to the rest of the league, last year included. They should be talking about increasing payroll to take advantage of a window of opportunity with the terrible Central, a pretty open AL in general, and a few years of Correa and Lewis and Lopez. The Twins, as much as any organization, should know that windows rarely stay open as long as you think they will. See 2011 and 2021 for recent examples. The Twins can invest some of the massive profits they've made over the years back into the team. They can capitalize on the astounding increase in franchise value that the Pohlads have achieved over the decades they've owned the team. They can use some of the billions of dollars the family is worth. But they won't. They'll revert to who they always were: a cheap organization far more focused on making cash than winning. It really sucks being a fan of this organization.

Haha, yes, cherry picking is very fun and you're good at it. Now list out the 1000s of pitchers who declined on a similar trajectory after a late 20s "lull". Hey, maybe Chris Archer and Dylan Bundy are due for a late career renaissance! It would be pretty "unwise" to assume otherwise right?

Are we really back to taking a flyer on #4/5 starters whose best years are behind them? Varland can be a functional #5 for a fraction of the cost of Giolito. Lack of #4/5 starters has never ever been a problem for the Twins! We have them in droves. Ryan, Varland, Woods Richardson, Ober, I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple. The hole the Twins need to fill is #2 starter.

Sort of. The Mahle trade was not the "right way to do it". And the team has plenty of money to spend. I'm not sure I agree that risking prospects and money is somehow a safer strategy for the club than just risking money via a FA deal. I'd say at their "level of spend" (if we're still playing this game) they need a strong prospect pool and they need young guys to contribute.

Great points. I do think if you're going to point out Lopez as a success (which it was), you've got to point out Mahle as an example of a failure. So it's not without risk and this org is not so talent-rich that we can afford to miss on a lot of trades. But yeah the FA starting pitcher list isn't exactly inspiring this year.

I'm already very nervous about the vibes I'm getting around the team, which seem to be, this division is so bad we can cut payroll and still win it, and since two mediocre teams made the WS this year, winning the division will give us as good a shot as anyone at winning the Series. All I can say is, good luck to the FO with that approach. I also don't think a comment made by a beat reporter gives us any sort of meaningful insight into their offseason plans.

I don't understand why they'd prefer to trade assets in order to pay a pitcher vs. not trading assets in order to pay a pitcher.

Or they could use the massive increase in franchise valuation they've enjoyed over decades of owning the team and reinvest it into the payroll. Or they could reinvest some of the operating profits they've made in past years. Or dip into the family billions for couch change. Zero excuse for cutting payroll this year.

Thanks. Shockingly this hasn't been reported by our intrepid local media. What a baffling, classless decision. Very surprised the Twins aren't taking more heat for this.

Agree. Besides, this is all so confusing, because for years the Twins used their meager tv deal as an excuse for not being able to compete financially. It's extraordinarily rich to now hear them suggest we can't compete financially without such a bountiful deal.

Is this true? I cannot imagine why the Twins would push him out, he seems like the same ol Dick he's always been so it's not like he's losing a step. Fans seem to love him too. Is there any reporting on this?

Jurickson Profar's "value" this year was $-15 mil. Does this mean he should have paid the club 15 million bucks? Has this ever happened in the history of the sport? If not, why, again, do you think this statistic has any particular meaning? It's simply a WAR multiplier. Also WAR doesn't represent "reality" or "performance" either...topic for another day...

The value calculation is WAR x a coefficient that FanGraphs chooses. It spits out the same exact order of results as WAR. The "value" has nothing to do with realistic market values or what teams will pay someone. Don't know how to break it to you but Acuna (or anyone else) aint getting $66m/year as a free agent. I get that you are looking for some statistic that proves how great Correa is, but hopefully you know it's not rooted in anything resembling reality or meaning.

Fangraphs has him at $9.1M in value. No idea where you are getting $34.8M. But those numbers are meaningless. It has Acuna worth $66m, or about double the most annual salary anyone in the league has ever been paid. A fantasy. All the valuations are is WAR x a $/WAR that they come up with. So the WAR leaderboard is the exact same as the "value" leaderboard. Correa had 1.1 WAR, good for 107th in the league. He was the 11th highest paid player in the league. Drastically overpaid is an understatement.

I think Twins fans really WANT Correa to be great given the unprecedented contract. No one could argue he was having a good year at the plate so fans latched on to his defense as otherworldly. Nobody wants the guy to be a bust. For what it's worth I think Correa is simply on the down slope of his career. He's not exactly young anymore and he has a lot of innings on his body. But I still think he'll have a better year next year if he can make some adjustments to his approach at the plate. And stays healthy.

I can only hope Boston says "Bring Rocco along as well and we've got a deal" :)

Good points. Definitely a distinction. Working the count, drawing walks, etc is different than just swinging as hard as humanly possible and hoping you somehow "pulverize" an 0-2 pitch. If you listen to Falvey though he's clearly in the 2nd camp, which doesn't give me any optimism that things will improve.

Do you disagree with the OBP formula? I am confused what you want me to do about it. Looks like Cincy had an above average BABIP and Cleveland had a below average BABIP. And Cincy had above average walk rates and Cleveland had below average walk rates. So, exactly what I said above. Again, there are only so many variables that go into OBP.

The rationalizing strikeouts thing is so odd, and it's done in bad faith. The poster was saying a K is better than grounding into a double play, but obviously players don't choose to hit into a double play when they swing the bat. Putting the ball in play will result in getting on base 30% of the time. If we care about analytics and numbers and data there is no rationalizing for favoring strikeouts to putting the ball in play. The Twins had 10x the outs by strikeout as by double play. If we're doing the silly bad faith rationalizing I'll say that hitting a HR is always beneficial to a K....by far. Can't hit an HR if you strikeout!

OBP is quite literally a measure of how successful hitters are at avoiding strikeouts. You cannot get on base by striking out. (Technically I suppose you can on a passed ball.) OBP punishes strikeouts. Plate appearances have 3 outcomes: K, BB, or putting the ball in play. OBP gives you credit for the latter 2 outcomes. How do you raise your OBP? By reducing the Ks (which will in turn increase BBs or balls in play); by having a higher BABIP; I suppose one could increase BBs by not putting pitches outside the zone in play...that's about it. This isn't an opinion, it's just what OBP does.

You can't say strikeouts are great for pitchers but "less bad" for hitters. There is no logic in that.

I agree with you, because OBP is directly correlated to strikeouts. The surest way to increase your OBP is to reduce strikeouts. If for some reason it makes you feel better to say "focus on OBP" vs "focus on cutting down on strikeouts", fine, but you are saying the same exact thing.

Ok, so then they should get rid of all the velocity guys on their pitching staff, and replace them with cheap pitch to contact guys, because focusing on strikeouts is wrong. Am I following the logic correctly?

You're saying it doesn't matter what the count is, the odds of getting a good pitch to hit is all the same? Hot take.

Here we go with the fallacy that "in order to get extra base hits we must strike out a ton." Houston has struck out less than any team in baseball over the past 5-10 years. Ask them if they've had trouble scoring runs as a result. If there is a direct correlation between increased Ks and increased XBHs, I'd love to see it! For example, since the Twins struck out more times than any team in history, it would follow that they had more XBH's than any team in history too, right? Did that happen?