NYCTK

Unless you run your organization well, you can't sustain success? Oh! Regardless, there will be changes that help loser organizations like the Twins compete going forward. If you say so. I happen to be a baseball fan, so I vehemently disagree with this sentiment.

100% Which is why I'm steadfast in my reading of the situation that there will few, if any, lost games in 2027. I could see the owners bluffing into March, but then losing their poker face and folding before we get to April. There will be no salary cap in the near future. And we won't need to lose a season to get to that place like 1994.

This is such a crazy statement to me, that an AL fan would happily go a full 18 months without baseball in order to reign in an NL team that is mostly irrelevant to them. So crazy, I don't actually believe you believe this. I'm on the opposite end, where I don't want to see the MLBPA agree to a salary cap for various reasons, but as a baseball fan if it's between the owners killing a full season and the players accepting a salary cap, I would prefer to just a see a salary cap negotiated and agreed to.

The good news is, with Martin's option preserved he can start 2027 in AAA to make room for Rodriguez in the majors, if necessary.

That's where you and I just have to agree to disagree. Plenty of teams will take a veteran OF into the regular season rather than bring up a prospect, who needs to work on his plate approach, and have him sit on the bench. Just looking at a few teams in the AL - White Sox: Derek Hill Yankees: Randal Grichuk etc, etc, etc It's so common that it's not even notable.

Yes, I suppose he could take Outman's spot but not Outman's role, but that would have meant Martin would be in Outman's role then, and Martin was playing exceptionally well at that time. So would we have preferred Martin be the one that was used sparingly? It's perfectly acceptable and common to have players on your 26 man roster that you don't intend on using heavily, which is why the Twins selected Outman over Rodriguez, precisely for that role. And as for this years long idea that the Twins REFUSE to admit failures and never cut veterans, Outman proves how wrong that is. He was used sparingly and then cut about a third of the way through the season!

Outman received 70 plate appearances over the course of 64 games. Due to the relative health of the Twins OF, and Austin Martin going on a bit of a heater to start the season, there just wasn't a role for someone like Rodriguez. And if I'm not mistaken, by the time they cut bait on Outman, Rodriguez was once again injured. People here love to complain about Outman, but he was such a small part of the team that no one should want to see a prospect step into. Aside from potentially adding him to the 40 man roster too early, I can't even begin to imagine how the Twins have mismanaged him. Is it their fault he's gotten hurt every other week? He had major plate approach concerns coming into the season, and because of his constant stream of injuries, hasn't really had the time necessary to work on them and prove his development. It's obviously disappointing that his relentless injury history has eaten away his options, but oh well? That just means next year is sink or swim. He'll be given just as much rope as people here complain about veterans getting. He'll be given plenty of time to show his value for a team in an incredibly weak division, or traded to a team that wants that experiment. I just shake my head at all this hand wringing over a middling prospect who looks to be nothing more than a 4th OF to me anyways.

I'm a Twins and Mets fan. Not a Yankees fan. Are you also complaining that the Twins have started Keaschall at CF? Austin Martin? Do you think Padres fans complain that Jackson Merrill starts in CF instead of SS? Or Tatis? The Twins are not at fault for having a baseball player play baseball. Moving players around the diamond is part of the sport. Sometimes it works (Merrill) and sometimes it doesn't (Keaschall). But that's why athleticism is such a valuable tool.

No. The owners want to increase the value of their asset. They SAY they want a fair playing field as part of their PR campaign in order to build fan support behind their proposal. I supposed there are probably a few owners that increased competitive balance is their A or B goal, but as a collective, it simply isn't the case. Ask yourself if that sounds accurate, and if you think it could be accurate, why would the owners do that? (It isn't accurate) I will grant that this was done by someone in good faith, but poor understanding. The "salary" cap and floor the owners proposed weren't actually for salaries, but salaries AND additional benefits (which are something like an additional $600-$750 Million on top of payroll). So I'm guessing that analysis missed this nuance, which was intentionally misleading PR from the owners, so they're forgiven! The players union will not, and should not, agree to a salary cap on an unknowable promise that it would result in greater revenue. That would be a massive blunder on their part. It is, but even so, the Dodgers are paying Luxury Tax on that deferred money in 2026. It isn't just ignored. It's already accounted for. Ignoring the ethical nature of the tax evasion scheme, it's actually a really creative way for a high tax state like California to sort of negate that and get on balance with the states like Texas or Florida. This is if I'm even understanding the tax liability for deferred salary accurately. Maybe California already has a button for that sort of scheme I'm unfamiliar with. Agreed, that'd be the minimum requirement to get the players to the table to discuss a salary cap IMO. At that point, I'd have the faith in the players to negotiate the specifics and think they'd probably be 50/50 on backing off their refusal to accept a cap. But, we've not seen the owners offer anything near that value, but we're still in the first round so we will see.

I'm curious if MLB/Charter couldn't use this newest Dodgers financing scandal as a way to nullify that bogus agreement. But regardless, you're right. Ultimately, I think we end up with MLB teams sharing more, if not close to 100%, of TV revenue, which would obviously be a big increase from the Dodger's sweetheart ~25% or whatever it is, lower than the 48% it should be. Citation needed. This doesn't follow, at all. The owners wouldn't be asking for a salary cap if this were the case. I think, initially, it would be pretty even in the aggregate. But with the owner's hope of chipping away at that percentage in future negotiations. Deferrals are quite overblown by the fans. However, I'd be happy to do away with them, but because it's a way to shield player salaries from municipal and state taxes, not because it helps the MLB teams handing them out, because it only does due to the increased value of that tax benefit to the player. Which, I guess, isn't insignificant. But, as for the reduction in team control, that is the biggest thing the owners could offer that might possibly make the player sway in their steadfast opposition to the salary cap. I still don't think that will happen, but it's a decent proposal. Without that reduction though, the players won't (and shouldn't) even both listening.

Hey man, some of us wanted to trade him when he still had SOME value back in 2024.

Sad fact is, despite the results being good, his under the hood performance is significantly worse than his last extended stint in AAA in 2024, suggesting he'd still be likely to struggle back in the majors.

I don't know enough about the last two (nor does anyone else frankly), but this idea that the Twins screwed up by asking an athletic baseball player to play CF is just so insane. The coddling of players needs to stop. The Twins were 100% RIGHT to ask their top and super athletic prospect to play CF with his primary position currently blocked. And the retroactive criticism is just plain wrong.

I just think Contreras was significantly better than Jeffers when he became a free agent. I'd be shocked if Jeffers gets 5 years, but 4 isn't out of the realm of possibility I suppose. But I'm sticking my feather in 3.

I agree those are impressive numbers for 40. But his age is entirely irrelevant as to whether he sucks or not. I do tend to agree with you though, hitting with a 90 OPS+ isn't great, and his defense in RF wasn't great, but it seems above replacement level which means I tend to agree more with the fWAR number of +0.7 opposed to the bWAR number of -0.7. Sucks is too extreme, but he wasn't good.

The current Secretary of War is a Minnesota Boy. We should all stop pretending as though Minnesotans are pure and incorruptible.

Why are you assuming that? People were using this same logic with Trevor Larnach before he hit a wall and starting hitting like we all remember him capable of hitting. Josh Donaldson said nothing wrong! This is way undershooting what he's going to be offered, and if this WERE the case, this demonstrates perfectly why he should bet on himself, take the 1 year deal and then be very confident he can get better than a 2 year / $16M or 3 year / $30M contract after an encore Twins season.

Well thank goodness we got a compensatory pick for him. Kyle Debarge is really tearing it up! But I think we can agree that the Pohlads were stupid not to allow the front office to resign Gray?

I actually don't think Jeffers is good enough of a player to get a 4 year deal, even with catcher scarcity. He MIGHT be a top 10 catcher the last 3 years. He's a solid, dependable starter, not a star. Even so, I think he'll get 3 years and up to $66 million. You have to extend a QO, and because of the depressive nature of that you get a better chance to negotiate with him if he declines. The Twins just jumped in franchise value from about $1.6B to $2.3B with the sales of the Padres and Angels resetting the market. The Pohlads should use some of that unrecognized value to actually improve the team for the first time in their privileged pathetic lives.

Sonny Gray. He allegedly was open to remaining in Minnesota and his results have been worth the contract he signed with St. Louis. But that was when the Pohlads suddenly realized they're poor or whatever and they simply couldn't afford it.

Twins are in that awkward position where they really can't complain if that were the case. Houston/Texas have that as is and they're not that much farther West than the Twin Cities. Obviously the Timberwolves are in the West. But that is WHY I would prefer they just kill off traditional AL/NL. Regional is so much more interesting for everyone involved and significantly better for the players. A division with the Twins/Brewers and both Chicago teams? That sounds like so much fun! Mets, Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox? Sign me up! Only drawback is the business value lost with the consolidation of Northeast into one division, and the loss of traditional alignment, but as soon as the NL adopted the DH I think that tradition is worthless.

They would if they're not idiots. But that's not the case seemingly.

You can make the argument he was never, in any season, even a top 3 player at his position in the big leagues, if not the American League alone. Torii was a fine ball player. And if the Twins retained him, perhaps they could have done real damage in the playoffs in 2009 or 2010. But Twins fans reverence for him is completely detached from his actual contributions.

Holding executives responsible for the deeds of their organization SHOULD be the bare minimum, not a conspiracy theory. Why are you constantly trying to launder the reputations of the Pohlads here? Are you an employee? Is this one of those things, like if you're a cop you gotta say it, otherwise it's entrapment?

If a QO is attached to him, he might not be able to get a 3 year deal or the dollars he's looking for. We've seen the suppressed offers to those free agents previously which is why those 2-3 year deals with opt outs after each year have become so popular. I could see him deciding the QO is the best financial decision for himself at the end of the day.