The Great Hambino

He's on record that he's against trading any of their all-stars. Keeping them is part of his strategy because he foolishly believes that constitutes doing something for the fans. If I'm wrong - and to be clear, I hope I am because this roster is screaming for a rebuild and delaying moving Lopez/Ryan just serves to diminish their potential returns (especially Ryan) - then I would expect one or both to be moved before Opening Day. If that happens, then I'll happily concede that it was Falvey going against ownership wishes in retaining those assets

This is where I disagree. In his initial press conference, when Gleeman pressed him on the thoughts of continuing the teardown, Tom had this to say: -------------------------------------------- The Twins signaled to teams at the end of November, after conversations with their new ownership structure, they plan to keep their All-Star players. It’s the “needle that we’re trying to thread,” Pohlad said, between fielding a competitive team next year while shifting to a younger core of the roster. “There was probably an argument to tear the whole thing down, get as much value as you can for our players, and really put an emphasis on two years from now or three years from now,” said Pohlad, who assumed control of the team from his brother Joe. “On paper, yeah, maybe that makes sense. But you can’t just look at things on paper. We owe the fanbase something. We owe our veteran and star players something. We owe this organization something. And that something is hope.” ----------------------------------------------- I don't know how to read this in any way other than Tom being fully on board with - insisting, in fact - that Lopez and Ryan had to be retained. If I'm wrong, then we should expect to see one or both traded before Opening Day now that Falvey is no longer there to prevent this from happening. And I'd be very happy to be wrong on this as I've been on Team Rebuild ever since the trade deadline

Tom is still insisting that the team will be competitive in 2026. He said that explicitly during is media rounds after they announced Falvey is leaving. That is a completely unrealistic expectation ETA: he also said this while begging reporters to "get off of payroll", meaning he is expecting this to be accomplished with diminished resources.

FWIW, FanGraphs has downgraded the Twins' win projection to 77 with their latest update after accounting for the bulk of this offseason's transactions

I'm going to make a few assumptions here that could change my opinion of how this all went down if they aren't true: 1. Tom had no involvement in the trade deadline strategy. I haven't seen anything to suggest that he did. 2. Falvey wasn't leaving meaningful budgeted money on the table in this offseason. Comments from both Tom's camp and Falvey's camp seem to suggest there's room for another modestly-priced reliever, but nothing that would suggest a budget even approaching last year's budget 3. The decision to part ways happened a few weeks ago. Again, this seems to have been suggested by both Tom and Falvey 4. Tom's strategy is insisting that the roster they had at the end of last season minus approx. $30MM in payroll budget will be competitive in 2026. If all that is true, then there was no possible way for Falvey to execute ownership's strategy on the baseball side of things, and certainly not by mid-January. The strategy is built upon the ideas that the team is good enough to compete as is with a drastically reduced budget, and that simply retaining players that were already a part of this failed roster constitutes giving the fans hope. That is an objectively terrible strategy. If Falvey was failing on the business side of things (which he never should've been put in charge of to begin with, to be honest), then Tom could've relieved him of just that portion of his responsibilities. If Falvey had left over that (plausible), then we're talking about a mutual parting, not a firing. Ask yourselves this: if you are continuing to insist that the roster Falvey put together under the constraints listed above will be competitive, why would he need to be fired? If you had already determined that he was going to be fired, why'd you trot him out front and center at TwinsFest? If Falvey's vision was so unworkable, then why are you handing the reigns over to his inexperienced underling? As far as I know, there's nothing interim about Zoll's current position. This isn't to say that Falvey was doing a great job or anything. There are strong arguments that he could've been justifiably fired at multiple points going back to at least the end of the 2024 season. But to suggest that Tom had needed time to evaluate the direction of the organization as if he was some complete outsider isn't really accurate. Tom hadn't been involved in all the day-to-day operations, but he wasn't completely out of the loop either. He was already on the board of directors. He'd been heavily involved in the sale process. He should've been at least semi-aware of the operations and the direction the team had chosen at the deadline. If he thought that Falvey's team outlook didn't align with his preferred strategy going forward, then he should've shown him the door at the same time as Joe. It was reported that the decision to pull Joe out and replace thim with Tom happened about a month before the switch was announced. These conversations about alignment on strategy should've been happening at that time. But once you've decided to keep him, then you have to let Falvey's execution on the baseball side play out. If/when the team shows that isn't competitive, you fire him then and have Zoll handle the trade deadline. But to fire him now due to improper execution of a strategy implemented after last year's trade deadline makes no sense to me.

The 2022 trade deadline that brought us Mahle and Jorge Lopez belongs in the worst-moves discussion You could argue that no single draft pick belongs in a conversation like this given their inherent low likelihood of meaningful success at the major league level, but if one did, the Keoni Cavaco pick might belong among the worst moves made. It was a real head scratcher at the time, and guys like Corbin Carroll and Bryson Stott were picked in the immediate aftermath. On the other hand, the Polanco/Kepler extensions were great examples of smart moves mid-market teams can make to help extend their competitive windows in a relatively cost-controlled manner. They handicapped their opportunity to capitalize with subsequent awful moves, but they could've really been cooking if they'd had some better success with some of the moves that ended up on the bad part of this list Speaking of Polanco, the remaining potential of Gabe Gonzalez and and Polanco's rough 2024 knock that trade out of contention for the bad part of this list. It wasn't good, but there are levels to this suckitude. It can't compete with those on the list

Dilfer, but a well-trained golden retriever could've won the Super Bowl with that defense I know golden retrievers are better known for their receiving skills, but you know what I mean

Apparently Brzezinski will run the draft. Does KOC ascend to the dual role?

Because there's no equivalent of Zoll on the business side (as far as I know), they don't need to hire a head of baseball right now. And your potential pool for candidates on the business side is much deeper since that person doesn't necessarily need to come from baseball. Now that I think of it, I don't ever recall hearing or seeing much of Zoll at all until the ownership structure changed. Then all of a sudden he was at the big kid table for pressers and whatnot. Excuse me while I go get the Reynolds Wrap; I think I need a new hat

If this really truly was a mutual decision - and that's a pretty big if - then the most plausible explanation I can think of given the comments about "ownership transitions" and "leadership an structure of the club" is that the new people in charge saw that it was not a good idea to have one guy running both business and baseball ops, and Falvey wasn't too hot on the idea of a demotion. I have no explanation for the timing. Seems like the kind of decision that should've been happening when Tom took over

"When someone says something's mutual, it never is. But this was mutual." - Michael Scott

I don't know what to make of being ranked #21 here but #8 elsewhere, like ESPN. I'd expect there to be some variance, but top 10 vs bottom 10 is quite the range

I suppose you could argue that Ohl is already basically the best version of himself, while Adams has room to improve by paring down the pitch mix and focusing on the more effective pitches. But the truth is that neither really belongs in a competitive bullpen

Under. 69-93 after another selling trade deadline I am optimistic ... for 2028

In this game of "What Happened to Danny?", I see your Santana and raise you a Valencia 3rd in ROY voting, then a positively Outman-ian decline. And like your guy Santana, had himself a mini-renaissance elsewhere

I don't know why any HC candidate would be shying away from the Browns' QB situation. You get to choose between two Pro Bowlers!!

FA reliever incoming? For as much heat as Julien and his iron glove got, not too bad of an ROI for an 18th round pick. And he can always say he hit a homer in a tight playoff elimination game

If Varland were still on the roster, he would be their top bullpen option on Opening Day while carrying a minimum salary. For a team slashing their budget and desperate for bullpen pieces while still thinking it's a contender, that seems like it would've been a useful thing to have on hand

I used to be in agreement re: a work stoppage, but after thinking about it and seeing how MLB has gone all in on aligning all TV rights for new deals from 2029 forward, I think there will be a lot of posturing and maybe even a delayed spring training, but ultimately the proverbial can gets kicked down the road to the next CBA without any foundational changes to player salaries. Shutting the sport down leading into arguably the most important round of broadcast-rights-shopping they've ever had is an absolute doomsday scenario for both sides. I think it's more likely than not that a 2027 work stoppage and/or a seismic shift in salary structure don't come to fruition, and I wonder if teams will treat this trade deadline and next offseason accordingly

Interesting thought, but my initial reaction is no. The teams at the very top would certainly benefit from this, but any team outside the super-rich would eventually. Take an upper-middle-class team like, say, the Giants. The strain that rising arbitration costs would put on them would widen the gap between themselves and, say, the Dodgers, and that's more detrimental to their chances at competing than whatever advantage they would gain from the additional strain put on, say, the Marlins. In other words, all but the most elite revenue teams would be hurt more than they were helped by this effect. And I don't think there's enough teams in that elite category to drive arbitration salaries higher in a meaningful way Good thought experiment

Why are you using @Dave Borton's socks as rags?

I was curious, so I looked up team win total over/unders for 2026 Twins: 71.5, ahead of only the Nationals, White Sox, and Rockies If you think Fangraphs WAR is a better predictor of a team's season than Vegas, then good news: there are some massive money-making opportunities for you out there

I suppose this is more of a "where are they not" than a "where are they now", but for old friend Carlos Correa, he will not be at the 2026 World Baseball Classic The reason? The insurer agreed upon by MLB and the union has deemed him uninsurable, and he'd risk forfeiting his contract if he got injured

Funny, the word "bullpen" appears nowhere in the article

Since mutual options are never exercised, are they essentially just a mechanism to defer the buyout amount for a year?