The Great Hambino

That is the absolute worst thing the Twins could do in the eyes of other owners: sell for less than their asking price. That could drag down the franchise value for many other similar teams (I doubt it would have much of an effect on the top end). In the big picture, they don't care about the Twins pocketing an additional $10-$20MM of revenue sharing if it's done in the name of maintaining the franchise valuation at an acceptable level There's also the benefit of having one less team to fight for playoff revenues. In terms of "not allowing" the Twins to operate this way, exactly what recourse do you think the other owners have? And if they have it, why have they not used it to prevent the Pirates and White Sox and Marlins and several others (not including the stadium chasers here) from operating the way they have?

Fitting bow to put on this #### sundae of a season: done in by two former players and verified angel of death Nick Castellanos

Say something legitimately nice about Rocco

The top-2 seed they're locked into means a week off before the divisional round. There's enough of a built-in risk of rust that I don't think they'll want to extend even further by backing off too much this series

I get your overall point, but I think there's a much better chance of a mutually-beneficial extension to be worked out between the Twins and Buxton depending on how things shake out on the other side of the CBA negotiations. When he's talked about wanting to be a Twin his whole career, I haven't gotten the sense that he plans to retire in 2028. Also, I'm guessing they already had that type of conversation with him. Don't know that for sure, just a hunch.

Keep fighting the good fight, jorgenswest. I hope you're right, for all our sakes, but especially yours But I gotta ask: did he even attempt to address the bullpen situation?

That was not an effective sales pitch

I dunno, TC Bear is pretty docile - more of an indica bear than a cocaine bear

There's no dealing with the Phanatic's low center of gravity and general machismo. A better question is how many TC Bears would it take to take down the Phanatic - I think at least 3. TC Bear is a gentle bear.

For a revenue-sharing recipient like the Twins, that is correct. Others can't be in it two times in a row

If you have an abundance of potential starters and you need some of them to turn into relievers, the potentially-electric-but-chronically-injured are a good place to start. Festa and Prielipp, come on down to the bullpen and join the closing committee

Outman is a much better name for a fielder than a hitter

I'd be mildly surprised if he wasn't the opening day starter (bold prediction: he's overtaken by Prielipp by the end of the season) I'd be more than mildly disappointed if he is, but my expectations for next year are ... not high

I think they're trojan-horsing ABS in this way so the eventual switch to full-time isn't such a leap. Personally I'd go straight to it full time but I don't have super strong feelings about that. This is at least an improvement from the status quo. The human element should be players and managers, not umpires. I do hope they make public the data on all pitches so we can a) grade umps more transparently and b) see the effect of non-challenges (pitches that weren't challenged but would've been overruled if they had been) as well as challenges

His left-handed clone probably does, anyway

Buxton with a fly ball so lazy even the bullpen catcher could catch it with ease

I don't know if I can remember seeing this park with the roof open before

I don't see the need for immediate 2026 help in trading Ryan. Unless they're planning on bringing their payroll back to a level that I don't think anyone thinks is realistic, their chances are basically nil that they can compete next year with him onboard - if he's gone, then a competitive 2026 really isn't happening. And until you're having to make painful 40 man decisions about who to let go, you don't have too many prospects I'm not against getting someone who can contribute next year, but I think you're putting a cap on your options if you insist that this player must be already established in MLB AND have middle of the order potential AND have enough team control to be worth it. That's a narrow window. But if you're willing to be flexible on that established MLBer part and open it up to prospects with a real chance of contributing in MLB by the end of 2026 - say, players on at least Kaelen Culpepper's timeline - then I think you might find a lot more upside available. As far as the list goes, I'd be intrigued by something starting with the Cardinals package, especially if Burleson was dropped from it in lieu of more prospect capital (Lee can be utility with Winn at SS).

Unfortunately those two Zebbys (Zebbies? Zebulons? Zebuli?) might be the same Zebby

I don't think they're worried about expenses during the lockout. The thinking is that ownership is banking on some significant changes to player salary structure and revenue sharing that will work in the Twins' favor from both revenue and franchise valuation standpoints. If things break that way, it would benefit them whether they want to actually try to compete again or perhaps bring the team back to market. But those conditions are very uncertain, and throwing money at uncertainty is not something the Pohlads are likely interested in doing. In the meantime, there's no realistic path to competing before the CBA negotiations/lockout. In that sense, any increased spending before then is ultimately a waste. And with limited partners now expecting a return on their investment, the clearest path to doing so on a short-term basis is by cutting payroll to the bone and coasting on the guaranteed income streams from national media and revenue sharing. Given all that, it seems like they're taking a path where a potential contention window could open up post-CBA, and their spending will be kept to a minimum until then. A fan's hope is that the dust settles with an environment where they're incentivized to compete on a more level playing field (or, more accurately, they're no longer incentivized to be cheap) and franchise values rise enough with the new structure and subsequent media contracts that some buyer can meet the Pohlads' number and we can be relieved of their services. That's my hope, anyway.

Wouldn't Martin also be one of "his" acquisitions as part of the return of the most valuable player that he's sent out the door thus far? No way Outman stays at Martin's expense. Maybe some of the more expensive OFers, but not Martin Roden has options, some success at AAA, barely 150 MLB PAs, and will be coming off an injury. No chance they give up on him (no reason to yet), but hey'll have no problem starting him out in St Paul if there's a numbers crunch

Keeping both Ryan and Lopez while investing zilch into rebuilding the bullpen? I think Captain O'Hagan had something to say about that in Super Troopers. Something about rainbow sherbet.

54 win pace (16-32) since then. If the Rockies didn't exist (they're one game worse, which means their winning percentage went up during that stretch as they partake in their own tragic comedy) there wouldn't even be a debate over who the worst team has been. Even worse in a way, the Twins were in playoff position as recently as June 14. Since then, they're on a 58 win pace (31-55), which also happens to be only one game better than the Rockies. And that includes a month and a half where they were still trying to win.

Since Pablo made it very clear he was itching to get back to be able to have the schedule and routine a healthy offseason would bring (beyond all the standard competitive reasons a player of his ability and character would have for wanting to return), what we're basically asking here is "Should the Twins have forced Pablo against his will to shut it down for the season" Let's say they had done that. If they were planning on trading him, the doubts surrounding his health would've depressed his value in the trade market, if not made a move completely unfeasible. If they hadn't been planning on trading him, it would've seriously pissed off one of their only reliable and marketable big-league talents on their roster, not to mention someone being counted on to serve as a mentor to the next wave of pitching talent. Both of those outcomes would have been very bad regardless of their future plans for him. So back to the question: yes, it was worth it to bring him back this season because not bringing him back would've most certainly not been worth it.

I think a big part of the negative feelings surrounding the aftermath of the trade deadline was the message they tried to sell the fanbase on coming out of it. Management (I'm using this as a catch-all for ownership and Falvey's baseball ops) was already working from a deficit in the fan trust department, so Falvey's talk of "immediate impact" in the trade returns wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt from a fanbase already skeptical of management's messaging. Telling us isn't going to fly - they're going to have to show us before we start taking what they say seriously again. What the returns have shown us thus far is that Falvey must have a very different definition of immediate (or maybe a different definition of impact) than anyone hoping for anything resembling contention in the near future. Objectively, it's too small of a sample size to write off the returns as a failure, but it's hard to envision the returns performing any worse at the MLB level than they have so far. None of the pieces that have been brought up - Bradley, Abel, Outman, or Roden - showed anything to suggest they're going to be a primary source of that immediate impact that was promised. There might have been a couple flashes or reasons to project some development down the line, but that's a far cry from the level of impact they have to be able to provide in order for this team to have a chance to contend next year. Once again, management is asking us to believe what they tell us over what we see with our own eyes. Their relationship with the fans might truly be broken beyond repair