The Great Hambino

Ryan Kelly must've put in a really good word for Will Fries: 5 years, $88 million (!) Edit: sniped by Tony Hale's manpurse (did I get the reference right?)

It's like when they put a watermark over a picture online so you can't download it for free I suppose the Seattle Masters hat looks alright

Personally I would've rather they retained Bynum and let Murphy walk, especially at their prices. I think Murphy's INT totals were inflated by a couple of right-place-right-time gifts. For example, the pick against Atlanta looked like a nice athletic play, but Pitts had him beat and Murphy was bailed out by a bad overthrow by Kirk. I was hoping someone else would overpay him. Then again, I'm fine giving them the benefit of the doubt on their defensive FA acquisitions, so <shrug> I also thought guard was a more pressing need than center (though all three spots were due for an upgrade). Maybe the thought is the right center can elevate the guards? I suppose they're not done there either.

I do agree that DT is a better bet with a late first round pick than interior OL right now, but I don't think that should keep them from shopping in the DT free agency market. They could use more than one guy there, similar to how they doubled down on the edge in both FA and the draft last year. I think it's worth noting that Jonathan Allen wouldn't factor into the comp pick equation since the Commanders cut him.

I'm glad he got this deal, and I'm glad it wasn't from the Vikings

The market dynamics and assets available are so different between football and baseball - no minor league trade chips, salary cap, non-guaranteed contracts and amortized bonuses affecting cap space - that trying to compare the roster-building value dynamics of the two sports makes no sense. Cap space is an asset. Optimal asset allocation within the cap is an asset. Cutting or moving on from the right player at the right time can add value. There was a real chance that tagging Darnold would result in the Vikings holding a $40MM bag at a time when the roster needs an infusion of free agents (draft pick management is also an asset, and one that is certainly big check in the negative column for KAM so far). The third round pick that the combo of Cousins and Hunter leaving ended up netting is an asset. So is the surplus value relative to cost that Greenard provided last year relative to Hunter. All things that added value without receiving compensation in trade.

I'm trying to understand this whole tag-and-trade mechanism myself. Does he have to sign his tender in order for a trade to be executed? My understanding is that until a player signs it, he's essentially a (very) restricted free agent that is not a usable trade piece. I've had trouble verifying that, but if it's true, then they would need Darnold's buy-in in order to execute the trade. Effectively he could veto any trade by refusing to sign the tender. On top of that, who is trading for him without the assurance that he'll sign an extension? At the very least it would severely hamper the compensation they can get in trade for him. So if I'm understanding that correctly (again, a big if), then he doesn't explicitly get to decide where he goes, but he effectively does. Personally, I'm fine with not trying to tag-and-trade him. The risk of being on the hook for $40MM with no flexibility - not to mention what that does to your ability to sign other free agents, even if temporary - isn't worth whatever midround compensation they'd be getting in a trade

I feel like the long game of telephone that is internet discourse can lead to sound concepts getting twisted into these short definitive statements that were never intended represent the concept but end up becoming the focal point of all debate and lead us all away from what the concept was in the first place. "Strikeouts can be a worthwhile trade-off for more walks and power" becomes "strikeouts don't matter" "Teams historically bunt more often than they should" becomes "you should never bunt." "Raw RBI totals aren't a great way to determine a hitter's value without context" becomes "RBIs don't matter." The items on the left are sound concepts worthy of reasonable debate. But the items on the right seem to carry the day in discourse as both proponents and opponents latch on and defend (or attack) to the death a stance that no one really should've been taking in the first place. The thing about strikeouts is that they are a bad result (I hope this is obvious), but they are also a byproduct of things that everyone agrees are good. Hitting the ball harder is good. Extra base hits drive up run production more than singles. No one should dispute this. But hitting the ball harder means swinging harder, and swinging harder leads to more whiffs. So if you swing harder, you'll strike out more. Is the increase in strikeouts worth it? It depends on how much extra power and extra base hits you're generating from it. Working the count is good. It drives up the opponent's pitch count. It allows your teammates to see more pitches. It means swinging at fewer bad pitches. It results in more walks. But it also results in more 2 strike counts, so it's also going to lead to more chances to strike out. Are all the benefits of working a count worth the additional strikeouts? It depends on how much more you're getting on base, or how much more quickly you're chasing or wearing down the starter, or how much deeper you can make them dip into their bullpen. Context is needed to answer these questions. It's not helpful to complain about strikeouts without examining why they're happening or what you're getting along with them. If the goal was just to strike out as little as possible without any consideration for the quality of ball being put in play, then the Dodgers and Mets would be fighting over who can send the biggest bag of cash to Willians Astudillo. Sadly, that isn't the case. So let's at least try to put strikeouts in context before we decide how important or unimportant they are. The Yankees and Dodgers got to the World Series last year because they each ranked in the top 2 of their league in runs, homers, walks, and OPS (and not batting average, but that's a discussion for another day). It didn't really matter that their strikeout rankings were more pedestrian (Yankees 7th in the AL, Dodgers 4th in the NL). Or to put it another way: the Twins stuck out less than both teams, yet the champagne at Target Field remains unpopped because they were well behind them in those more important categories.

https://www.reuters.com/sports/mlb-espn-opt-out-tv-deal-2026-28-seasons-2025-02-21/ "When someone says it's mutual, it never is. But this was mutual." - Michael Scott Rob Manfred Can MLB find a better deal elsewhere? Tough to say, although apparently a rival executive said it would've been "fiscally irresponsible" for ESPN not to opt out of the deal, so take that for whatever it's worth. In any case, I'd bet we should prepare for more streaming, not less.

My understanding is the sale of the Wolves still has to be approved by the NBA board of governors. Normally they wouldn't have gotten this far in the process without knowing this would be rubber-stamped, but this sale hasn't exactly been normal. Does a significantly below-market franchise sale potentially affect the valuation of other franchises? Probably (definitely?) not, but I wouldn't consider this set in stone until that approval has been granted. I haven't heard anything to suggest they won't, but I'd imagine Taylor wouldn't be looking to pay up for another franchise until he knows for certain that his current one is sold (and if that's not true, then this arbitration ruling wouldn't have an effect either way on his interest in the Twins). That could take him out of the running for the Twins if they stick to their opening day timeline.

I'm waiting to see what Babip, Vorp, and Eckstein have to say before jumping to any conclusions

Back when the ballot had the backlog of PED guys the game theory approach of leaving off a shoo-in in order to get more guys votes made more sense. Now that those ballot cloggers have mostly cleared off, I think it's harder to justify. I consider myself a big hall guy and I could still only come up with 8. If they wanted to solve this, they could just remove the 10 player limit (only about a third of the public ballots used all 10 slots and the private ballots almost certainly brought the rate down, so there really isn't a risk of a bunch of undeserving players getting elected), or make all ballots public (if you can't stand behind your ballot, you don't deserve a vote). But really, who cares. Of course Ichiro should've been unanimous. So should've Mays and Aaron and Williams and like 50+ other players. You're in, you're in.

The time has come for the players to accept a salary cap. 80% of the league already treats the luxury tax as a cap as it is, so they might as well get some concessions from the owners (salary floor, shorter arb period, higher minimum salaries, etc) while they're at it.

My favorite character in my favorite baseball movie. He had too many great lines to count. One that doesn't get enough love is "About time, it's 8-0" after Ricky Vaughn drills a Yankee in the back. Denzel robbed him of that Best Supporting Actor Oscar RIP. He made baseball more fun

A third generation owner running a team into the ground ... can you imagine rooting for a team like that? Must be awful

Definitely. Among the many issues plaguing MLB is the jump from draconian market suppression in the player's first six years to a true free market after that. Arbitration attempts to close that gap but does a pretty poor job of it. To bridge the gap, we need a higher minimum salary, shorter arb time period, or both. The owners want more revenue sharing, but the players don't trust them to use that revenue sharing on player salaries (and given the actions of the owners over the years, they shouldn't). A floor is the mechanism that ensures the owners use their revenue sharing on payroll. The other changes to pre-free agency salary structure ensure that the labor market doesnt get out of whack. The arbitration system was developed to allow cheaper teams cost control on their players for the start of their careers. This isn't needed if they get the revenue sharing necessary to fund their rosters ... as long as they actually use it to fund their rosters

I think that's more due to the randomness of a baseball postseason than any indication of overall equity in the sport relative to the NBA. The NFL is certainly its own animal. The Timberwolves are in a situation where they are finding creative ways to not go too far over their cap, or second apron, or whatever it is (I don't have the PhD in economics required to understand the NBA's salary cap rules). They're actually being reined in to keep their roster spending in line with the Lakers and Knicks. Try replacing the team names in that sentence with Twins, Dodgers and Yankees. That sounds like something that's about as likely as me being the Twins' answer at first base

Agreed. A cap, a legitimate floor, and substantial revenue sharing are all needed to fix this. It doesn't work without all three elements, and all three parties - players, big-market owners with their own RSN, and other owners - will have to be willing to work together to get there (at this point, the concerns of the two groups of owners are so divergent that they might as well be different parties from a CBA negotiating perspective). The cap will get most of the headlines in the next round of negotiations, but I think the willingness to agree on a floor will be the biggest barrier to coming to a workable solution

At least no one will have to watch it since no one can watch the games. I hope no one shows Manfred the movie Baseketball. He'd react to that like Cartman reacting to the History Channel

Agreed. The Twins don't exist to cater to the preferences of their players. If Jax wanted to be a starter, he should've performed better when he had the chance. The most likely outcome of moving him to the rotation is that both the rotation and bullpen are made worse. If you're the Rockies or White Sox, sure, give it a whirl. But this is not the kind of move that a team pretending to care about competing should make

I'm a big hall guy. To me, there is no small hall/big hall debate. That debate ended in the 70s when they allowed Frankie Frisch to put all his buddies in. Relative to other eras (especially the 20s and 30s), ballplayers from 1970 on are very underrepresented in the hall. So to me, I was a little surprised to struggle coming up with 10 yes votes from the ballot. I feel like most years I'm trying to decide who to leave off to keep it at 10. I guess the steroid backlog has mostly cleared out by now. I also draw my arbitrary line in the sand on steroids at the Mitchell Report. There is a fair argument to be made that, before then, steroid use wasn't technically cheating (can you break a rule that doesn't exist?) and was even embraced by MLB (chicks do, in fact, dig the long ball). So instead of saying Barry Bonds (for example) doesn't deserve to be in the hall, I say baseball deserves to have Barry Bonds in its hall. It's how I justify supporting Bonds and Clemens and not A-Rod and Manny. Anyway, off my soapbox and on to my list of 8: Ichiro (should be unanimous, but so should like 50+ other guys over the years) Sabathia Wagner Andruw Jones Utley Beltran Buehrle (the goalposts for starting pitchers are going to have to move along with starting pitcher usage) Pettitte (I've really waffled on him over time) Tough omissions: Bobby Abreu (truly borderline for me), Felix Hernandez (lacking the volume of Buehrle/Pettite) Bonus round (veterans/old timers/eras/whatever they call it now): Honestly, all but Garvey and Tommy John. But especially Tiant and Dick Allen. I hope the two Negro Leagues nominees get a fair examination - I know nothing about them, but the career summaries I've read sound really impressive.

They've struggled with these ever since they lost Scott Baker

Said "Yes" to people named Pohlad

The ESPN article on these moves says that part of St Peter's "strategic advisory" role will be helping the Pohlad's with the sale process, so perhaps Falvey will not have to worry about that.

Considering the Vikings have already traded away most of next year's draft (just a first, a fifth, and Cleveland's fifth remain), I'm fine with them letting it ride with what they have. 2025 was always the target for full-go competitiveness post-Kirk anyway Also, if you want to see something truly terrifying, check out the 2025 tab here