The Great Hambino

It's only $50 for the year if you have a season ticket package - excuse me, have a MyTwins membership <eyeroll> - so if you're really on the fence about either purchase, it's not the worst perk in the world.

The tease of the possibility of new ownership only to have Lucy pull that football away right when most fans are starting to pay attention again may have hurt optimism more than if they had never been put on the market in the first place. Plus, the biggest offseason addition the past two years has been, what, Carlos Santana? I know he worked out as well as anyone could've hoped, but at the time of his signing it didn't exactly fire up the fanbase, especially given the lack of any other meaningful investment in what seemed like the opening of a championship window. On another note, I'm surprised the A's had any fans available to answer the survey

If they're going to try to protect him and use him only in mop-up duty, then they better manage like they have a 7 man bullpen and adjust their starter usage accordingly. It sounds nice on paper to let him grow into the role and ramp up his leverage gradually, but all it takes is a couple short starts/extra inning games in a row before they've potentially boxed themselves into using him in high leverage if the've been dipping into the pen earlier than necessary. We saw it last year with Henriquez. If they're not willing to push their starters deeper than normal, then they'll inevitably be choosing between Castellano and, say, Duran for the third day in a row, or Castellano and Alcala for a second inning when he wasn't 100% sharp. Worth noting that they don't seem have the usual number of early-season off days built into the schedule this year I find it hard to believe that they can't work out a trade if they really want to keep him that badly.

One of the side effects of those PED-era ballots getting overstuffed as players that would otherwise be shoo-ins kept failing to clear the hurdle: some players that absolutely warranted serious consideration would get lost in the wash and fail to get the minimum to stay on. Johan - along with Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, Johnny Damon, and I'm sure several others - definitely deserved the opportunity to let their cases develop over time. I think if Johan were to show up on the ballot today, he'd not only stay on, he'd get elected within five years. There could be some pretty strong veterans committee classes in the next decade

According to Over The Cap, the Vikes are currently projected to receive the top third-round compensatory pick in the 2026 draft thanks to Darnold. They pulled this off while also spending the most money in FA so far (again according to OTC) in terms of both total and guaranteed dollars. Nicely done

My boss is hundreds of miles away, so blocking off an afternoon with "meetings" shouldn't be a problem. I'm going to do a test run of using the new gold bus line to get to the park (switching over to the green line in downtown St Paul). At least that's how I'm justifying leaving my wife alone with two kids in diapers for dinner/bedtime. The things I do for this family ....

If the reports that the Rays are being pressured by MLB to sell in the wake of their stadium fiasco are true, that can't be helpful for a Twins sale if the Pohlads have a number they need to hit before pulling the trigger. Supply up, price down

But then they can't tag and trade him!

1987 World Series, right handed, a bit of a tummy ... is that Senor Smoke? Fun fact: young Hambino once homered off his son (and struck out ... more than once against him, but STRIKEOUTS DON'T MATTER)

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