Major League Ready

IDK if they will sign a front of the rotation free agent. However, "thus far" we had never signed a $200M+ free agent like Correa either. We have not been in a position with this much young talent, especially pitching in a very long time. That has a dramatic impact on what they can afford to do. They had to spread out the money in the past. That simply is not the case presently and going forward. Next year, the payroll is around $92M, assuming one of Polanco or Arreaz and Kepler are gone. They need to retain some payroll capacity so that they can keep the team together but that would not prohibit them from signing a significant free agent SP. They could spend $30M on a pitcher and be $20M+ under the 2023 payroll.

Sounds like much to do about nothing to me. Kirilloff is a 1B who can play the outfield. If he is healthy, the infield is likely 1B Kirilloff / 2B Polanco / 3B Miranda / SS Correa with Arraez and Farmer as utility players. Gordon can also cover the middle IF spots. So, there are really 7. Wallner for certain starts in AAA and Celestino likely joins him so we are down to 5. This is not a problem at all when there are only 2 catchers and a spot is not used by a primary DH. Should we feel bad about having depth at AAA? If Kepler gets traded there will be an article about us being vulnerable now citing all the injuries last year.

I am trying to think of example where a pitcher that looked as good as Cabrera did in his first year got traded. He might have done too much to establish himself in terms of the Marlins letting him go unless the return is ridiculous. We would burn down Target Center if the twins traded away that kind of player, right? I just don't see him being traded unless the cost really hurts.

I think you forget how many upper level players are signed or traded for that produce nothing. We have a couple on our own roster. Remember when people were really upset we did not get Bumgardner. Patrick Corbin is a bust. Chris Sale has not produced much since being extended. Johnny Cueto did very little 5 of his 6 year contract. Kluber got injured when when he went to Texas. He produced nothing and they gave up Clause in that trade. Clevinger went to SanDiego. Same story and they gave up Quantrill, Naylor and Miller for Clevinger. Kuechel was a bust. David Price was not much either. There are plenty of other examples. Davis / Pujlos / Elsbury, etc. This type of deal is exactly how a team with $300M in revenue competes with teams generating 50 to 100% more revenue. Obviously, if you have an extra $150M on payroll, you don't need to make these deals but we are not in that boat.

How does that work? Would love to hear how a team with $270M in revenue can spend as much as a team with $600M+ in revenue. Please enlighten us?

Knock on wood but it should be a longtime before the Twins need to resort to another Matt Shoemaker / JA Happ type of signing. Yes, Mahle/Gray/Maeda will be free agents next year. However, Ryan/Paddack/Ober/SWR and Varland give us 5 very low cost starters. They will have plenty of money to extend Mahle or sign someone at least as good. That gives us 6 deep, maybe 7 if Dobnak is serviceable and by then one of two of Canterino/Festa/Raya/Prielipp should be ready especially later in the 2024 season if (when) we have injuries..

There is simply no need to be in a rush. I would hope they trade if and when they get a great return. We have so many question marks right now that it is very difficult to assess what's best long-term. Things will very likely be more clear at the deadline. Why not hold on and see what comes together and what does not come together. The one exception I see is Kepler. I don't see them picking up his option and we have young guys that should get a shot so let max go. I would also trade one of Arrez or Polanco IF the return was right. It makes absolutely no sense to trade away pitching right now. The demand / return is always there at the deadline. No way would I trade anymore prospects or prearb players for pitchers with 2 years of control. They spent plenty of long-term capital last year and got nothing for it. Lopez for Kepler is a different story. Try to extend him. Trade him if that does not come to fruition. We also can't say we just can't produce prospects like Tampa/Oakland if we are not willing to make the trades that have been a very big part of them producing more young talent than us and most of the rest of the league.

Fangraphs has his hit tool rated at 60 and MLB.com at 65.

All VERY GOOD points but the merit of these points is disregarded for people who just want to bitch. Anyone who does not understand that the efforts/practices you describe are standard operating procedure for literally every team is simply not paying attention. Some (like the Astros) have been better at it than others. The irony is not doing it would be incompetent. Yet, some still feel the need to insist this is part of the incompetence of this FO.

It won't be an impediment to extending other players if their pitching prospects can fill 4 or all 5 spots in the rotation. The limitation is they can't sign an expensive pitcher and extend other players. Hard to pass on a deal like this for a player as good as Correa.

Actually, Oakland has been better than Tampa. Two more 90 win seasons and a considerably better win percentage. Cleveland has a little more to spend. They also have 2 more 90-win seasons. Reds / Brewers / Rockies / Orioles / Pirates / Marlins / Padres / Blue Jays and Royals all have 3 or less. Phillies / Tigers / White Sox / and Mets all have four. The difference is not just drafting and development. If you look at these three teams, they have acquired almost as much productivity through trading established players for prospects as they have from drafted players. We can do what they do and use the $50M revenue advantage we have to sign one big player or extend 2-3 players above what Tampa or Oakland could do.

Lots of front offices sign expensive players. The VAST majority of those front offices are generally in markets that produce a lot of revenue. Just look back at the percentage of those free agents that went to the top 10 revenue markets. How many school teachers drive a 150K Land Rover?

That is one example but I was referring to the As, Ray's and Guardians who have (28) 90+ win seasons since the turn of the century. The Blue Jays have 3, one with Springer so that's 28:1 for teams that did not have a free agent with 1/2 the contract. It's obviously a boost if a team can sign a top free agent. Somewhat ironically, the enabling factor for any team in the bottom half of revenue is their ability to produce ML talent. One major talent is useless without a team around them. Signing elite free agents is not crucial at all if you can develop talent and then use what would be free agent budget to extend them at a better value than possible in free agency. The fact that we have not been as good as Tampa at developing talent does not make free agency a solution. Relying on free agency is asking to fail. Get better at practices that yield better results instead of pursuing practices with very little chance of success.

Crucial? The three most successful teams (by far) in the bottom half of revenue have never signed a free agent for more than $70M. People keep saying it's crucial while never providing any examples of teams with equal or less revenue signing elite free agents and going on to success.

$150M or $200M would do little to resolve the root problem. The Twins have half the revenue of the top team's and that disparity is still going to exist even if baseball revenues continue to grow. Those top team's will continue to have the same relative ability to absorb these contracts. We also have 5 years before there will be an opportunity to change the system. Therefore, there is absolutely no chance the current system is changed for the first half of a deal with Correa. Then, we should recognize that we already had great disparity and the league gave into player demands to increase that disparity in the last CBA. Based on what we witnessed this past year in terms of the CBA, what would make you think the players would accept a salary cap or enhanced revenue sharing. I see no way that happens without a prolonged strike.

Great point! Extending what you have is a FAR more effective practice than signing free agents. Obviously, those deals have varied returns just like free agents, but the return has been far greater per dollar spent and the extensions generally are not taking players to age 40. Therefore, they are not only more productive early, but they also don't have the huge downside at the end of the deal. Correa is a great way to be better this season but there will definitely be a long-term cost, especially in the last half of the contract. There have only been 10 of these 8+ year deals with position players. The list below shows the average WAR for the last half of all previous 8+ year contracts. Not the last couple years but the last half. The only one of these deals that worked out was Derek Jeter and he was 35 at the end of the contract. Eight of the ten averaged less than 1 WAR/year for the last half of the contract. If you are a team that can sign 5 contracts like Correa and have the twins budget left over, you can afford to make these deals. It's entirely another matter for a team with a $150M (roughly) ceiling to sign a deal that very likely prohibits them from signing extensions, especially given the number of candidates Ending fWAR bWAR Age Derek Jeter 4.42 4.16 36 Dave Winfield 1.98 2.22 38 Joey Votto 0.82 0.92 39 Alex Rodriguez 0.77 0.64 40 Robinson Cano 0.18 0.22 41 Albert Pujlos 0.15 0.21 42 Jason Hayward -0.05 0.30 33 Miguel Cabrera 0.33 -0.27 40 Prince Fileder -0.18 -0.18 36 Eric Hosmer 0.03 0.00 37 Average 0.84 0.82 38.20

Correa to the Mets looking less likely. Tweet from Cohen

He has 2 Milb options. What makes you think he will be on the 26-man roster unless he is performing well at AAA?

Correa only represents 25% of payroll if the team does not spend anywhere near their payroll capacity. If they only were willing to spend $85M should we accept the argument he would be one-third of payroll? Of course not, the whole idea of this metric is to measure the impact of a single player’s salary on the teams ability to fill out a roster. In other words, their capacity to spend. Therefore, it should be measured against their payroll capacity not actual spending. He would be 25% if they only spend $110M with the contract they were reported to have offered. If we measure against an estimated capacity of $150M, he represents 18%. Do they have more or less capacity to spend on other players when they are at $110M (25%) or at $150M where he would represent 19%. Obviously, they would have $40M available with him representing 25% of payroll. That’s why this metric needs to be calculated against payroll capacity. The percentage makes no sense at a random point below payroll capacity. Obviously, capacity varies based on revenue swings so it’s always an estimate.

They signed a grand total of (1) one-year contract. In other words, they may have been on this path in the past but they certainly are not remotely in the same place as when they signed all the players listed. Seems more like a complaint about the past without recognition of being better positioned today.

They are on the road leading from a previous core that just was not nearly good enough. They jettisoned most of them and are basically left with Buxton and Polanco. The entire rest of the team are guys with less than 2 years of service time. That road might go nowhere. It might also lead to a solid rotation of Ryan / Varland / SWR and Ober all inexpensive and under teams control for several years. That scenario leaves lots of money to add another top of the rotation SP through free agency. Prielipp and Festa might just provide incredible depth. The position players might all bust. It might also lead to Kirilloff and Miranda being well above average and maybe even some all-star years between them. Lewis and Lee might bust but probably not. Those two have higher upsides than Kirilloff and Miranda. Gordon and Martin might be mediocre but they could very well be an outstand duo as super utility players. Larnach and Wallner might bust or be 40 HR guys and Rodriquez might just be a superstar. They on the same road Chicago was on not so long ago which is the same road every team travels with the exception of ultra-high revenue teams. This road could lead to nowhere, but I like the odds of it leading somewhere pretty good and this time the trip has a good chance of remaining somewhere good for quite a few years.

I was pondering if he would be #1 or #2 behind Varland. Then, somehow, I managed to forget to mention him. Of course, the big question is how much time will he miss? Who knows maybe Martin will follow the Miranda script and give us all a very pleasant surprise.

I don't see any of these five as the most probable. Do we no longer consider Varland and SWR prospects. Those two would be the most probable IMO. Would love for the Balazovic prediction to come through but he gave us little reason to believe last year. Festa is too far down the depth chart as he is behind Varland and SWR. Same question for Wallner. He has not lost prospect status after 65 abs, right? Martin is also more likely to get a shot than Julien because of his defensive versatility unless Polanco has a prolonged injury. I don't see Lee getting here soon either.

Very true. I just find it a lot more fun to be an optimistic fan. Plus, the only way any modest revenue team has any chance is dependent an optimistic outcome.

My recollection is that Prielipp was considered a top 10 maybe even top 5 kind of pick before he went down with Tommy John. We are due and Prielipp has a shot at being the top of the rotation guy we have been waiting. That ceiling is likely why he is getting recognition.