Major League Ready

Which position players should be filled by free agents. 1B - Replace Clemens / Fedko and Sabato / Mendez as long shots 2B - Replace Keaschall 3B - Replace Lewis SS - Replace Lee and block Culpepper LF - Replace Martin / Roden and Block Jenkins / Rodriguez / Gonzalez / Fedko CF - Buxton RF - Replace Wallner and block Roden / Jenkins / Rodrigue / Gonzalez

I would bet that at least 2 BP spots go to free agents and it's even money on 3 spots. Of course, a trade could change that outlook.

You don't believe in Keaschall, Jenkins, Culpepper or Abel?

The 2nd and 3rd sources are nothing more than an account of what they have. The first article provides absolutely nothing of substance. Basing any opinion on what you have provided is basically unfounded.

I definitely could see them signing a couple BP arms and flipping them at the deadline like the Royals did with Chapman. That would be a good move. They don't have enough ready arms to fill the BP. That will take time so they are not sacrificing playing time for players that are potentially a solution. Position players is a different animal this year IMO. Signing Bader this year would mean taking playing time from Jenkins/Rodriguez/Martin/Roden?etc who are all potential long-term solutions. That is a very bad idea for a rebuilding team and a good way to remain mediocre. Same is true for SS and 3B. 2B is probably set with Keaschall. Do we want to sign someone to play SS and take playing time from Culpepper/Lee. Do we want a veteran to play 3B and keep Lewis out. 1B is where you could argue they would not be taking playing time from a potential solution. They are not signing Josh Naylor in a year they don't expect to contend. Hoskins is no better than Clemen given Clemens defense and versatility. I would much rather trade for a long-term solution or even give Fedko a shot. Other than 1B or BU Catcher where would a veteran not take playing time from a player that could be part of the solution? If they want to sign Caratini and trade Jeffers that's a different deal.

Agree it's not a good strategy. The team has actually done a good job of signing modest price free agents like Santana, MAT, Bader, etc. Those are great additions to a strong core but we don't have a strong core. Therefore, asking the team to spend money of free agents, even good ones, is very unlikely to be successful. Yet here we are with TD articles calling for them to follow an unsustainable strategy. If they continue the rebuild, free agents won't be part of the plan in 2026. Not because of payroll but because it makes absolutely no sense for a rebuilding team. The low payroll just makes it easier for them to follow that path. I would prefer they trade for a guy that's ready or close to ready instead of trying to squeeze 78 wins out of 2026?

Springer, Bichette,Kirk, and Barger improved from a total of 3.9 fWAR in 2024 to a combined 16.0 in 2025. I don't think I would bet the Twins have four guys that are going to improve by an average of 3 WAR each. Clement also improved. They don't even have Correa who would have been a prime candidate to improve given how bad he was in 2025. I would say that's what the Twins lack. That and an entire BP that was traded away.

Actually, I was responding to someone else who used post season success as the bar and suggest it might make sense to also look how teams got to the playoffs in terms of impact from spending / free agents.

If you look at exactly what I said instead of interpreting for your convenience. I said that no teams win consistently in the playoffs and "IF WE LOOK AT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS" which is a measurement with far more data points, Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee have been the best. In other words, playoff success is a pretty nuanced measure so perhaps we should also look at the thousands of regular season games in order to use a far bigger sample size. I have also made many posts about the advantages of a larger payroll and the impact of revenue disparity. I have supported any posters who point out the obvious advantage. However, what I have none done is ignored the reality of the ability to spend being dependent upon revenue. I also have not ignored the overwhelming evidence that winning with below average revenue is far more dependent on drafting and trading for prospects. Free agent spending has had a miniscule impact in comparison.

“Consistently” is a relative term but outside of the Dodgers and Yankees, no team consistently wins playoff series. This is especially true for all of the teams in the bottom half of revenue. If we talk about getting to the playoffs, Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee have significantly outperformed all of the other low revenue teams and half the teams in the top half of revenue. Neither Milwaukee or Cleveland had a free agent that produced 1 WAR this year. The Rays have not been good for a couple years but their 99-win 2023 team had one free agent (Zach Eflin) that produced 10% of their WAR. Eflin was a tremendous value on a 3-year / $40M deal. The teams that have put the most good teams on the field were among the least inclined to spend. They are the most inclined to trade established players for prospects.

According to Spotrac the Cardinals have spent an average of 17.4M more than the Twins. I would expect at least that with $50M of incremental revenue. No subject gets more play on this site, yet not one TD writer has every bothered to write an article which quantifies the Twins percentage of spend or Revenue rank vs Payroll rank. How much exactly should we expect. If they spent exactly what the Cardinals spend we could expect to add 2 wins if we were replacing a replacement level player so why does this get so much attention? Just imagine if you ran a company with half as much revenue as your top competitor. When asked by the board what you thought was key to competing and you answered increase spending to 50-60% of that top competitor. How long do you suppose you would be in that position? Point being more spending would be helpful but acquisition and development of prospects is far more important.

I agree San Diego has had modest success winning 4 playoff series in the past 20 years. There is no doubt that spending an additional $75M a year would help. However, I am not sure that we should count on getting an owner who spends well outside the team’s revenue because he is dying. The Padres lost $53M in 2022 and $113M in 2023. It's true, San Diego has had improved success through spending. However, expecting another owner to follow that example is very likely to be disappointed. St Louis has considerably more revenue. Population base does not cover payroll. Revenue covers payroll. Seattle is a very poor example. The did sign 3 free agents for more than $10M/year. They produced virtually nothing. Haniger, Suarez, and Garver made $43M combined and produced .5 fWAR between the three of them. They also spent $21M on Castillo who pitched 8 innings and produced 0 WAR. Grand total, they got .5 WAR by spending $54M. Seattle is a really poor example. BTW … Seattle has won two playoff series in the past two decades so not a great aspiration. They generate 30-50M more in revenue and they have spent less than the Twins over the past 5 years. The Twins have actually spent an average of $10 more than Seattle over the past 5 years according to Spotrac. They certainly are not an example of a team that has been willing to spend or found success through spending.

What team with similar revenue has had post season success by "spending money"?

I had the same thought until the old Ray Stevens Lyric came to mind ... There is none so blind as he who will not see. That quote actually goes back to the 1500s so it's been a thing for a long time. What's really amazing is that the one thing we all agree on is that this team sucks. Yet, we can be a playoff team if we just keep Ryan and replace the guys we traded. Of course, we could not replace the guys we traded in free agency even if we spent $160M.

In the past 15 years, there have been 4 teams in the bottom half of revenue that produced 20% of their WAR via free agency. 2015 Pirates, 2018, Brewers, 2019 Rays, and the 2019 Twins. None of those teams are exactly know for attracting or signing free agents. Of these teams, the Twins have spent by far the most in free agency.

All three really slow unathletic players. Ballesteros is a poor defender so not a guy I want headlining a deal for our best trade asset. Cason Kelly is a free agent so trading Amaya for Ryan probably does not make the Cubs a better team. It looks to me like a deal with the Cubs would be either Wiggins or Rojas along with Long. Even Wiggins and Rojas does not seem like a great return but maybe my expectations are too high.

Anything over $110M assumes they abandon the rebuild, Teams don’t sign expensive free agents in a rebuild. What would be even worse would be to fill a roster spot with an average veteran player that could be used to audition real solutions. It would make sense they add to the BP via free agency because they have nothing so unless they fill the BOP with guys like Kline, they need something but the BP is the only place I see free agent spending as likely. I really don’t understand the obsession with payroll knowing they likely continue to rebuild. If they abandon the rebuild, and assume they spend $150M, there is much to discuss about how to spend $58M on free agents. We would have even more to discuss about what prospects we would be willing to give up because $58M in free agency does not get us close to contention. That’s just an opinion and I have seen very little in terms of how spending $150M would produce a contender. That expenditure projects to produce roughly 7 additional wins. Even if we don’t consider all of the lost production lost at the deadline, projects to 77 wins. team. Of course, we did lose significant production from (Duran/Jax/Varland/Columbe/Bader and Correa so we probably would not project to 77 wins even if we spent an additional $55M.

This is creative thinking. I like it and would encourage this kind of move. Our difference here is that I see a low for low move as very secondary in importance with a considerably lower chance of impacting the team. Don't get me wrong. This sounds like something the Rays would pull off and have it work out. I would rather trade Ober and Wallner for Lawler than trade Matthews.

I agree on Jeffers and have said previously he could go if the return is a player with a reasonable shot at making an impact. I just don't see that happening for 1 year of Jeffers. We shall see. Larnach very likely goes. I didn't mention him because I see the return as inconsequential. So, I ask my self who could bring a return of consequence. The only two players are Ryan and Lopez, IMO. They may make other trades but who else can they trade that would return a player that matters. Lewis has no value right now. Why sell at the bottom? Trading Keaschall makes zero sense, and trading any prospect of consequence makes absolutely no sense unless it was trading from depth like OF prospects for an infield prospect or catcher. IDK if there will be 2 trades or 6 but I just can't come up with any scenarios beyond Ryan and Lopez that will matter.

No. I just think they are rebuilding and this kind of trade makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for a rebuilding team. It's literally the opposite of what rebuilding teams do.

Who are you thinking. As you know, Buxton has a no-trade clause. Jeffers is the only salary of consequence, and I think there is a reasonable chance they keep him around for some continuity with a young pitching staff unless they get a really good return.

My guess is that Lopez starts the season with the Twins but gets traded at the deadline unless we have a shockingly good 1st half. That would put us around $92M (see below) to start the year. This assumes they run with Clemens and/or prospects at 1B. IDK if they get a free agent or if maybe they give Mendez or Fedko a month in the minors at 1B and then give one of them a go. Sabato might even get a shot if he starts out the year well. 1 Pablo Lopez 21,750,000 2028 2 Bailey Ober 5,500,000 Arb-2 2028 3 Zebby Matthews 780,000 4 Taj Bradley 780,000 5 SWR 780,000 Abel / Festa / Morris / Rojas / Prelipp / Culpepper / Ohl Relief Pitchers 6 Free Agent 7,500,000 7 Free Agent 5,000,000 8 Free Agent 3,000,000 9 Cole Sands 780,000 10 Cody Funderburk 780,000 11 Cody Laweryson 780,000 12 ? 780,000 C-Opt 13 ? 780,000 Morris / Raya / Duarte / Culpepper / Klein Catchers 14 Ryan Jeffers 6,500,000 Arb-3 2027 15 Perades / Cardenas 780,000 Infielders 1B Clemens / Sabato / Fedko or Trade 780,000 2B Luke Keaschall 780,000 3B Royce Lewis 3,000,000 Arb-2 2029 SS Brooks Lee >>> Kaelen Culpepper 780,000 Utility Players 20 Kody Clemens 780,000 21 Fitzgerald >>> Brooks Lee 780,000 22 Kyler Fedko 780,000 23 Wallner >>> Gonzalez / Rosario 2,000,000 2030 Outfielders 24 Martin >>> Jenkins 780,000 25 Byron Buxton CF 15,142,857 2029 24 Roden 780,000 Carlos Correa 10,000,000 TOTAL PAYROLL 92,652,857

If they decide to abandon the rebuild, they will need to spend $200M and/or trade away considerable assets if they want to have a reasonable shot at being a legit playoff team. Even then, it would be a stretch. They have no BP, no 1B, well below average SS and 3B, and below average corner OFers, and they need a catcher. If they decide to continue the rebuild, payroll will be low by design. The only signings would likely be 2-3 BP arms because they got nothing. You don't fill those holes at SS/3B and corner OF with free agents when you have guys ready to fill those spots. 1B, maybe. BU catcher, probably.

Do you think the Pohlad's are dictating that strategy? BTW ... After the deadline, Lewis played strictly 1B and Lee was the everyday SS. Keaschall played 2B and Clemens mostly played 1B. Wallner and Larnach played corner OF. Jeffers and other played catcher. Martin was mostly in LF.

Aren't we ignoring the obvious. Is league revenue shrinking or increasing. It's been increasing at 9% year or year. That pretty good all things considered. Are the small markets viable financially? Of course they are. They are talking about expansion into more modest size markets. I am the biggest proponent here of reducing the inequity, but this seems really hyperbolic to me. The league is not dying, and they won't die if they don't do what we think is fair. The league has allowed this to happen because dominance in big markets is actually good for revenue production as long as teams like the Brewers, Guardians, and Rays provide just enough hope that it can be done on a budget.