Major League Ready

If this was the rule, they could still keep every dime they generate outside revenue sharing. I don't see this as having any impact. They tried to increase penalties for high revenue teams and the players union to a hard stance against. They players actually wanted to reduce revenue sharing.

Why we use attendance to determine the relative level of impact of acquisition methods or even specifically the impact of prospects? We could infer winning drives attendance but the fact they had a winning team would tell us absolutely nothing about how players on that winning team were acquired. Fair enough? We were discussing the relative importance of prospects in building a winner. It seems fair enough to conclude people who frequent this site want the organization to build a winner and I think it’s fair to say how that is most effectively achieved is of interest to TDers. 1.5 WAR is debatable but that same modest bar is used to determine if a player acquired in trade was “established” or a prospect. Trading for established players appears to be favored by the majority here, I wanted to set a low bar for what’s an “established” player so that bar was not criticized for being too high. Why? Because, if we moved that bar to 2 for example, the percentage of players acquired as prospects would actually go up and trades for established players down. We can quibble over but if you want it higher it would increase the percentage of players acquired as prospects which would widen the already wide gap between acquiring established players vs prospects. I don’t see much concern here for 1 WAR players or how we acquire them. The number seems reasonable even conservative in terms of determining the impact of trading for prospects vs trading away prospects. How would you better measure the impact of the various types of acquisition measures than to take winning teams and determine the acquisition method for the players that contributed in a significant way? Frankly. WPA would be another viable measure but I doubt it would be any more accurate than more for this exercise. The alternative ism for all of us to assume whatever method we favor is the best without actually looking back at winning teams to see how they were built. History overwhelming suggests that prospects (drafted and traded for) are by far the most influential to winning. It’s not even remotely close. Do we want the team to follow the practices that have been the most successful?

I try not to make a point with an anecdote. I threw in that example because there have been times when people come back with comments that suggest the only thing that matters is if the team got to the WS or won the WS. The comment about suspects has appeared here MANY times. It's the reason I took the time to chronical how every player that made a significant contribution to every 90 win team since the turn of the century. Yes, many prospects fail but that's the wrong question to ask. The question to ask is what the relative contribution of each type of acquisition method to successful teams. Do we want to know how winning teams were constructed or do we want to know if prospects fail? The teams that have had by far the most success have produced roughly 80% of their WAR from players that were drafted or traded for as a prospect which I define as a player that has never produced 1.5 WAR in a season. The split is roughly equal. Free agency and trading for established players contributes about 20% so the whole prospects are "suspects" and therefore not valuable is not even remotely aligned with what has actually transpired. How about this Year's Brewers team which had the most wins in MLB. The table below shows all the players that contributed 1.5 WAR or RPs with 1.2 WAR and how they were acquired. 85% of the Brewers WAR came from players that were drafted or acquired as prospects with a little more than half produced by trading for prospects. 2025 Brewers (97 wins) Acquired WAR Sal Frelick Drafted 3.3 Brice Turang Drafted 3.2 William Contreras Trade 3.2 Isaac Collins AaP 2.8 Jackson Chourio Intl 2.8 Christian Yelich Trade 2.1 Andrew Vaughn AaP 1.6 Caleb Durbin AaP 1.4 Joey Ortiz AaP 1.4 Freddy Peralta AaP 3.6 Chad Patrick AaP 2.6 Quinn Priester AaP 1.9 Brandon Woodruff Drafted 1.8 Abner Uribe Intl 1.7 Trevor Megill AaP 1.5 Aaron Ashby Drafted 1.2 Acquired by: Drafted 4 26.3% International Draft 2 12.5% Acquired as Prospect 8 46.5% Trade for Proven 2 14.7% Free Agent 0 0.0%

I just happen to have the win data compiled since 2000. It's actually the Royals with the lowest overall win percentage. I also have the number of 90/94 and 98 win seasons compiled to provide some context to the number of good teams they have had over this period of time. Here it 90 94 98 Wins Wins Wins Win % 1 Yankees 16 14 7 0.579 2 Dodgers 13 7 5 0.566 3 Cardinals 13 6 3 0.554 4 Braves 12 9 4 0.545 5 Red Sox 13 8 2 0.545 6 Giants 7 4 2 0.521 7 Angels 7 6 3 0.521 8 Oakland 10 7 2 0.518 9 Cleveland 10 3 1 0.516 10 Astros 8 5 4 0.513 11 Phillies 5 2 1 0.508 12 Blue Jays 3 0 0 0.503 13 TWINS 6 4 1 0.502 14 Mariners 6 1 1 0.499 15 Mets 4 3 1 0.499 16 Cubs 5 4 1 0.498 17 Tampa 9 5 2 0.497 18 White Sox 4 2 1 0.494 19 Brewers 5 3 0 0.493 20 Rangers 6 2 0 0.491 21 Nationals 5 2 0 0.486 22 Dbacks 5 2 1 0.484 23 Padres 1 0 0 0.474 24 Reds 3 1 0 0.471 25 Marlins 1 0 0 0.468 26 Tigers 4 2 0 0.464 27 Rockies 3 0 0 0.462 28 Orioles 3 2 1 0.453 29 Pirates 2 2 1 0.447 30 Royals 1 1 0 0.436

I am not sure what we are talking about here. Are you saying it would be difficult to get a premium prospect for Ryan or are you making a more general point that there are not many players acquired as prospects that make a significant contribution.

More 45 or even 50 grade prospects would not add great value. They have lots of those prospects. What they don't have are prospects that project to be impact players. Jenkins is the only premium prospect they have and Keaschall looks like he could be an impact player. Tait if he sticks at catcher. Trading Harrison Bader does not get you premium prospects but trading Joe Ryan trade will. There is no guarantee but that would be a fair projection. Duran brought back a SP with the potential to be as good as Ryan and a position player with the potential to produce equivalent WAR to Ryan. Of course, Ryan has much more trade value than Duran. There is risk but there is also tremendous upside because these players are under control for 3X the number of years. If you can get a Joe Ryan equivalent for 7 years you are basically giving up a modest chance of contention in 2027. The benefit of trading Ryan is uncertain. However, the projection and the upside over 7 years is far greater than the likely benefit of keeping him if the goal is contending. Cleveland and Tampa have made this type of trade for years. Fans don't like it, but the results are very clear. This type of trade has been a major contributor to the building of many playoff teams. I keep Pablo if he does not bring back an impact prospect. His value is probably not there at the moment, but he would be traded at the deadline if the return becomes impactful. Same with Jeffers. I don't believe he brings back an impact player so he stays to lend stability to a young staff. Really on the fence with Buxton if he would waive his NTC.

What if the Twins were “aggressive”. We are seeing a lot of advocacy for putting the best team possible on the field in 2026. What does that look like and what could we expect. The Twins were 18-35 after the deadline which is a 55 win pace. They could spend $60M in free agency and pick up another 6-7 wins. The two most needed positions are 1B and SS. Should we fill SS and hold Culpepper back. $60M would get a very good 1B and SS but leave little left over to rebuild the BP. Should we trade away top 10 type prospects and try to get it 70 wins 75 wins if everything goes great? There has always been an understandable desire for being aggressive and getting final pieces to enhance our chances of bring a real contender. This means increased spending and trading prospects for final pieces. In other words, converting future assets to present assets. The parallel when a team is in the position the Twins are in now is trading the remaining good players to acquire difference makers for the next run at contention. Houston tore down to the studs. KC traded Grienke for Cane and Escobar. I think you could make a good case KC does not make it the WS without those two players. Cleveland has a long history of trading established players for prospects that contribute. That's the norm in a rebuild. So, is the best we can hope for to keep Ryan and Lopez? Hope everything goes great and we win 75 games? Is that the goal or should we take it on the chin in 2026 and take a shot at getting our own Cain & Escobar and others who can contribute to the next run for 7 years? Time to recognize this ship needs an extreme makeover.

The continued development of pitching is the key. Free agent SPs are too hard to land and either don't perform or get injured far too often. I would prefer those free agent dollars or extensions go to position players. Were the deadline deals they made influenced by this aspect of roster building? Abel, Bradley, and perhaps Rojas give them a very legit pipeline when added to SWR / Matthews / Prielipp / Hill / Soto / Festa / Raya / Quick / Morris and Bohorquez. They should be able to fill a rotation with quality SPs for quite a while and there should be a few good BP arms among those that don't crack the rotation.

Lewis had a wRC+ of 80 post deadline and it's been a while since he has been good. However, he is finally healthy now and I have not given up on him but 2026 is do or go for me on Lewis.

We are 100% aligned on this one. I would frame it this way. Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee have provided a framework for success with modest revenue. The Twins need to make good decisions following these practices. Build a core the way you have been talking about for quite a while now. Then, utilize their modest revenue advantage over these teams to make their model even better. This could mean utilizing the extra payroll capacity in free agency to get a final piece or two. The additional payroll capacity could also be used to extend a couple core players. IE. Jose Rameriz. Those deals have probably been on average more effective than free agency. BTW ... The Twins are better positioned currently to execute this model than they have been in quite a while. Obviously, some prospects need to work out and they will need to devote 2026 to retooling the roster but they have a deep farm system that could enable them to build the way these other teams have succeeded. We should consider how Cleveland, Milwaukee or Tampa would likely proceed if their organizations were in this position? History would suggest g=free agency would play a small role or no role at all.

Are you looking to fix this roster to contend in 2026? They would need to fill SS and 1B with trades or free agents. Lewis is a pretty big question mark as well if you are looking to contend. Do you hope that Lewis steps up or do you fill his position as well. We also need a at least one corner OFer. Do you fill these positions and hold Jenkins and Culpepper back? I guess you hold back GG as well. You don't go out and fill holes with free agents and trades only to replace those players with prospects, right? If you are looking to trade for difference makers, you will need to trade away some combination of Jenkins/Culpepper/Tait/Abel/Matthews. Is that what you are advocating?

The evidence is indisputable. There is no doubt the highest payroll teams have produced the most playoff or 90-win teams if you want an easy objective to compare against. That said, I bet the correlation between revenue and payroll is much higher than the correlation between winning and payroll. The question that should be asked but never is would be how the Twins revenue rank compares to their payroll rank. There have countless articles complaining about spending but if there has ever been an article that was meant to provide an objective and quantifiable measure of Twins spending, I missed it. Not one TD writer has ever written an article focused on providing an objective measure as far as I know. What is reasonable to expect is that the team spends the same percentage of revenue as other teams. Expecting a team with 90% of average revenue to spend like a team with a 110% of average revenue will result in disappointment. That's a $70M swing. Perhaps more to the point is that three teams (Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee) have been more successful than all of the other teams in the bottom half of revenue any many others outside the top 5 in revenue. There is often almost an obsession with spending that tends to ignore the realities of revenue. It also completely ignores how teams without a revenue advantage have managed to construct winning teams. The evidence of how to win with average or less revenue is as clear as the advantage of a larger payroll. Ignoring that very clear evidence is not what I hope for from the Twins. I want them to follow the acquisition strategies that have made the teams mentioned above successful. Those strategies are at odds with building through free agency. Those teams also do far more trading for prospects than they do trading away prospects. A low payroll in 2026 would be indicative of following the strategies that have made Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee successful. Once they actually have a viable core, they should spend for final piece or two. We are not remotely in that position.

I don't think we should try to lock down 3 years of mediocrity, especially in 2026. Arraez has one strength but he is below average in every other aspect of the game. Let's see if Mendez or Fedko can make the transition. Maybe there is a trade to be made. If that does not work, let's look at our options at this time next year but locking into an option that really isn't a solution in what will likely be a retooling (non-contending) year is not a good plan IMO.

I think Roden starts as much or more than Wallner in the OF. His Milb track record is too good to give up on him after 150 major league ABs. Wallner starts a lot of games but half or more of them as the DH. They will both need to prove themselves with Jenkins, GG and others near ready. He will see very little time in the OF once Jenkins gets established and hopefully that's relatively early in the season.

I agree they should be able to get something in trade for Larnach and therefore should tender an offer. Also agree Martin and Larnach are not necessarily an either or. However, if this team is to be successful, I don't see a path where Larnach has a role. Success means that Jenkins has taken one spot and one of Martin / GG / Roden or even Rosario/Fedko coming up and all of them providing better offence, defense and base running than we are getting from Larnach.

I view the $$$ part secondary. The question is what are we trying to accomplish. Are we just trying to put the best team on the field in 2026 or are we trying to build a contender. IMO, we can't do both. There are far too many holes to fill and far too big a gap between players like Larnach and what it takes to be a real contender. The Twins are not contending in 2026. Larnach would take a roster spot that could be used to audition players that could be part of a contender for multiple years. This starts with Martin who was better than Larnach this year at every aspect of the game. If we want to get a way from slow guys that can't run the bases or play defense, we need to make these roster decisions. Speaking of more all-around players. They also need to give Roden a shot and they probably will give Outman a shot as well. Then you have the potential real upgrades in the form of Jenkins and GG on the doorstep. I might even prefer giving Fedko a chance because at least we know he can run and play defense. We will have to invest playing time in guys who have the potential to take us to the next level. We can't complain about lack of playoff success if we are unwilling to do what it takes to get there.

You are twisting to fit a narrative that suits you. I said you can't lose something you would never have had. However, if you wish to compare alternatives that did exist, the Twins spent money that could hat is reasonable to compare alternatives that did exist. They spent the money that would have gone to Berrios on Lopez which is a better contract and they got SWR/Martin as a bonus. They can't possibly lose this trade at this point but it has the potential to be of significant benefit to the team going forward.

The innings Berrios pitched after he would have become a free agent should not be used for comparison. He was not staying in Minnesota. He had 250 IPs during the period he would have been under control which is roughly the same as SWR to this point. I think it's more accurate to say we signed Lopez on a much better contract with the money saved got SWR and Martin for the next 5 years at low cost. We will have to see just how productive SWR and Martin are for the next 5 years but this deal looks very good for Minnesota at this point in time.

I said many times before Lee made it to the majors that he did nothing in the minors to suggest he would be above average at this level. He is a poor defender and simply does not possess the athleticism to be even an average defender at SS. He is also a below average hitter, That's exactly the type of player that needs to be upgraded if the team wants to contend. He is barely above replacement level.

Yep, we really need Culpepper to step up and take over that position. Lee is well suited for a utility role.

We have no BP, we need two new corner OFers and a 4th OFer. 1B/SS and 3B are all relatively weak or non-existent in the case of 1B and we need a BU catcher. Yes, the odds of turning that around next year are VERY low. Yet, I would bet most of the plans we hear around here for a while will be how to make this team a contender next year and failure to follow that ill-fated plan must be a result of an unwillingness to spend. How do they improve the odds of building a contender? They need to invest one season (2026) in auditioning the plethora of OFers and pitchers they have in the system. The odds of building a great OF from the group of Buxton/Martin/Jenkins/GG/Roden/Rosario and Fedko are quite good. The odds of building a good pitching staff between Matthews/Abel/Bradley/SWR/Rojas/Morris/Prielipp/Culpepper and others is pretty good. Matthews/Abel/Bradley/SWR showed they have what it takes in that last week of the season. They also have the 4th pick next year and they could acquire some very significant pieces if they trade Ryan and/or Lopez. It would sure help if there was a great college infielder available at 4 next year but there is a good chance they could get a great AA or AAA SS or 3B for Ryan/Lopez. There is a path with reasonable odds, it just does not start with contending in 2026 and that will be tough for some fans to accept. I can see a reasonable chance of a good team in 2027 with Abel/Matthews/Bradley/SWR/Prielipp as the SPs and Buxton/Jenkins/GG, and Martin in the OF. Keaschall/Culpepper/Lewis and a couple players who are not in the organization yet as the Infield.

This is also true of Tampa. Both teams produce as much from trading established players for prospects as they do from drafting. We also see the assumption the Twins traded Berrios because they are cheap repeated over and over? How many SPs have the Guardians, Brewers or Rays given a 7 year extension or any significant extension? The Brewers traded a legit Cy Young candidate away a couple years ago. Cleveland has traded away quite a few very good SPs. Just my opinion but I think we should pay more attention to how other teams in the bottom half of revenue have found success and not criticize the Twins for practices that have made other teams successful.

There are 15 teams in the bottom half of revenue. Those 15 teams have won the WS exactly once in the past 20 years. Let's do the math. That's a total of 300 teams but you are going to equal that output in 5 years. That's 60X the rate of the other organizations combined. I am skeptical!

They won 70 with Ryan and Lopez this year and Duran/Jax/Varland/Bader for two-thirds of the year. Is Baldelli responsible for the 15-win shortfall?

I think you make a good point but I also think they give Lewis 1 more year to prove himself. Brooks Lee will get a couple month runway but he will have to look better offensively and defensively or likely be replaced before the half-way point by Culpepper. Keaschall gets a couple months at 2B but he just might end up at 1B depending on what emerges for 1B and 2B options. The OF is a similar situation. They probably start the season with Buxton/Martin/Roden and Outman. Hopefully, Jenkins is up by June 1 and takes one of those spots. I would not be shocked if Wallner is not even on the roster come spring. They have many OF options that are ready or nearly ready. They won't contend even if they keep Ryan and Lopez unless everything goes remarkably well but they will be interesting.