Major League Ready

If the goal is to field the best team possible on opening day, Larnach should be part of the team. If the goal is to build a winner, I don’t see Larnach playing a role in that goal. As a matter of fact, he is a hindrance because he would take a roster spot away from a player that could contribute to the team contending down the road. They should non-tender him unless they believe they can trade him which seems like a reasonable possibility. Buxton and Martin are sure bets and Roden / Wallner are relatively safe bets. Outman is probably the 5th man because he can play CF. However, he has until Jenkins is up to earn his keep. He fills a short-term need for now. It will get really interesting if Rodriguez and/or GG are raking in AAA. Larnach just does not fit into this equation if the goal is building a contender.

How are you getting financial information on a private company? It would be great if you could post a link to the source of this information.

Absolutely. It is far and away the most crucial element of success. I just wanted to point out that the premise these teams draft better than others is not all that accurate. They find the most quarters in the couch cushions and they also make more trades for prospects than most teams.

Payroll does not equal the amount paid to players. They have benefits of around $17M according to Spotrac, and another roughly $22-23M in draft / international draft bonuses.

This often-floated idea that the teams producing the most young talent (Milwaukee, Tampa, Cleveland) are doing so by drafting is misguided. These teams acquire roughly 40% of their young talent from other teams. If we look at the players on the 2025 (97 win) Brewers that produced more than 1.5 WAR, 3 of their top 13 players were drafted, and 2 were international signings. 59% of their WAR was from players acquired from other teams, all but one of them (Yehlich) were unproven when acquired. Of course, they developed those players as well but they didn't do a superior job of drafting. 2025 Brewers (97 wins) Brice Turang Drafted 4.4 William Contreras Acquired 3.6 Sal Frelick Drafted 3.6 Jackson Chourio Intl 2.9 Caleb Durbin Aap 2.6 Isaac Collins Aap 2.6 Christian Yelich Trade 2.4 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 Acquired by: Drafted 3 28% International Draft 2 13% Acquired as Prospect 7 52% Trade for Proven 1 7% Free Agent 0 0%

I see them quite differently. Clemmens is a better fielder, especially at 2B and he is more versatile with his ability to play the OF. He is a much better roster fit given where this team stands and where it is hopefully going. When replaced, he has value as a bench player. I think it's easy to see them starting the year with Clemmens at 1B and hopefully replacing him with a converted OFer or player acquired in trade.

I will be losing my mind right along side of you but don't worry. There is no way in hell they are signing a free agent OFer with Wallner / Martin / Roden and two top prospects being OFers. This would also be the year to let the LH hitters PAs against LHPs and see if the develop. Rodriguez has a good track record hitting LHP. Worry about RH hitter next year after you give Martin / Gonzalez and perhaps Fedko a shot.

If they are that bad without Ryan and Lopez, they should definitely commit to a full rebuild.

Agree but is almost nothing really any different than nothing?

There is nowhere to go but up. You can't be blamed for the mess and it's an industry where turnarounds are expected to take much longer than any industry I can think of. It's actually a great opportunity and I doubt the current state would dissuade a capable executive especially given the strength of the farm system.

This is probably the most sensible thing I have ever read on TD

Agree but I meant in the eyes of their fans. We just had an article here on the Twins " path to contention" and Detroit is far closer to contention than us.

I was thinking similar to Ryan who is very good but not elite. Plus, there are not many very good SPs traded much less truly elite. What do you think will Skubal get traded? The Tigers were pretty bad for a decade. Do they dare trade him when they are in a contention window?

I have said quite a few times I like Clemmens as a bench player, but I don't see a problem with using him as a placeholder if 2026 is a rebuilding year. I would hope it's just for the 1st 2-3 months of the season and someone else like Mendez emerges.

I think of myself as overly optimistic, but this take is an alternative reality. Let's evaluate the components of this team starting with it's greatest strength the starting pitching. The Twins have two very good starters. There are a number of other teams with a stronger 1-2 punch and others with an equal 1-2. Their 3rd guy (Ober) looked terrible at the end of the year. The others are unproven. Overall good depth but not dominant by any stretch of the imagination. They have Buxton in the OF so that's probably their next greatest strength if he can stay healthy. He is flanked by players proven to below average and unproven players. Below average overall. They have no 1B. 2B looks good. 3B/SS are well below average. Overall, well below average. Zip in the BP. Absolutely horrible. Perhaps the worst in MLB. How in the world do you conclude this team has a path to contention that does not involve tearing up the current path?

There is a pretty good possibility that a trade changes everything. For right now, I think they start the season with Clemens while they give some prospects playing time at 1B. I included Wallner because that's a popular idea but agree with you he should not be part of the plan. I have said more than once that he does not have the hands or foot work for the position. I suspect they would have transitioned him a year or two ago if there was any chance he could play 1B.

They need someone if they try to contend. I really don't know what path they will take. If they continue to rebuild, they have all year to work on transitioning Mendez / Gonzalez / Wallner or anyone else they think can make the transition. Of course, a rebuild could include trading for someone this winter. If that does not work, they can sign or trade someone next winter. If they proceed as if they can contend this year, they definitely need to do something.

And you're still pretending there is even remotely enough data points to draw a conclusion from only the twins while ignoring 97% of the data. Ashbury also pointed this out but of course you ignore anything and everything outside the fact the Twins have not had multiple successes with trades they have not made. Go ahead and retain a position of righteous ignorance. As I said, you can do this as a fan but that kind of gross incompetence gets you fired as a baseball executive or any other industry. Try telling the board of directors you avoid proven practices because your organization had rarely engaged in these practices in the past. How about engaging these proven practices? That's how an organization gets better.

I am sure that this argument makes sense in your mind. When you ignore 97% of the data in the real world you get fired.

Because the teams that do it a lot like Cleveland and Milwaukee have traded front of the rotation guys when they still expected to contend. Burnes for example. Chicago traded a better pitcher (Crochet) with 2 years of control because they did not expect to contend. I think they also traded sale with 2 years remaining. We can talk about lots of examples, but you are ducking the question posed. Could it be because nobody would choose 1 year of control over 2? I would not suggest front of the rotation pitchers get traded regularly with 2 or more years of control, but two things can be true at the same time. They don't often get traded and their value in trade is greater with two years of control.

A comp would require that the same player be traded with 2 years remaining and then flipped the next year. That same player would also have to project the same. In other words, his performance would have to remain very similar over the year between trades and the years before the trade. I am not aware of any such comp so we will have to use a hypothetical trade. Would you give the same in trade for 1 year of service vs 2 years of service? How about if it was reported that the team was in negotiation for two ace SPs that from every vantage point were exactly equal and they were asking for the exact same players in return. Would you prefer Falvey chose the player with one year of control? Do you think most people here would be calling for his head?

Expanding on Asbury's point. The Twins are 3.3% of the league and their transactions of this type are probably less than 3.3% given they have rarely made such a trade. Would you evaluate a player based who played in 150 games based on 5 games or how he hit in a particular stadium and ignore the other 145 games? If the Twins brought up a player that played well in 30 games, was traded and played well below average in 900 (96.66%) games for 9 teams, would you ignore how he played in the 900 games and sign him as a free agent. Of course not, it would be ridiculous to ignore the vast majority of available information. History is clear. This type of trade is the best course of action for teams in the bottom half of revenue, especially when they are not in contention. You should focus on arguing this team is a contender. You could argue that they can build a great BP from the rubble they have. It’s conceivable Lewis and Lee both go from well below average to well above average hitters and they find an above average 1B. It’s possible that Martin steps up and Jenkins is ROY. Jeffers and the pitching staff all have a good year and of course they would all also need to say healthy. This is all highly unlikely but it’s not as ridiculous as refusing to consider how other teams have been successful. As a fan, it is your prerogative to ignore the 96.66% of the data that does not support your desired conclusion. When a baseball executive ignores 96.66% of the data they are removed from their position for gross incompetence. Therefore, I guess you can take whatever ridiculous position you like. Just don’t be surprised when the team arrives at a different decision.

Star players don't get traded often and I am not going to go back 20 years but off the top of my head … Miami got Zach Gallan and Sandy Alcantara for Marcell Azuna Washington got Crawford CJ Abrahams, James Wood and Mackenzie Gore, Tatis Jr. was acquired as a prospect for James Shields. Danby Swanson was acquired as a prospect for Shelby Miller Willy Adames was acquired as a prospect in trade for David Price. Bryan Reynolds was acquired as a prospect for Andrew McCutchen Ketel Marte was relatively unproven when acquired in trade for Mitch Hanigar and Jean Segura. The As acquired Marcus Semien and Chris Basset, for Jeff Samardzija. They also acquired Frankie Montas and Mark Canha as prospects. The A’s have others that escape me at the moment. Probably a while ago. Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee have many examples. Cleveland got Emmanuel Clase for 1 year of Corey Kluber. Kluber was also acquired as a prospect in trade for Jake Westbrook. They also got Josh Naylor for Mike Clevinger. Clevinger was also acquired as a prospect. Carlos Santana as a prospect by trading Casey Blake. They got Carlos Carrasco by trading Cliff Lee. Tampa and Milwaukee have quite a few but I am not going to go through the same exercise with them. These teams I mentioned also acquired many good (not star) players by trading for prospects. Those players contributed significantly as well. Obviously, we want to trade for stars but an above average player is a decent outcome for a player controlled for 1-2 years, especially when the team is not expected to contend.

This one has been a modest return so far in my view but could become quite good. I am with you in terms of measuring what we gave up. The year he was traded we were bad so trading him did not matter and Berrios only produced .9 WAR so in the context of who "won" we did not need to get much. It makes absolutely no sense to consider what he did after he was signed to a new contract. The fact we lost very little is probably not the best lens to look at it either. Teams trading a player the caliber of Berrios need to get a return. It does not become a good trade just because Berrios was bad that last year of team control. If SWR is a 2 WAR player for the next 4 years that will be a decent return. If Martin is also a 2 WAR player for the next 5 years it will be a very good return. Anything more than that would be great.

You continue to use ridiculous measures and ignore the most pertinent data. Only one team in the bottom half of revenue has won the WS in the past 20 years so it's a ridiculous measure but I will play along. That would be the KC Royals. Lets see... Did trading a top of the rotation pitcher contribute to their WS win. What do you know their best player and their starting SS came from trading Greinke. The only team to win the WS followed the exact strategy you are arguing against. Of course, using a WS win given the rarity is a ridiculous metric I guess you have to resort to the ridiculous when reasonable metrics with meaningful sample sizes disprove your position. Which teams in the bottom half of revenue have had the most 90-win seasons or playoff appearances. That would be the Guardians, Rays, and Brewers and those three teams have been the most inclined to trade established players they won't be able to retain for prospects. You simply chose to ignore history if it does not support your thinking.