Major League Ready
-
Posts
7,641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
News
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Major League Ready
-
Why would they be sorry about signing their best player? If they had to trade good players to dump salary, I could understand the question but that's not happened.
-
Would it be useless or inaccurate to make a generalized statement that Twins fans would like Payroll to increase or the twins to sign Rory Sasaki? To suggest Twins fans, including myself don't care for Cleveland's practices is not even marginally a stretch but it illustrates something most don't want to acknowledge it. We are all very eager to criticize the organization but not so willing to acknowledge our own misconceptions.
-
Is that because you are not in the majority or is it because the majority advocates very little free agent spending and virtually no trades for established players while trading established players for prospects?
-
I really like the idea of owners that are sports fans. It just seems reasonable to believe they would be more obsessed with winning than the Pohlads and I think we likely see a slightly higher payroll. Will this mean considerably bigger payroll? I doubt it. If the Statista estimates are close the Twins were generally in the $25-30M range in profit and I seriously doubt they will run a break-even business. Private equity guys understand business models and competitive landscapes. They are going to understand spending an extra $20M is a really poor solution to overcoming a $100M or $200M or $300M disparity in revenue. I would look for them to be very focused on any a variety of strategies to build a winner.
-
Cleveland might be these least inclined of any MLB team to spend on free agents. (6.2% of WAR) and they rarely make a trade for an established player. Less than 3% of their WAR has come from trading for established players where 44% of WAR has been produced by players acquired as prospects. With the exception of Tampa Bay, Cleveland has also traded away more established players for prospects than any other MLB team. Is it fair to say their practices are not consistent with what is advocated by the majority of TD posters?
-
I was really hoping they could pull off a Polanco and Kepler for Harry Ford + X trade. Now, it's quite possible Seattle didn't want Kepler or were not willing to trade harry Ford but that was my wish at the time. I think they got too cute trying to get present and future value in that deal and it backfired. Tampa has pulled off some good present + future value trades so I am not against it but this one does not look great at the moment.
-
Cleveland and Tampa have produced considerably more WAR than the other teams in the bottom half of revenue over the past 25 years. I think it’s fair to say most people here do not support trading away established players. For example, Polanco last year and reports of Correa being traded received significant criticism. Would you say more people support trading prospects than trading for prospects? A few years ago I was curious about the strong opinions I read here. It made me curious but I could not find any research on roster construction. There might be something but I could not find it so I compiled the acquisition method for every player that produced more than 1.5 WAR for every 90 win team in the bottom half of revenue since 2000. Cleveland has not drafted all that well. 26.4% of their WAR has come from players they drafted where 44% of their WAR was produced by players that were acquired as Prospects. Only 6.2% of free agents and traded for established players has produced almost nothing. Would you say their methods are consistent or inconsistent with what is popular here? 8 Cleveland Guardians WINS Drafted Intl AaP Trade FA 100% Cleveland 2017 102 24.3% 19.3% 44.3% 4.3% 7.8% 100% Cleveland 2007 96 30.5% 38.2% 31.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2016 94 33.1% 22.7% 44.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2019 93 34.0% 17.8% 44.1% 4.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2005 93 7.5% 21.8% 51.4% 2.5% 16.8% 100% Cleveland 2022 92 34.2% 19.7% 46.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Cleveland 2013 92 14.9% 0.0% 50.1% 10.2% 24.8% 100% Cleveland 2024 92 33.0% 23.8% 43.2% 0.0% 0.0% Guardians Total 82.75 26.4% 20.4% 44.4% 2.6% 6.2%
-
I have looked at the data over the years but I have never compiled it but have a pretty good idea what it will portray. I am the not one of the many here that absolutely insists on a given narrative that has never been proven. This narrative is perpetual here. Why should it be up to me to support the narratives of TD writers with empirical data. Again, why wouldn't you want this position you revel in to be proven? Surely, an article that exposed just how cheap the Pohlad's have been would be of great interest to TD readers. Yet, the topic has never been approached in a meaningful way. If I posted the analysis, it would be summarily rejected if the results did not fit the narrative, you so covet. Hopefully, there is a TD writer that is interested in a factual depiction of Twins payroll spending.
- 110 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- carlos correa
- pablo lopez
- (and 4 more)
-
Did I say they were great, doing a good job or anything that has anything to do with your post. No. I said profit is irrelevant but some of you insist on arguing something else. You refuse to acknowledge the point and rant about something I did not say. Who would have guessed that it would be a bad thing to be informed? "There is none so blind as he who will not see (Bill Withers). Arguing there is no point in being informed ... That's pretty hard to respect.
-
Why would you be against an accurate portrayal of the facts? Given your constant harping on this situation. you must believe the facts would provide clear proof of how horribly cheap the Pohlad's have been. Would love to hear why you are against compiling the information that would prove your case.
-
I asked if the poster understood why spending disparity would actually become greater if the owners all decided to toss profit completely aside and operate at break-even. You are throwing your hands up, ignoring the question, and making this anecdotal, I would not argue for a second they won't sign a big free agent but it's not because of profit seeking. Are you willing to actually address what I said? Do you understand why profit is irrelevant in this context? Would like to hear your thoughts specific to profitability but somehow I doubt you are willing to have a substantive discussion.
-
It’s not that hard to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate. We have an almost 100% degree of accuracy on payroll spending. The same is true for both local and national TV which is 60% of the revenue. If the people who estimate revenue can just get with +/- 10% of the other 40% they would be 96% accurate. However, there is a significant amount of public disclosure of the various elements that make up that 40%. Any reasonably skilled analyst should be less than +/- 5% which would equate to 98% accuracy. It's true it would be harder to estimate profits and the +/- would be somewhat higher if we estimate profitability but we don’t need to do that to determine how the twins compare to other teams in terms of payroll expenditure. All we need to do is complile their payroll rank and revenue rank over several years and calculate their relative payroll to revenue rank. BTW … There are services like Statista that provide this information so it would be very easy to put together for anyone with a Statista subscription. If you search “is Statista accurate” you will find they have a good reputation. This could be done easily by any TD writer who wished to present an accurate depiction of Twin's spending.
-
Not at all what I was asking. I am saying that many posters have been very against trading these players and say we are better served by keeping them. It can't be true we would be better off without them and better off with them. For these contacts to be a detriment, we would have to cut productive players to keep them or if better players could be signed with the same money. We don't have to get rid of productive players to keep them and these three players in question are reasonably productive so I am asking for specific logic as to why "they can't afford them" instead of an unsupported declaration they can't afford them. In other words, I am not trying to be combative, I am simply asking for you to support your position with something other than "they can't afford them". They could get rid of Correa and Buxton on a salary dump assuming they can find a way to get the no trade clauses waived. For a present and future perspective, letting them go for nothing would be the equivalent to never having signed them, Would you suggest they let them go for a salary dump? Worst case scenario, they could trade Lopez for good prospects, elevate any payroll crunch and be better off than had we never signed him so how is any of this a net negative?
-
If you were to look at the post I quoted, it said "they never would have/should have signed Correa, Buxton and/or Lopez in the first place." This is certainly not the only time the collective signing of these three players was said to be a mistake. Some recent signings have made the Lopez signing look good but there have been several posts suggesting these 3 highest paid players should not have been signed if the payroll was going to be under $150M.
-
I keep seeing that the Twins should have never signed Correa/Lopez/Buxton. Yet, when the subject of trading them is brought up, the vast majority of people have a rather harsh reaction that this would be a huge mistake, they would be worse, and many have suggested they would lose more of their fan base. These two positions conflict, do they not? My position would be they can’t afford these players if they have to cut important players to meet a given number. Right now, they could get to an acceptable number by letting Paddack go which is not a big loss. I would add we don’t know that they have to get in the $130K. That’s fairly speculative and given the backlash from last year, Falvey has likely learned not to follow Joe Pohlad’s lead. He is well advised to under promise and over deliver. Will it eventually lead to a problem. Well, next year they Paddack coming off if they don’t let him go now as well as Vazquez, Castro and a reduction for Correa. In total. That will give them plenty to cover arbitration increases in 2026. There is also a good chance that Rodriquez, Keaschall, Jenkins and a couple pitching prospects will take roles that allow the Twins to trade players like Julien / Larnach or perhaps even Lopez. It’s also quite possible they develop more TV revenue as the new model matures and if the team is good enough to keep together that would suggest they are winning which would bring more revenue. If the whole thing is a wreck … burn it down but it would seem they there is a good chance they can keep their core together with the burden of the salaries of Correa/Lopez, and Buxton. Is there a problem I am not considering?
- 110 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- carlos correa
- pablo lopez
- (and 4 more)
-
I have seen a few articles and compiled the information myself. I have a pretty good idea of where the twins stand in terms of relative spend. Anything I put up, regardless of how factual, that disproved the "cheap Pohlad" narrative would be summarily dismissed. Maybe they are cheap but the majority of people who are constantly complaining are doing so unincumbered by any supporting facts. I will continue to ask why a TD writer is not willing to compile the data given the interest and discussion on in this subject? Can any of the TD writers explain why this would not be a great article that most everyone on this site would love to read if done in an unbiased manner?
- 110 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- carlos correa
- pablo lopez
- (and 4 more)
-
If you look back at Cleveland's history, you will find that a huge part of their success has been trading away established players for prospects. They have done a good job finding deals for players that were MLB ready but not established. Andrés Giménez / Josh Naylor / David Fry / Bo Naylor / Emmanuel Clase and Cade Smith from their 2024 team were all acquired as prospects. If you look back, there is a long list of players that were very important to the success of the best teams Cleveland fielded over the past couple of decades. Mike Clevinger / Trevor Bauer / Corey Kluber and Carlos Carrasco were all acquired as prospects. The majority of posters on TD are very much against how Cleveland has built their rosters over the past 25 years even though they have had the success among teams in the bottom half of revenue
-
And I would love for any TD writer to actually provide an accounting of fact. Given the controversy and strife that surrounds this is you would think someone would be chomping at the bit to prove they are cheap which of course is a relative term so let's prove they are cheaper than other owners. Why isn't anyone willing to compile the revenue and payroll numbers for the entire league? I am not claiming the Pohlad's are cheap nor generous. My guess is that their percentage of spend is middle of the road (average). Many others (like you) insist they are cheap while providing absolutely no definitive proof. It's customary in any professional landscape to provide support for such a claim, especially when made as fervently as they are here. Yet, no TD writer has been willing to explore the validity of these assertions.
- 110 replies
-
- 3
-
-
-
- carlos correa
- pablo lopez
- (and 4 more)
-
What would change if every MLB team owner adapted a policy of operating at break-even? Do you understand that the Twins relative ability to spend would actually be further eroded if all the owners were willing to forego every last dollar of profit. The problem is not that teams care about profit. The problem is revenue disparity. Perhaps I missed it but It's just amazing that with all the strife about spending every off-season, not one TD writer has ever provided a meaningful account of how the Twins percentage of spending compares to other teams. This is not that hard to do put together. There are organizations that provide revenue figures for every team. Yes, it's an estimate but the variables are relatively easy to estimate and the payroll numbers are very easy to put together. Throw them in a spreadsheet and produce a percentage of revenue number. Cmon TD writers. Doesn't someone want to prove the Twins are cheap.
- 110 replies
-
- 6
-
-
-
- carlos correa
- pablo lopez
- (and 4 more)
-
While I agree Lopez is a logical option, they can get to an acceptable number by moving Paddack. Lopez has 3 years of control so they can revisit using him as a trade piece next year in the very happy event that some of the prospects (Festa/Matthews/Ynoa/Morris/Raya/Prielipp/Lewis/Culpepper) continue to develop. If we are so fortunate as to see our pipeline actually deliver, trading Lopez next year or even at the deadline this year could be the way to get a good MLB ready catcher. Obviously, this is optimistic but not pie in the sky given the number of quality pitching prospects.
-
Sorry! With the arguments that have been made after his departure, I did not recognize the sarcasm even though it should have been evident.
-
In your opinion, I would bet there is not a GM in all of baseball that would share that opinion. I certainly do not but I guess this difference in opinion explains why some people are still complaining that we cut a player who went on to perform very poorly.
-
In a word, no. Potential buyers are going to value the revenue potential while considering industry trends and the perception of risk. How they view the potential to rebuild local TV revenues and the impact of the revenue gap on small and mid market teams is going to have far more influence on value than one good or bad season. I would bet that their perception of the Twins farm system and specifically the ability of that farm system to sustain a good product on the field over the next several years will have far more impact than a single season result.
-
The Castro scenario does not even remotely remind me of Rosario. Castro has the 2nd most WAR (5.6) for the Twins over the last two seasons. Only Correa has produced better than Castro. Rosario was 9th among position players with a cumulative WAR of 1.9 for his last two seasons with the Twins. We could argue that the Twins have not done an adequate job of finding a new LFer but to argue we somehow lost out by not keeping a player that has produced at replacement level since leaving makes absolutely no sense, especially when the replacement level player costs 8X as much as the players that have replaced him.
- 34 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- christian vazquez
- chris paddack
- (and 1 more)
-
I could definitely be wrong, but I think they believe in E. Rodriquez and anticipate him being up relatively early in the season. They might bank on that a little more than most prospects because he checks a lot of boxes in terms of team needs. Rodriquez hits LH & RH pitching. He is a good defender and is capable of backing up CF. Keaschall also might end up in the OF and of course Jenkins is also on the horizon. A difference maker probably costs one of these players and I don't see them emphasizing the short-term at the cost of one of these prospects. Now, this scenario changes if they decided to trade Castro and/or Paddack for an OFer.
