Major League Ready

So instead of whining, state your interpretation. In other words, defend your position by explaining how you don't roster a certain kind of player yet have that type of player to match-up in the playoffs. That would have more value than complaining that I would have the nerve to challenge your position.

You have said over and over you would only roster players that were good against RHP because they represent 75% of IPs. (It's actual 72%) and take your lumps against LHP. So, how do you not roster these players yet have them to platoon in the playoffs? Your strategy assumes you can accumulate 13 starter caliber LHH players. That's the first failed assumption. It' shard enough to get 8 that are league average or above. Most bench players are bench players because they are not above average against RHP. Ideally you have LHH that hit LHP but when you don't, giving a decided advantage away 28% of the time is a really poor strategy. The only way this gap is bridged is if you have a lot of injuries to your best LHHs and guess what, a lot of injuries is very likely to derail any team. Even if the Twins spend like they did last year, the total is $6m per player for 26 players. The Dodgers or the Yankees can spend. $6M on 20 players and fill all their holes with $30M AAV players. Even the Dodgers and Yankees utilize match-ups. Expecting to construct a team of all above average players against RHP, especially with below average revenue is fantasy baseball.

During the playoffs but not so hugely different because Riverbrian is saying he would not roster these players. How could playoff teams have players for match-ups if they didn't have them on the roster?

Are the playoff teams just taking their lumps or are they utilizing match-ups?

I would not want to rely on Camargo and you are just ignoring reality when you dump $10M for Vasquez. He is worth virtually nothing so the savings would be negligible. You also don't improve the "backups" by getting rid of Castro for DeJong. Grichuk is coming off a very good year and he is not signing for $2M. Plus, they have Rodriquez close.

3 Others .... Emmanuel Rodriguez / Luke Keaschall / Walker Jenkins.

I will take the over on your predictions for all of these free agents.

So, in other words, lets just ignore what is actually happening so that we can complain.

For starters the odds of a sale going through before these guys are signed is next to zero so it's a meaningless exercise. In addition, nobody is taking Vazquez Salary and you are not taking into account the increase to Lopez and numerous arbitration eligible players. It would also cost more to replace Jeffers than keep him. If you traded Paddack for prospects you would be at $130M and you have close to $70M in free agents so you are at $200M.

Yet their farm system is ranked as high as #2. Whatever it is they have done, it seems to be working quite well!

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Dell, and many others would take exception to that generalization.

How much do you think Manea / Kukuchi, Winker, and Profar will cost? Salary decreases from the players you mentioned will be offset by Increases to Lopez, Paddack, and several arbitration increases. If you want to pretend just for fun, great but this is not remotely feasible.

No way are they going to trade away cheap pitching. Lopez, Ryan, and Ober are all free agents in 2028. Trying to transition 3 SPs in one year is difficult to pull off. I could see them trading one of them next year if Matthews and Festa get established. This becomes even more likely if the other SP prospects in the upper levels continue to improve. The Twins trading starting pitching from a position of strength would be a very welcome position indeed.

Once again you have missed the point by a country mile. Let's say the Twins hired you to come up with strategies to compete given the ability of a number of teams to spend $100M-$200M more than the twins. What do you suppose their response would be if you told them cutting that $200M delta by $20M was key to success. You are ranting over something that is marginally important in the grand scheme. BTW .... Lower revenue teams have been struggling to make the playoffs for a couple decades or more.

The Yankees and Dodgers have a $300M revenue advantage over the average revenue team and far more over the bottom revenue teams. I don't understand the fixation on that gap widening by $20-25M. I didn't hear/see many fans complaining last year when the players pushed for a much higher luxury tax threshold. The league has enormous revenue inequity, and this is not a new thing.

What if Rodriguez is here by May 15th and Wallner becomes the primary DH?

We are very unlikely to replace 3 WAR (according the fangraphs) for $6.2M in free agency. Plus, Castro is not replaced by any one player. His value is as the first player off the bench to replace a number of defensive positions while providing above average offense. Eeles just might end up as the 2B but Castro would still have a valuable role.

How are you coming to this conclusion? Do you think they are allowing the cable companies to broadcast for free? Do you think the advertisers are paying nothing?

The data is from 2000 forward but has not been updated to include 2024. The twins have had six 90+ win teams which ranks 12th among all MLB teams. However, it should be noted that they have only had one 90+ win season since 2010. 1 Yankees 16 2 Dodgers 13 3 Red Sox 13 4 Cardinals 13 5 Braves 12 7 Cleveland 11 6 Oakland 10 8 Tampa 9 9 Astros 8 10 Angels 7 11 Giants 7 12 TWINS 6 13 Mariners 6 14 Rangers 6 15 Cubs 5 16 Brewers 5 17 Dbacks 5 18 Phillies 5 19 Nationals 5 20 Mets 4 21 Tigers 4 22 White Sox 4 23 Orioles 3 24 Blue Jays 3 25 Reds 3 26 Rockies 3 27 Pirates 2 30 Padres 2 28 Royals 1 29 Marlins 1

I am not advocating for the status quo, but this team was as good as any team in the league for a significant portion of last season. The potential is there. Cleveland made zero free agent signings or trades last year and improved from 76 to 92 wins. I don't think the situation is nearly as dire as some would portray it.

My first wish or first 15 wishes would be for our young guys to continue developing. This would include the best version of Brooks Lee and not what we saw at the end of the year. It would include Lewis, Wallner and Larnach becoming more consistent dominant bats. It would include Rodriguez and Jenkins growing into their superstar potential. Another category of wishes would be the often injured guys staying healthy. That includes Buxton, Correa, Stewart, AK and others. We could also include Prielipp and Canterino in the hope they finally get healthy and contribute. I would hope for some of the promising young international prospects to fulfill their potential. These things will be monumentally more important to our success than spending every dime of profit the team currently produces. My wish level where spending is concerned would be to improve revenue through all the things above while also improving marketing and PR. All of these things would lead to better attendance and TV viewership. Then, use that increase in revenue to extend some of our young talent.

There is one problem in how they broke out the data. In terms of roster construction strategy, trading for an established player is the antitheses of trading for prospects or a player that has reached the major leagues but not established themselves. Therefore, it does not make sense to consider all trades as if they are the same in terms of roster construction. The debates about trading prospects and the emphasis here on free agency made me curious enough to collect this data on every 90+ win team (in the bottom half of revenue) over the past 20 years. I also collected the data for the free agents that contributed to these teams. The idea was to determine what types of free agents (years and total money) and how much the teams paid per WAR. I will post the data this winter after updating the summary charts to include 2024.

I have to agree with you that a writer who asks us to accept a position should provide information that validates their position. We have seen dozens of articles here proclaiming the Twins were cheap with nothing but innuendo and antidotal evidence. I guess it's the norm on this topic to make unsupported assertions and conclusions. Wouldn't it be great if a TD writer were to actually put together a synopsis payroll vs revenue compared to all the other teams for the last 10 or 20 years? Then, we could all speak from an informed point of view.

Unbelievable? Let's say they get 1,385,000 for the team. That's $1.2B after the stadium investment. Then, let's say they averaged $20M/year for 40 years which is generous given the earnings were much less in the early years. That's exactly $2B on a $44M investment. Had they invested $44M in a S&P 500 fund, that investment would be worth almost exactly $2B today. Nobody is rewriting the facts. You simply don't understand the math.

No doubt this has been a great investment for the Pohlad family. It's a very select few businesses that have the sustained growth of MLB. I don't believe that same rate of growth will be recognized going forward which makes it hard to believe they get $1.5B. It also makes your point. A potential owner could make $150M/year off an alternative investment. Are they going to be satisfied with making $25M if the valuation is unlikely to grow as it has in the past? There are not too many Steve Cohens out there, especially for a Midwest franchise. I looked at spending for 10 years and the Twins spending percentages or spend against rank were actually a little more aggressive than the league on average. I don't think it's likely we get an owner willing to make less after laying out $1.5B but like you will remain hopeful. IMO, the greatest potential impact is in getting an owner that makes organization changes that result in better messaging / marketing. In other words, the greater potential is on growing revenue as opposed to spending more of what they already have.