Cris E

So how will that work with the lockout?

But then don't bother signing it, because it'll be pretty apparent to other teams how much playing time he's getting, how his spot on the roster looks compared to the guys they are actually preparing for the season, if he's treated like a starter, etc and they'll just wait for the obvious March 30 cut and pick him up then. It's not a very practical feint when you factor in how the rest of the roster has to be twisted to cover for it. If you can't trade him then he goes free. We picked up some decent pitchers last year from that crowd, and someone could end up scoring a very usable LF if we can't place him. Same with Lewis, although there's more chance someone will take a flyer on his hot streaks and brooding genius potential.

He's not a bad fielder though, and he's not really slow. But the real problem with this argument is that guys on base are valuable at any speed, especially when a team is as adverse to risk as the Twins and never steal anyway. I'll tell you what, you take a speedster like Martin (and his .655 OPS) and I'll take a problem runner like Larnach (and his .788 OPS) and we'll see which one spends more time crossing home plate, or "blocking" the track stars. For the record, the 2026 Twins had the rapid Keaschall score the most runs (86) and the fast Buxton in fifth with 64 runs, but your other top five were Bell (78), Clemens (74) and Lee (72), none of whom are fast enough to be backed up behind Roden or even Larnach. This base clogging image is from 1962 when Maury Wills couldn't get past Ron Fairly or Frank Howard. C'mon, watch some modern baseball, it's pretty fun.

The Cons arguments are muddled. Roden is old so he has to play, but if he's here he won't play because we have youngsters that have to play because they're young. Does everyone have to play? What about the guys that have plateaued and can be planted on a bench until needed. I think that's Roden, among others. For example Austin Martin is a guy that can be counted on to be a meh glove, probably hit lefties without power and maybe steal a base, and he can eat seeds and hang out just about as good as a relief pitcher or backup catcher. Roden is better than him, except he's another leftie bat. But somehow his numbers against LH pitching were way higher than against RH in 2026. SSS of course, but it was true in SSS in 2025 as well. Truth be told Roden is only so good a hitter and he's had some great luck against same side pitching recently, while Martin is bad against RH and pretty much only an OBP guy against LH. I let Roden show me something at 1B or list him as the fifth OF behind BB, WJ, ER and LK.

I agree with all that, particularly the part where the money at a particularly difficult moment might have purchased a larger share than the dollars may have actually represented (eg $100m against a $2bn valuation gets you 8-10% rather than just the 5% that math would indicate.) And I also think an option for the share swapping between one of those partners is already on the books, pending CBA outcomes. I'm sure the Pohlads would love to withdraw some sweet, sweet nostalgia money but hang on to a percentage so they can still claim to be owners. So maybe they sell down to 20% and Leopold or J-lo or whoever is lurking in silent partner land only has to produce another $1bn to step up, for example.

A good owner is someone who likes the games, has some pride and doesn't like to lose, and has deep enough pockets that they can afford to be revenue neutral or even lose some money on the team from time to time. A good owner also knows his limits and hires someone to hire his front office, and then trusts them to know what they're doing, and doesn't meddle too much beyond choosing bobble heads and seat back colors. A good owner finds a way to make some money in related projects but doesn't consider those projects more important than the team. A good owner thinks of the broader health and history of the game rather than simple cash flow projections a year into the future. Here's a simple question: When John Henry or Steve Cohen bought their teams do you think they had favorite players that they were excited to meet? Now let's try to imagine the last time Tom Pohlad sat around the house in an old Mauer shirsey. I just don't see it. At any rate I like the old phrasing from the math world back in college: being a fan isn't sufficient, but it is necessary to being a good owner and I think Eloise was the last Pohlad who loved the game.

If they do sell it's not going to be directly to a PE firm. The ceiling on such ownership stakes is only 20%, and that was after a recent increase. A sale would need an individual buyer to front things. That person has still not been seen, though I'm offering a welcoming hot dish in the hopes that'll draw out some candidates. MLB Raises Private Equity Ownership Limit to 20% https://frontofficesports.com/article/mlb-raises-private-equity-ownership-limit-to-up-to-20-percent/

It's worth noting that the Twins rarely go to arbitration with their players. They almost always split the difference on the submitted numbers to avoid nasty hearings and the players almost always sign for the same reason. Of course we haven't had a lot of Skubal-like arbitration cases so there's no saying what would happen if they did run into one where they had to dig their heels in a bit.

The whole MLB fanbase will rally around Clemens once they realize he leads the league in triples. Matt Olson can't begin to compare, it's just a matter of time.

Well there are only a couple things that can happen here: he either gets better in 2027, he gets worse, he stalls like this or he gets hurt. The trick is discerning which is most likely and acting accordingly. If he's going to get better you keep him. But in any other situation you're better off moving him while there's still some ambiguity about his future value. If it's completely obvious that he's got no value then I guess you could hold him until someone else has a spot to take a flyer on him. But I think the consistency of inputs the past two years against the variability in results says there's still room to improve. He's got value to a building team. The trick is finding something a building team wants to give up that we need. I suggest COL or TAM or new guys in LAA or else someone maybe, how to say this, less cognitive like KCR or CIN. At any rate places where they need more talent from any source and aren't as picky as the elite franchises can afford to be.

In arbitration you don't just throw out a number you want to pay because if you lose you get to pay the number the player threw out there. You really don't do that if you hope to trade the guy later because he's going to cost more and he's got less marginal value. They kept Larnach last year because their OF was Buxton (with Outman as defensive caddy) and Wallner in RF and Martin and Larnach in a platoon in LF. There were no ready players in the minors at that point so you were then looking at the unproven Roden, more Outman, or more Clemens if these four didn't pan out. If you remove Larnach and then you neeeed Wallner to perform and I don't think they felt comfortable with that. OTOH if Jenkins or ERod did appear ready in St Paul then you could try moving Wallner or Larnach and bring them up. It turned out both the kids were hurt or not playing well when opportunities presented themselves mid-season, so we were treated to a lot of Clemens and Kreidler in CF plus the defensive stylings of newcomer Keaschall. Things would have been substantially worse without Larnach because all he cost was money, and his trade value was at least as bad then as it is now. At least this time he's got yet another year of solid performance in the books.

I'm not sure this was a plan so much a natural consequence of drafting the best player available. Everyone says it's the right thing to do (vs drafting for need) but then they always say Having Too Many Good Players Is A Good problem To Have. that's kind of where we are today in the outfield. What good teams do is trade one of these kids for something they need more of, or trying shifting them to a position of need in the lower levels. Where MIN falls short is desperately clinging to all their prospects because they know that's the only way this franchise adds top talent. We won't pay what it costs for developed players. As far as how to handle L & L, Larnach already did commit to improving himself last winter. He lost weight, improved his foot speed and defense and had another good year at the plate. Lewis was lost again, flashing high after he was sent to St Paul and floating back down within a month. He has to go because he's not reliable and Larnach has to go because of the traffic in the OF. But we can get something for Trevor's proven ability to hit and Lewis' vast potential as long as we don't price ourselves out of a very short trading season.

So wait, drop these guys for nothing and go young, but the extra pick for Jeffers is no big deal? How do you think going young works? And then you constantly churn players, useful but not great enough players, until when? If you focus on the IL time then that's all you'll see and you'll never recognize the value of the time on the field. Earl Weaver's whole game was based on getting guys in a position to do what they do well and not leave them exposed in moments where they have to do stuff they can't. If you're waiting to draft and develop a bunch of kids to come together and win the World Series with a ten 150 game starters and a five man rotation then you're never going to be happy. Real life involves piecing together valuable parts. You know why LAD wins? Because they have about eight excellent pitchers in the rotation who can only manage 15-20 starts a year. Take a closer look at the Brewers team that everyone thinks we need to chase. There are only four guys with 140 games played and the rest are a patch work covering injuries and trades. Yellich only played 118, does he suck too? Misioroski is the only guy with over 125 innings pitched, so how can they be winning? This ridiculous quest for perfect players is tremendously misguided Larnach has been a valuable member of this team for his entire career, and now that it looks like there are three or four better OF than him it's probably time to move on, but it's not because his 120 OPS+ isn't any good.

Oh c'mon, let's get the imaginations running a little hotter. There's a pile of guys out there that saw 1B duty this season, Let's take a look around. I like Stowers in Miami quite a bit, and they are comfortable dealing top guys before signing them to big deals. They also have Griffin Conine on the 40 man and Alderman in AAA that can step up. It could get pricey as Stowers only goes Arb 1 next year, but this is a foray into big game hunting and that's just how all these talks will go. Another good option is Busch in Chicago. He'll cost a ton if he can be pried away at all, but front line pitching is valued highly there if the Joe Ryan card is played. They also have BJ Murray as their #19 prospect, a decent 1B in AAA that looks like Sabato on paper but is moving from 3b to 1b so is likely a better fielder, better athlete if we want to approach from the AAA angle. The Rays have a history of moving on just before guys get expensive so you'd think Aranda might be available, but he only hits Arb 1 next year so it's unlikely they'd move on from him yet. It's even less likely given that the only other three names to appear at 1b last year were Caminero, Hicks and Ryan Vilade so there's little chance they open a void like that with only Royce Lewis as the replacement. But you could look at AAA brain surgery case Xavier Isaac as a project with promise. Andrés Chaparro didn't impress for the Nationals until August, but he hit well in his short stint after that. Otherwise AAA player Yohandy Morales could be a candidate. I have to go get an oil change so I can;t do many more teams. (For example, let me save you some time by waving you past the Angels crash site.) But there are names out there to be looked into. This isn't just three free agents and some familiar names. Picking up a AAA option behind Clemens could be an easy and productive option.

Non-tender Ober with the offer that he can come back in a swing role that may involve a bunch of AAA time for $4m, maybe $5m. If he can sign on with Washington or the Angels for 2 years and $15m then good for him. But if he's who most of us think he is he may end up back here at $4m. It will come down to whether he wants to be here in a non-starter role (or deep on the rotation list), or if he wants to start elsewhere and get paid like a starter. Chances are good he takes a look and gets a better deal elsewhere in the pen at 2/$10m, but if he doesn't he can come back and beat out some of our long guys below arb pay rates.

Buxton is a five and ten guy so he gets a veto of any potential trade he'd be involved in. Edit: Ninja'd, but it's worth saying twice around here.

A couple things: 1. Baseball is famous for fall guys and scapegoats wearing things that really fit their bosses better. It's hard to reconcile Maki holding the bag on the negative parts of 2026 but not getting the credit for the positive things he built leading into the 2025 deadline. The same staff got two different results with two different staffs: who built those staffs? We've seen so much excellent work from our old coaches in their follow-on jobs that I am starting to think we hire coaches just fine and something else might be holding us back. 2. Expectations are flimsy things, slapped together by weak thinkers or folks using their hearts more than their heads. Tom Pohlad tried setting a bar based on what he needed rather than what he had or would do, and he looked foolish. Fans are not much better. Consider CY candidate Bailey Ober: Ober was a good young pitcher establishing himself as a solid #3, posting a 3.43 ERA in 144 innings and flashing a 9.0 K/9. Not bad. He posted a slightly worse season in 2024, but the higher ERA was offset by throwing 178 innings, so another 3.0 WAR. Good work, valuable to any team, but a Cy Young candidate? And that is followed by calling out Mathews for not being a mature, consistent starter after 247 innings. For every Roger Clemens that comes out of college throwing bullets there are a lot more guys that start slowly and have to grind before they turn into Randy Johnson (who didn't break the 110 ERA+ mark until his sixth season.) Zebby is inconsistent, but half the time he's outstanding, and that is what you build on. SWR made improvements and looked OK until he collapsed. In the end the problem is that pitching is hard and potential is handed out way too casually by fans with short attention spans. They love a good prospect and it often takes a lot of time for things to click in a role where you only get so many chances and injury is always lurking. 3. The team is at a point where a lot of development must continue to happen even as some hard decisions have to be made. It's never been clear who was deciding which guys went in what roles, so it's impossible to know if Maki was good or bad at this stuff or how good the next guy might be. Best of luck to the old crew, and best of luck to the new ones.

So lots of frustration here, about reaching the playoffs, about home-grown rosters and ace pitchers, and how the franchise is being run. All over the place. So let's start with this: KC has been to the playoffs three times between 2001-26, vs ten for the Twins. They did cash in better than we did, reaching the WS in 2014-15, but otherwise they have finished in fourth or fifth place 17 of 26 years. The Twins are the inverse, only being in fourth or fifth 8 times in that period with 18 in the top three spots. The difference between most of those Twins' playoff rosters and the break-through Royals teams of 2014-15 is that they were built on run prevention and featured a ridiculous bullpen. They scored enough to get by, but out-performed their pythagorean expected wins by five games both years, mostly by not giving away any games late. Since 2015 many top teams, most really, are built more around air-tight bullpens than starting pitching, and the Royals really should get a lot of credit for that leap in thinking. The Twins, OTOH, have had a lot of run scorers, or some good pitchers, or a decent defense, but have never really lead the league in much of anything. 2019 was the HR year I guess, but like 1987 everyone was hitting HR and scoring that year and they didn't have much in the way of stopping anyone else from putting runs on the board. If they want to step up in 2027 then more effort needs to be concentrated on the pen, and firing poor Pete Maki is not a real move in the right direction. (If he was the guy who built that great 2025 pen then he should be able to do it in 2027, and if he wasn't the guy last year then why scapegoat him this year? Performance art, motion as progress, blech.) Given that and your other concerns, the Twins are mostly doing what they need to, with the significant exception of paying what it costs to complete or maintain their roster. They have amassed a good pile of young talented arms. They have a lot of OK to possibly excellent young players and are sorting through them. In the past few years they've chickened out on writing real checks, but Jeffries gives them another opportunity to step up or shut up. Same with 1B, where they can't get Royce Lewis to stay hot and have to look outside the organization to fill that role. (That's another temptation of middling front offices: insisting on staying within the org when the cupboard is truly bare.) Anyway, this got away from me as badly as your comments did. It's that time of year I guess.

Hark, on furthest hilltop, tis the goalposts! You and your your squad spend more time than seems healthy complaining that Buxton is a weight crushing this team, that he's a problem because of his injuries and availability, that he must be moved for the team to move forward, and yet now we should cast aside injuries for a moment. No. Buxton's got very real availability issues, but his contract has fairly protected team assets from it and he's been a fine player when available. There's no one else in the system that has his power and ownership is not going to spend what it takes to get another, he's great in the clubhouse and the community, and there's no history of him making demands or pushing the team into difficult corners. As franchise faces go he's a good one. But then there's this: " He's the "face of the franchise" and yet the next day we need a "Plan B" for him. What kind of arrangement is that?" And the answer is that half a loaf is better than none, that we need a plan B for everyone, that the team lacks top level players, that we are paying a very good rate for the production we receive and we should be celebrating all the "face" guys, so treat BB the same way we do Lopez.

(yikes - duplicate)

Perhaps you didn't read the next sentence where I suggested moving Clemens' 27 HR to 2B and looking for a better 1B.

It's a very common arrangement. You know who else misses huge amounts of time? Mike Trout. Aaron Judge. Jacob DeGrom. Shohei Otani, Juan Soto, Francisco Lindor, Garrett Crochet, Ronald Acuna Jr, Jackson Holliday, Kris Bryant, Christian Yelich, Corey Seager, Nathan Eovaldi, Hunter Greene, Zach Wheeler, Oneil Cruz, Konnor Griffin, and about five guys on the As. That's not counting old guys like Verlander or Schetzer or merely expensive players like Stanton in New York. Top players with injury problems happen all the time. Teams walk through a minefield of player popularity, excellent performance, high cost and limited availability at the same time aging players are balancing loyalty with making one more big payday as their bodies start to break down. The entire Los Angeles Dodger roster is an exercise in piecing together half season veterans in the hope of having a full 26 man quilt in October. It's not a problem to have most of a good player, it just means you can't always tell when a gap might appear. It's only a problem if it hamstrings your whole payroll, but since real revenue sharing began after the 1994 CBA teams can afford a big star like Joe Mauer or Bobby Witt Jr and still support a good payroll around them IF OWNERSHIP SO DESIRES. Don't blame Buxton for the artificially low $109m payroll. there's more money than that coming from the central revenue sharing alone.

When someone says "Check out his stats" about a 1B they are not going to be referring to a partial season DRS number. Clemens might have lead the Al in triples (I know, bizarre, right?) but this is not a lineup that can give away 1B hitting. Put Clemons 27HR at 2B and go get a real thumper.

If you didn't like this team running down in 2026 then Edwards might not be your guy. He came out of the gate fast but slowed every month though the entire season. His OPS by month went .883 .870 .668 .617 .585 and .556 in Sept. In his career his first/second half splits read .766/.690, so it's not a fluke. He'd cost a ton to acquire and you'll find him standing in front of Houston in two years. I'd save the prospects to go get the big 1B bat and trust inhouse guys like Roden to line up behind Keaschall at the top of the lineup. (I honestly think Roden's got a chance to have a better year than one of Jenkins or ERod.)

The Twins definitely play games with service time, but your examples are not good. Erod was injured at a couple points last summer when the Twins needed an MLB outfielder - he only played 70 games this year. That's not manipulation. In 2023 Headrick broke camp with the Twins at age 25 after a 2022 season where he posted a 2.34 ERA in A+ and a 5+ ERA in AA, and in 2021 he was in rookie ball thru A. Not sure where the unnecessary delays were supposed to have happened. Lewis was up when healthy and kept blowing up. He did not play an inning between 2020-21, and in 2022 he was with the Twins when his knee exploded twelve games into his MLB career. Not seeing the gamesmanship. But others, for sure. Jenkins was only a good hitter for the last month in AAA this summer, and he wasn't even available for large parts of the first half. But sitting on him to preserve his eligibility for rookie awards next year (and possible draft treats) was fairly transparent.