Cris E

In addition I'd be much more aggressive about sending struggling guys down to St Paul to work on stuff rather than having them continue to play badly or just sit around and stew. I'd also like to see more use of where Vasquez saw his offseason coach at Driveline for a tuneup in June, or at least going back to tape to see what was working rather than believing so strongly in whatever you've committed to that's stopped working.

What.... EDIT: Do you mean Games Where They Only Scored One Run? Because almost no one wins those on any team at any point in the past hundred years. Also, "1 run games" is understood to be "games decided by one run".

Oh, and then the Astros spent $100m more than MN. That step shouldn't get glossed over. They went on to win because not merely because they had a lot of draft picks, but because they added free agents, they re-signed stars, they spent a lot of money. The notion that a team with those resources put their wallet away for four or five or six years and then spent means that they didn't try for a v e r y l o n g time. The Twins have fallen short of 60 wins once in the entire time they've been in MN (2016) and the Astros did it for three years running, and didn't win a ton on either end of that streak. If the Pohlads did this you wouldn't be pleased at the plan, you'd be furious, and that doesn't consider the fact that Houston has a lot more money than MN.

Butcher boy meant hitting down on the ball to get grounders (specifically to fake a bunt and then hit.) Back in Stengel's day the infields were terrible and bad hops were easily available to anyone who could hit a hard three hopper and run fast. He was also known for decrying pop ups with a frustrated "There's no bad hops up there."

I'd rather we saw mediocre vets than kids promoted way before they were ready or bad AAAA players. If you don't have any prospects with a good future then you need to hire some players, but those tank teams in Houston ten years ago were terrible and it took a while to get some young kids into place to start digging out. That 2013 team had only three guys making more than $1m (2.9m, 1.1m and 1.1m) and they lost 111 games, but at least there were some future stars out there. The 55 win teams that preceded it were only different in their utter lack of talent and the cadaver of Carlos Lee still drawing a check. the Sacramento team this year would have been happy to suck if it weren't for the threat of the players' assn suing them for not trying, but they're going to be far better to watch because they signed a couple decent guys. It's far better than the back end of the rotation they sent out last year.

Just gotta say that Houston is not an example of doing things the right way. They dropped their payroll down to $30m in order to lose and amass draft picks. But Houston is the fourth largest city in the country, significantly larger than #5 and much larger than any other with only one team, and they are always near the top of league revenues, fourth last year and seventh the year before. For someone with those resources to be in the bottom few payrolls in the game is exactly the competitiveness problem that needs solving. What I would do about this is a poverty tax, where the gap between your payroll and the expected range gets taxed, and I'd include a multiplier based on your revenues to hit rich teams extra hard for not spending. The Twins are middle range in revenue and pretty close in payroll, about 52%. But last year the Red Sox made over $550m and only spent about $220m, about 40%. The Rays and As only spend about a third of their small revenues and that too is a problem. Tax those teams. I'd also add a multiplier to the luxury tax based on revenue rank so that teams spending way above their revenue (like San Diego the past few years) don't pay the same luxury taxes as teams with huge resources. Maybe teams with rev more than a standard deviation away from the mean get a 15% multiplier and two deviations get 25% (and same for those falling one or two deviations below the mean, but a discount.) I'd apply this to the current formulas that hit repeat offenders to amplify the effect even further. But we'd also need to change how the massive piles of luxury tax money gets allocated. You'd need some way of helping the low rev teams but not rewarding the ones just along for the handouts. Perhaps only sharing it out to those who have hit a minimum mark over the past three years (to allow rebuilding) and perhaps funding MLB.COM to improve the non-RSN broadcast product that many teams are coming to rely on for revenue.

Back in 1994 it was a big step to add the luxury tax and they did increase the types of shared revenue and what we got was 30 years of peace among the owners. It really was a beautiful period of relative calm and equality in baseball's long history. The new revenue sharing model is going to take some serious owner compromise to keep this thing running or we'll be back to the 1977-1993 period where only some teams had a realistic chance of assembling a championship roster. Remember the standard step of trading your top players once they reached free agency? Did you notice that once the money was spread a bit more evenly you saw franchise players signing huge hometown deals because every team could afford at least one of them? I think the next deal is going to have to focus on managing the remaining large money teams that still have lucrative cable networks. It's not clear how things are going to shake out for the rest, but those guys are going to have to share the money in ways they aren't going to like. Maybe set a level (200% median revenues?) where they just get luxury taxed harder than the regular rates. That way if the ailing Padres owner wants to take a run at a title before he dies his luxury rate is lower than the Dodgers, which could encourage other teams to spend above their ranking. Similarly, perhaps cap or reduce the revenue sharing monies sent to any team not at a calculated floor (50% of median payroll?) so that every team can afford it but you really are spending nothing for roster construction reasons rather than simple profit. But all this will take a serious cage match between the owners. As mentioned above, the current system isn't too bad and the main topic to be dealt with, the 80000 lb elephant in the luxury suite, is reporting and sharing revenue accurately. it's going to be very hard to solve and I don;t think the players have a lot of say in things this time.

Perhaps you worded that poorly, but they are clearly going to be paying Ohtani what is in his contract, full stop. The way they calculate deferred payments when measuring payroll may change, but he's getting the money promised on the schedule agreed to.

Those two months of Vasquez improvement last summer were not some random hot streak. He got out of whack early and took advantage of a road trip through Phoenix in June to visit his own guys to get an adjustment. Also this: Perhaps the new hitting guy will be amenable to bringing the outside guys, or at least checking out the film to see what changes they made during that tune-up. But there could be something fixable with Christian that would allow 2025 to be more in-line with his pre-2023 numbers.

Vasquez, Johan Duran for Dylan Cease and some good young talent. SD needs a starting catcher and some salary room and this let's them cash in their one big chip to get back someone huge without wrecking the payroll any further. Vasquez, young arms (Raya? Morris? ) and Paddack to Cubs for OF Suzuki. Suzuki has no role in the Cubs outfield this summer, makes $18m through 2026, and the team has need at catcher. If we send enough talent we can make this work.

It's a rough time to buy in. The revenues are falling and there's going to be a war between owners to figure out a new revenue sharing plan that'll buy a peace like the one we've seen since the 1994 shutdown. The new CBA has to be agreed to after the 2026 season and I don;t think anyone expects it to go well. Hunter might be up for those types of interviews in the shadow of a lockout, but I can't see the "nice guys" wanting to sign on for that sort of duty on their own dime.

If they think they have enough for the rotation (Lopez Ryan Ober SWR Festa plus Zebby and other callow youth) they can consider Paddack and Varland for the bullpen. Considering how that went last year, maybe they keep Paddack for the rotation and let Festa marinate in St Paul. Anyway my point is I think Varland is finally headed to the pen in 25. But that does not address the very real need for a lefty out there. Theilbar feels done, Funderburk was bad, and while that might have been due to injury there's no indication he's ready to step in like Caleb used to. Some of you may feel the plan is to make some giant splash, but honestly I'm prepared to watch them wait for the market to collapse as the cable money vacuum sucks the air out of the winter. They might be able to grab a surprising number of decent guys at cut rates as a bunch of teams have to make choices. No idea who, but I will bet that no one on the Top 50 list gets signed in MIN.

An article like this isn't going to help matters. It's just making him into our own Steve Bartman, a man haunted by his mistakes and vilified by his fellow fans. The best thing we can do is allow him room to sit with his shame and, perhaps, grow into a fanhood he can be proud of.

Lots of things can affect BABIP, so there's no one profile for a high or low guy. But Wallner does two things that raise it and another that might raise it. First, he hits the ball hard so the defense doesn't get many easy plays. It's either caught or not, and guys that lack a half step won't be reaching some of those shots. Second, he runs well. He's a big guy, but he gets down the line quickly and that also puts pressure on the defense. And finally he strikes out a lot, which reduces the number of balls In Play. I'm not sure this directly makes things easier or harder, but because of the first two it might work in his favor. Anyway, I said last winter that Wallner was not a slam dunk stud for 2024 and could be a big candidate for a sophomore slump. I'm not entirely right or wrong on that, but the song remains the same for him this winter: he needs to work on contact, work on his platoon deficiencies, and stay quick. Because as a big guy heading towards 30 he could turn into a Jim Rice shaped GDP machine quickly. EDIT: This sounds harsh, but I like Wallner. He's a better player than his strikeouts and blah avg might indicate because he gets hit by pitches A LOT. Like 16 last season alone. It's crazy, but it's an extra way he gets on and contributes.

Lopez was escaping with zeros. If he gave up two or three or five runs on a handful of pitches I'd have yanked him too.

I don't second guess managers much, but you gotta see when a guy doesn't have it and make a change. The pen was pretty fresh and Alcala was throwing underhand. Wear this one Rocco.

He hasn't hit the breaking stuff well, he hasn't been 100% healthy for a lot of his career, and he's in an organization with some swift moving OF talent that's putting pressure on him. Some of this is bad luck, some is bad timing and the parts that are left is what he's got to work with to fashion a career in MN. But that's OK. Rooker ran out of runway here and still managed to put some stuff together in OAK and the same sort of path lies before Larnach. If he can stay back on the breaking stuff, if he can stay strong and on the field, if his glove can justify his time on the grass, then he might be the one who can claim a spot and chase Kepler out of MN. But this is the last chance he has in this organization to do that. His work is cut out for him: he's hit before and he might again and it's time to step up. Good luck Trevor, we could sure use you if you figure it out.

Staying healthy these days seems like some sort of magic trick. Did anyone see the "On This Day" earlier this week describing Jack Morris' April 7 no hitter in 1984? Not sure what the pitch count was, but 8K and 6 BB might not fit modern usage patterns for opening day starts. Can you even imagine the reaction to such a start these days?

The only problem I have with this piece is that the various boxes are not new. They've been on-screen for about 23 years and have gotten better over time, so why is it only a problem now? Is it because we can perhaps do better? Then let's do that: adjust the zones to match batters, share that common definition and require official broadcasters to follow it or take it off the screen. It might take a year or two to get the technical kinks out, but it shouldn't be that hard. Our standards are so high these days that it's beginning to reduce the joy in the game. An occasional poor performance by a rookie umpire should kind of be expected, yet this one's being vilified like he's some sort of Eric Gregg, who essentially gave away a World Series game while the world watched (without the K Zone.) I personally would like the human element to remain in the game, but honestly there are so many guys throwing so hard today that I think an automated zone is the best way to ensure fairness and repeatability. And even if it isn't perfect right out of the box where a Jose Altuve might always have to defend a larger strike zone than an Aaron Judge, he might enjoy the consistency on the corners. Youngsters are already there, waiting for the calls to even out. I would like to see the step taken.

There were only a couple teams out there that had any interest in Polanco, so the trade partner options were limited. Seattle was the best fit, needing exactly what Polanco offered, but you can measure how resistant they were to parting with ready starting pitching by the quality of prospects they sent instead. So they built the best trade possible, and in the end to balance the trade with Seattle they had to take salary back or send money over. If they knew Descalfani wouldn't pitch they probably would have asked for something else on the back end. But no matter what they weren't getting anyone that Varland wasn't going to beat out. (Descalfani has had an ERA+ of 61 and 87 the past two years while in Varland's first two years he reached 104 and 94.) No one knows what they were thinking when they spoke to the press, except that you always put the best face possible on a trade. Fans want to hear we're building for 2024 so that's what we tell them. If Descalfani actually showed up healthy and effective then jackpot, but the Giants dumped him when they needed pitching, the Mariners had no place for him in their rotation and the Twins saw him as a potential #5. If you think they traded Polanco for a #5 and you're mad about it I guess I understand, but I also think you're wrong to discount everything else they got via the Polanco dump.

Way to skip Jullien and farmer, but OK, let's talk about Lee. Lee has hit .237 in 38 games above AA, and beyond that he's got platoon splits to work on. (If you prefer more sophisticated stats go look at the full spread, but he's not ready by any measure.) If Correa goes down for a few months is Lee ready to be the SS into the playoffs? Of course not, he's not ready now so we have to wait. OK, now we dump Farmer to save money so your single reliable middle infielder behind both Correa and Jullien is Castro. And then you want to reduce the playing time of three or four better hitters (Correa, Lewis and Jullien for openers) to wedge Polanco in? Polanco has had what, 2-3 healthy seasons in his career, none since 2021, and yet somehow he's ready to step up and play in LF (for the first time in his life) then 1B (for the first time in his life) then shift back to 3b (where he is not good) for a game a week and then if he's still standing maybe be the platoon partner for Jullien? And the only cost to achieving this state is not adding a bullpen arm plus a lotto ticket stating pitcher plus not freeing any money to get a CF backup or backup 1B. You prefer Polanco to the five guys we could afford after this trade?

1. I could not agree less. Moving Polanco for the best package they could get was the goal. Descalfani was a throw in. Most folks who are not disappointed fans agree on this. 2. Well that's nonsensical, you can't just ignore the fruits of the trade. They had a choice of Polanco or Topa, two prospects, and Descalfani plus money to sign two other players. Five guys vs one for a small increase in payroll.

But Descalfani is here to offset the Polanco salary in that deal. SEA needed a payroll dump to even things up or we don't make the deal at all. He can't be separated from that deal. I guess the choices were to send money to SEA to take Polanco or take back an oft-injured pitcher who might contribute at some point, so they took the player. Farmer is here as the backup middle infielder behind Correa, a man whose health is so fragile that it cost him $100m in discounts the last time he went out for a contract. We don't have a proven MLB SS in the org that can fill in for Correa long-term, and it's certainly a role that Polanco cannot fill. (Castro can play a few games there but he's not a real SS. Lee is both hurt and unproven.) You say you don't care why, but the money was really what mattered. The measure was not how it improved the 2024 team, the measure was lowering the 2024 payroll. Your premise was wrong so your judgement was wrong. They felt they had to trade one of the large contracts, which meant Polanco, Kepler or Vasquez. No one wanted Vasquez, so the choice was either the healthy OF (where we didn't have any depth: Buxton without a CF backup, young Wallner, young ineffective Larnach) or the frequently injured 2B where we have a traffic problem (Julien, Farmer, Lee) so they went with moving Polanco. They probably started out wanting what you wanted, but they had to dump salary more than they had to have another starter and few teams wanted Polanco at all.

It may be all that matters to a fan, but sometimes management has other goals imposed on them. Just because you want to avoid the issue doesn't mean Falvey had that option. A deal had to be made to reduce the resources invested in the team. so it was going to be nearly impossible to improve the team this winter. There's a good chance that in this trade they might have improved the organization in the long run even if the 2024 team didn't get better. But one real goal met here was cutting payroll, and that had to happen.

Yes. But I also believe several other things. First of all I don't take every word spoken by front office guys to be literal gospel truth. I do believe they looked hard for starters that would move the needle, but they didn't find a deal that worked. But I also think they are always looking for more pitching in every deal, on the waiver wire and between the couch cushions. When they find a Stewart or a Jay Jackson they pick him up. There are several new faces in the bullpen that show the constant prowling for arms, and I expect that they might do more deal during the year if the injuries don't clear up. I also contend that they would have traded for someone had there been better options available to them. I think they have proved they will trade for starters, and trade big, but what I think this year shows is that there was a huge premium placed on controllable starters and the price was just too high. You'll notice that despite every team looking for starters, only a few changed teams. Luzardo and the rest are still Marlins, the guys Seattle liked are still in place, PIT resigned Keller, and in fact almost all of the starting pitchers who did change teams were medical risks (Sale, Ray) or on the verge of huge contracts (Burnes) or both (Glasnow). The number of teams that had controllable starting pitching in excess was very small, and once the Twins worked through the list they were done. You can call that a failure, but wildly overpaying is a worse failure in my mind. And honestly I think they weren't too freaked out by going with the guys they had. Varland as a #5 is a luxury. And SWR came to camp looking better than he had in a couple years, and Festa and Headrick look close, and Dobnak can be an old guy to call on to take a beating in the Kuechel role if that's what you need. (Dallas gave up at least 1 R per inning in 3 of 6 starts and 5 of 10 appearances, 25 ER in 37 IP, the bar is not high.) Perhaps when there wasn't a front of rotation guy available then there wasn't much value in picking up too many more #5 guys when you already have a bunch of 27 year olds to sort through. So yes, if your standards only extend to the Opening Day roster and you treat pre-season goals as some sort of blood oath then yes, they failed. But I don't think it's the huge deal folks are making it out to be. It might be that their focus on the bullpen was correct given that the bullpen is in the weeds already and that's after they shored it up with Topa rather than signing more starters. This article contended that Descalfani wasn't signed as a starter, merely taken on as a small part of a larger trade. You seem to think he was meant as some sort of cornerstone player but wasn't. I can't see that at all, but he's done and they'll go with who they have. Have a good season.