DJL44

My biggest problem with this front office is they don't bring in any international free agent pitching talent. None. You can't create a pitching pipeline solely through the draft. Posted this elsewhere but it is worth repeating here. The only pitcher this front office has signed to a long-term contract is Randy Dobnak.

Not by much though. Zunino got $6M for this season. Oh no, they spent an extra $5M on the roster. They won't win the wins per dollar pennant this year.

The only pitcher this front office has given a long-term contract to is Randy Dobnak.

I know this is intended as a sarcastic comment but I'm ready for Mike Veeck to run the Twins.

I thought outstate people were too terrified of Minneapolis in broad daylight to get closer than 494/694.

Remember how the Twins needed the increased revenue from Target Field to be able to sign free agents?

Maybe they could play professional pickleball there after the baseball game. That's getting more popular.

They are positioned to be the team everyone is calling at the July trade deadline.

Kim is from South Korea.

Another veteran with a higher salary who could help: Manuel Margot of the Rays (there's your RH hitting OF).

This team should not be trading away any more top prospect capital. Don't eat your seed corn. They have money to spend and should be looking to spend it. If they acquire players in trade they should be expensive veterans with little trade value who can help the team in 2023. Some examples: Javy Baez has an opt-out after the 2023 season and is likely to use it after seeing what happened this winter. He might be available pretty cheaply from the Tigers. German Marquez could improve if you get him out of Denver. Kris Bryant would be a great fit for the Twins but I doubt you'll get Colorado to eat that contract already. My favorite way to upgrade the rotation is still to use Jhoan Duran there. If they can make an ace pitcher out of Duran they'll have tripled his value. I think they can upgrade the bullpen pretty cheaply. Relievers don't usually get 3 year deals, let alone 13 year deals. The best relievers are usually failed starting pitchers. Grab 5th-6th starters for nothing and convert them to bullpen guys.

I agree that you may get more out of Vazquez if you play him less often. On the other hand, he just got paid a lot of money by the Twins and you want to use him less often? Their goal should be to get everything out of Vazquez while they can in 2023.

I'm not optimistic about the Twins signing Dansby Swanson. There are more teams in on him (Dodgers, Cubs, Braves, Red Sox) than were interested in Correa. Those teams all have deeper pockets than the Twins.

Fixed

That's only allowed with commissioner approval. You can't be an executive and an employee.

Wil Myers is marginally better at hitting lefties than Kyle Garlick. .815 OPS for Myers, .805 OPS for Garlick in 2022.

This tells me the Twins have been pretty good at developing outfielders and haven't needed to sign a free agent.

There aren't any of those. Wil Myers or bust.

This is an interesting comparison that tells a lot about the current economic structure of baseball. The Twins and Giants probably have a similar median value for the remainder of Correa's career - 35 WAR. What you're seeing is that 1 WAR is worth $8M to the Twins while it's worth $10M to the Giants (and more to the Mets). Neither team thinks Correa is going to be worth a darn at age 40 but the Twins don't pay the luxury tax so there is no incentive to spread out the years like there is for the Giants. The Giants probably would have made this a 20 year contract if MLB would have let them. The Twins will have to pay higher salary per year on shorter years to get top talent because time value of money makes that a more valuable contract for the player (8/285 is more valuable than 10/300 because $1M now is worth more than $2M ten years from now). The Twins cannot afford a rebuild this season. They have a TV contract up for renegotiation. The White Sox are keeping their money in their wallet and the Guardians are beatable. Half of their pitching rotation (Gray, Maeda, Mahle) becomes a free agent next year. They have to try to win this division in 2023. I agree that we are looking at a story of vastly different economic incentives for MLB teams. The large market teams want the playoff windfall so they will pay top dollar for free agents. Some of the small market teams will compete but only if it doesn't cost them much more than the minimum payroll (Guardians, A's). The mid-market teams (Twins, Cardinals) have to develop from within and are willing to pay for arbitration salaries or team friendly contracts signed when the player is under team control but can't afford top free agents.

They shouldn't. I'm talking marginal additional revenue for a winning team. If the revenue sharing goes up there is less marginal benefit for having a winning team. The Guardians could keep Ramirez, win more games and get better attendance but it won't get the team any additional revenue. It will reduce the amount they earn through revenue sharing by almost the same amount as they earned through ticket sales. The only way to make more money is to reduce operating expenses and payroll. Revenue is a constant. If you look at the NFL they let the home team keep 60% of the ticket revenue and 100% of the concessions, parking and corporate sponsorships. Teams pay for all stadium expenses (rent). All TV, licensing and merchandise money is shared evenly. This incentivizes teams to sell out their home games. Imagine how much more exciting a baseball game would be if teams were incentivized to sell out all the tickets. Instead, they're only incentivized to sell out all the expensive tickets. That means keeping prices for bleacher seats artificially high to avoid undercutting the expensive seats.

They have to. They get half the revenue per additional win compared to the other teams. The Dodgers spend twice as much per additional win because they get twice as much revenue per additional win. That does put a lid on how much better they can make their team. My point is if Oakland received MORE revenue sharing they would get ZERO additional revenue for an additional win. More revenue sharing makes it more likely a small market team will run a minimum payroll. More revenue sharing is an absolute disaster for a fan of a small market team.

Revenue sharing is actually a disincentive for increasing local revenue through winning. For every dollar that comes in you send 50% of it to the league. You get your share of 50% of the revenue of other teams whether or not you win a game. Oakland has revenue around $210M. $60M of that comes from the national TV deal and $110M through revenue sharing for just $40M in local revenue. They send $20M to the league pool and receive $110M in return for a net +$90M. The Dodgers have revenue of $560M. They send $200M to the league and get back $110M. Oakland probably can't generate more than $150M in local stadium and concessions revenue from that market no matter what they do so it is in the league's interest to maximize the revenue from large market teams. It would cost Oakland an additional $100M in payroll to maximize their revenue by winning but it would also increase their revenue sharing bill from $20M to $75M. They effectively spend $155M and increase local revenues by $150M for a net loss of $5M on the bottom line. Imagine instead that all the TV contract money was shared (like the NFL). Frankly, I don't understand what a "local" cable TV station or streaming video partner is anyway. Teams would each get roughly $120M by sharing all the TV money equally no matter which market it comes from. My idea is they get to keep all of the locally generated revenue they create from ticket sales and concessions. Then the A's can increase payroll by $100M, increase local revenue by $150M and get a net ROI of 50%. The Dodgers would see their $240M yearly TV deal come off that $560M number but they also wouldn't have a revenue sharing bill of $200M and still max out their potential local revenue at $250M instead of the A's $150M due to their market size. The league as a whole would be incentivized to negotiate the best overall TV deal for the 2430 baseball games they have to sell every season. Teams would be incentivized to increase local attendance and concession sales. Expansion of 2 teams means 162 more games (3 hour TV programs) to sell to television and more local revenue. -------- Now, would it be good instead for the A's fans to see even more revenue sharing? Suppose teams shared 75% of revenue. The A's bill increases from $20M to $30M but they get back $165M from the league instead. That's a $135M disincentive to ever try to put a winning team on the field. We've already determined that their max local revenue stream is $150M. They wouldn't spend more than $10M in additional payroll to maximize their overall revenue. I don't think they would even keep players through arbitration. More revenue sharing makes it even more important for the league to have the Dodgers and Yankees win all the time and have the A's and Pirates lose. It doesn't improve parity, it makes it much worse. It actually incentivizes contraction to a 16 team league where all the major media markets are covered (NYY, NYM, LAD, LAA, CHC, CHW, PHI, BOS, WAS, HOU, TEX, SFG, TOR, SEA, ATL, ???). I don't think the Twins even exist in that scenario. We're all stuck watching Cubs and White Sox games every evening or going to Saints games.

If his game calling is that good they can have him relay signs to Jeffers from the dugout

Kepler for Domingo German and Wandy Peralta? Stick them both in the bullpen.

Kepler for Kiner-Falefa if Correa signs with the Giants