Trov

Errors is one of the worst way to quantify defense. For many reasons, but one is the "official" scorer makes that decision. Others are fact that if a player has terrible range and cannot get to a ball, or in outfield specifically, makes a terrible read or route to a ball that does not show up as an error. Heck, if a guy runs in on a ball then stops and runs back, or vice versa and the ball drops in because of that, it does not show up as an error. Some errors come from infield throws that they make a crazy good stop, then try to make the out, and a good throw gets them, but a bad throw led to extra base for runner, then there is an error, but a bad defender may not even get to the ball to try and make the throw. Sometimes a guy with a lot of errors actually are a good defender because they have crazy range that gets to balls most would not so they increase number of chances. Please, never use just errors for a reason of ranking defense. I mean if there is a pop up in the infield and all 4 just look at the ball and it falls, it is called a hit, because the fielder did not have an error in physical play, only in mental. If you "cannot" make the play you cannot have an error, even if you not making the play is because you are that bad of a defender.

It is not a bad idea, and the team may do it if they have little other choice. That is how a lot of guys end up at 1st is they are becoming more limited at every other position.

I would point out the Twins are not alone in this issue. There are very few big bopping first base hitters anymore. Yes, there are a few, Freeman, Vlad Jr., Harper. There are few middle of the road guys, Matt Olson, Josh Naylor, Pete Alonso. There just is not that many MVP type first basemen out there anymore. I think it mostly is a shift in how teams look to draft. If a guy is a 1st base only guy unless they are insane hitter, they normally will drop a ton in the draft, or if not they have not come up and crushed. Many actually started at a different position then shifted to 1st because their defense was too weak anywhere else, but they could hit. Harper was a catcher when drafted, moved to OF, played there until shifting to 1st. Vlad was up as 3rd his rookie year. We have tried to draft a bat first guy, Sabato and he failed. Very few teams could point to having MVP type hitter at first, the Twins are not alone.

Every player should be explored for the right deal. I mean if a team is willing to toss a ton of good prospects for him sure it would be worth trading him. However, there is little need to do it right now he is still under control for a couple seasons. He is on a bit of a down year, and hopefully he bounces back next year. You can never have too much good pitching. I also would never count Brock Stewert in as a reliable guy. He had a good short stretch with us, but between injuries he has not bee good at times too. He does not have some long term history of being good either. Too often people see a hot stretch of a pen arm as something to count on for years.

I agree you do not non-tender him, but there is value in looking for trade for him. There will be plenty of teams that would want him just because of his versatility. That is also why the Twins would want to keep him. When our lineup is healthy, he can play every position, and although not elite anywhere he is decent enough. You can pinch hit just about anyone because Castro can move to fill whatever hole on defense there is.

Really the question the article poses is could you raise the overall team by spreading out money across the board more? Personally, I would not trade Lopez away. He is not making that much that spreading his money across the board will make a huge difference. The economics of baseball make it that you either need to spend huge on vets, or hit big on prospects. You rarely will get by spending a little across the board on vets. Think about it, most guys do not become FA until average of 30. Some earlier, but they generally are great players that will demand mega bucks. Most players start to really drop off at 30. The ones that do not, normally are really great players that demand mega bucks. Sometimes you get the guys like Santana who can still play at late 30's earning single year contracts until they fall off the cliff. Sometimes you get a pitcher that pops up out of no where when older. However, for the most part, teams are built either on young guys they drafted, or traded for, or big time FA that they spent big on. Now, if you are saying dump him to cut payroll for a sale, it is possible but it will just cause more fans to get mad. Then you have fans not showing up and attendance dropping, not something you want to show to your new buyers.

I think you need to know how much of a budget you really have, assuming it is the same as last year. I would non-tender AK(which hurts me but he has shown nothing but being hurt for years) and Tonkin. No QO for anyone. The 40 man roster issue is a bit harder. Right now they have 47 on it, because 7 on 60 day IL. They have only 5 FA, Kepler, Margot, Santana, Theilbar, and DeSclafani. I could have missed one. That means 2 need to be DFA right off the bat. If you non-tender Tonkin and AK, that gives you 40. Dobnak will be easy DFA, Durante most likely, Helman and Keirsay Jr as well. There are some other pitchers you could think about, but that only frees up 4 40 man spots. Rayna and Rosario most likely get 2 of them. Ohl gets another. They may leave 1 spot as they generally do, but may look to fill it. Trades can always happen to free up 40 man spots as well.

There are 2 kind of sports owners. There are the owners that have a ton of money and loves the sport and wants to win and uses the ownership as entertainment and looks to either break even or lose a little bit while team value grows and they live off their other businesses. Then there is the business investor that actually wants to make money on their investment. These type of owners will run the team with as little of payroll they can if they are getting butts in seats and money in pocket. Oakland(soon to be Vegas), Pittsburgh, and a few other teams run like this. I hope we get the type that loves the game and makes tons of money from other businesses and is fine breaking even. Owners will not look at a team that is on verge of winning a possible championship as a reason to buy a team. That barely makes a difference in long run for making money. Short term it helps, but long term it will not matter. No owner will be looking for a short term flip. I do not know who will be out there that will be looking. We will see. My guess is no sale happens anytime soon.

So let me get this straight, the writer wants to sign Paul Goldschmidt because he is better at offense than Santana, and about equal at defense? That would make sense if it were true, NOW, but it is not. Yes, a few years ago you take Goldschmidt, with money being similar, over Santana. However, just looking back at last year Santana was better on defense and offense. Goldschmidt is only 1 year younger than Santana. The writer believes that last year was just a down year for Goldschmidt and he will bounce back, and there is some evidence that might happen, being his second half was much better than his first. I am not saying we should go Santana over Goldschmidt, I would actually advocate for using someone on our roster to fill it. Goldschmidt did hit lefties very well so maybe as a platoon guy, but most likely he will be seeking, and most likely will get more than Twins will be willing to pay. If he falls down to us and we feel no one out there is better option I would take flier on him to bounce back.

I think some fans are thinking the Pohlads are the worst owners around. I am not saying they are great, but they are far from the worst. As pointed out Calvin Griffith owned before. He moved team to TC because he did not like black people going to his games in Washington. Further, he made rules so he did not have buy as many baseballs, the pine tar rule was for that reason. Look at the White Sox owner, he has been terrible for decades. Look at Oakland, and Pittsburgh as well. It is possible we get a worse owner, because they are far from worst out there. Could we get better sure, but we could get even worse penny pinchers that just trying to extract as much money as they can.

This article makes good points. One, will the new boss be same as old boss? Most likely, unless you get an owner that is so rich from other things that they view owning the team as a fun entertainment, but most owners do not think like that, they think about making money. Second, very few people actually has the money to buy the team, so it normally will require several investors, which most investors want to actually see a return on that, and not just on paper but in actual funds. So that means making money. Additionally, new owners will normally mean clean house, clear out who you think is not worth keeping, which generally means shedding payroll too.

They may want to sell, and may have an evaluation of 1.5 billion, but until someone, or really a group of people come along who can pay that it will not happen. Selling teams has become not an easy process as we have seen with the Wolves. First, most groups will look at it as an investment, which is not what fans want, they want someone to see it as a pet project and will be willing to lose millions to try to win games. I doubt whoever owns the team the fans will be happy with. Second, finding someone who can pony up 1.5 billion, or more will be hard to find. Right now revenue is down, at least that is what has been claimed. Just because some group says the team is valued at 1.5 billion, I personally cannot understand that. If true that the Pohlads tried to keep it close to a break even business, where is the value in the team? The own many assets, but not 1.5 billion worth. The team is not raking money in compared to what is going out if you believe the team. Where will a person, or group recoup their investment? Well, it comes from just natural increase of people saying it is worth more. I am happy to see the team for sale, but I think this will be a very long process and will not put us in too much of better space. Maybe we get an owner like Padres that will be willing to lose money on the team because they make so much from other businesses, but that will take a huge baseball fan with very very deep pockets.

Do you have numbers of the other markets last year that made deals? If not, that is pure speculation as to what teams will get to have games aired on local cable or networks. First, it will not be likely too many channels would come knocking for rights, being it will not be exclusive and will reduce their ability to get money from ads. If they are cable networks that want to bid, the Twins have little leverage as regional sports broadcasting is dying, why we are here. If the MLB wants to have an exclusive channel that is not MLB network air games on cable, people will have to pay extra on cable to get it, because there will be no leverage for MLB to have cable put on their basic packages. This will then reduce ad revenue as well. Yes, they will be able to sell some games if not all games to some broadcaster, but it will not be anywhere near what they sold last year, or years prior. It is clear channels were not knocking down the door to buy the rights for the Twins to be aired.

I see no way Castro is not here, unless he is traded. You cannot DFA him. I could see him being tendered and then traded though, only if they feel a mix of Martin and Lee or some other FA can cover what he can do. He helped carry the team for a stretch, but then he also fell apart at end of year, like everyone else on offense. He still provides a ton of value with how Rocco likes to manage because you can pinch hit for many guys and move Castro to where you need on defense. I get that Vasquez is making 10 mil, but as you point out hard to justify that price with his offense, so why would another team justify it? Meaning, only way a team would is if you give up either money to take him, which defeats purpose of moving him, or you give up prospects to take him. Without clear replacement in wings hard to justify giving up prospects to clear money off the books. Every year the bullpen gets retooled as most guys are on 1 year deals.

I doubt many teams would trade for him, unless we take pennies on the dollar. Remember 2 teams agreed to deal and balked when medicals came in. Throw in 2 years of foot issues I doubt many teams will want to take on his risk at this point. The only way a team would is if they knew his options would not kick in, which they do not at this point. He is with us for better or worse for next few years I think.

MLB says they are going to try to find local channels. It may be on MLB tv for cable, they have been showing regional rights this past year. It could also mean like weekend games on 29, 23, or 45 for twin cities channels. They would be unlikely to get any of the other channels because the of national things they need to air.

This depends. MLB says they will be looking for local carriers and cable, but depending on how that goes they may not get apathetic fans back. The only way you get that is if you get a channel on basic cable packages, or on local network TV. If not, then fans need to pay the streaming price of $99 a year, or pay for the bigger cable package. That is not going to attract the apathetic fan again.

Pretty sure the Cubs could get a better deal than this. Really they would be getting a guy that might start again, but may fail at that. He is nearing FA and aging. Yes, his arm may not be as spent as normal pitcher, but history has shown drop off of all players after 30. They also will take on final year of a non-factor at plate but good defending catcher, normally would be league min guy. They will give up a MLB ready talent with years of control. He may not be their top OF prospect but if he is a good defender in CF and can hit close to what he has done in AAA he will fetch better than that in a deal. I also do not know how much better it makes us next year. It may help years to come, but we have seen some rookies play very well, and not so much. We have also seen them fall off the face of the earth their second years sometime.

The answer is based on a few factors that the FO should answer. One, do they expect to extend Jeffers after his 3rd arb year, or let him walk? Two, how do they feel about organizational depth for next year should the need arise? If their depth is weak, who can they find in FA? Three, what dot hey value more defense or possible offense, and do they think Jeffers can be consistent on offense? Finally, what would they get in return for them? I think both names should be floated out to teams to see what they would give up. If no team will take Vasquez without either paying large part of contract, or giving up prospect to dump him, then he gives you little return. If you add in fact you doubt Jeffers will be extended long term, and your organizational depth is weak, hard to justify giving a guy away. If you think Jeffers will sign beyond 2026 season, might be worth just dumping Vasquez if cost is low. However, if Jeffers will walk in two years and he can fetch a better return it would make sense to trade him. Now, if you want the narrow just 2025 in sight as article seems to take that point of view, you drop Vasquez and hope Jeffers will be more consistent on offense. Keeping in mind Vaquez has a hell of a run in middle of season hitting too, but rest of year was just terrible. Not sure too many teams will take his money unless you send a better prospect with him. However, I am guessing there is someone you could spend his money on, a pen pitcher or two.

The only thing we can hope is that the players will learn from this. Lewis hit a slump like he never had, which killed us. Julien became just unplayable. Lee did not adjust to pitchers when they adjusted to him(I think he may have been fighting through some pain from injuries as well because until his injury he was doing okay). Miranda fell off the face of the earth and makes you wonder who he really is. Guys that helped carry the line up at different times when we were winning a ton all fell apart at same time. No way can you win when everyone stops hitting all at once. Then all the little mistakes, in the field or on the base paths looks so much bigger.

I would fully agree with Sands, but I would not put SWR on the list, and would have Ober much higher on the list. First, SWR was a rookie, how can you say a rookie was most improved? If you are saying off his AAA numbers, I would even push back and say he started to improve the second half last year from his terrible first half. The reason I would have Ober higher is he has shown he can be a solid number 2 guy, with flashes of being a number 1. Rocco started to trust him deeper into games. For the most part, outside of a few blow up starts he was very solid. He had 19 quality starts, even going complete game, 8 innings at times. He had 5 starts where he had 3 runs or less allowed and 5 innings, so if given a shot he could have got a quality start. He will slot into the 2 or 3 roll nicely for next few years, or fetch some good prospects in return when the time comes I think.

Personally, I am for Detroit to win it all, as they have the lowest payroll on their playoff roster. Many teams have single players making more than their whole team. They are on crazy hot run with young guys and it would make a great story.

Exactly what Leviathan says. You cannot get both streaming for your team, and local cable/sat unless you enter that into contract with the local provider, who will never agree to it. Why would someone agree pay for your product, when you will undercut them and sell streaming to fans? They only would if you sell the rights for very low cost.

MLB is for a huge shake up, and should have done it years ago. The problem is the owners and players have fought for years over who wins the contracts, and not thinking that rising tides raises all boats. They would rather fight over how much of the pie they each get, and not thinking how can we work together to get a larger pie to share. Now teams are saying they need to cut payroll because of lost TV money. Players do not care about that. It is going to lead to players not getting contracts they think is right, but if there is not sharing of money from the super market teams to the small/mid market teams, it will lead to the top top guys only being able to go to the mega market teams. Once they have their rosters filled, they will not sign other players. Then the players will still demand huge money, but the lower teams either will not have it, or will choose not to spend it because why bid against themselves? I have long said they need to get a revenue sharing split similar to NBA. A salary cap/floor is set based on how much money comes into the sport. You have to spend money then on players. Superstars still get paid, but it actually will increase what the mid-level guys get, because teams need to spend. The players will never go for it because they one do not trust owners, and two they have always said no cap, but forget a cap will come with a floor.

It is a good question, but most reports from TV people have been that streaming advertising has generally been less money than live TV. Maybe this has changed over the last few years with so much more streaming going on, and all of them going with ads. I know my wife watches Pirates games through MLB app, and there are a few ads, but much of the time between innings are just saying we will be back. You would think MLB would be able to have ads fill that space, but they do not.