Trov

So we had the second best bullpen in AL, behind a historically great bullpen, but we still need to talk about how terrible our bullpen was? The bad pen performances is not limited to just the Twins clearly. Every team has issues with having great pens, and really just have a few they can count on, and the rest they just hope do not implode too bad. The article also highlights, but does not really address, how volatile pen guys are. Some of our guys that did terrible had great runs, and then terrible runs. Addison Reed was one of best pen guys in the game at time we signed him, then he was terrible and out of baseball. The writer also addressed prior success stories, but did not talk about Thielbar who was out of baseball had not pitched in majors for 5 years when they brought him in 2020, at age 33 and had 3 great years, 1 good year, and then this terrible year. Lets talk about Cleveland pen real quick. Their closer was crazy good this year. Last year, he cost them 10 blown saves. The year before he was amazing. Even the best in the game you cannot count on to be amazing each year. What sucked about this year was all the guys seemed to implode all at the end of the year in big ways that resulted in big losses. However, still having the second best pen in the AL is nothing to be upset at, it was our terrible offense at the end of the year that really cost us, because the pitchers could never have an off night. You cannot expect every pitcher to be on and pitch well every day.

Should they trade him, only if the right deal comes along. He is someone that could be sold high on, but how high is that? He is basically a DH or 1B. He has shown an ability to hit for periods of time, but he has also shown he will slump for months. I doubt many teams are super high on him but his years of control has value. I would not for sure look to get even an MLB ready talent but some prospects would be fine if you like the prospects. We have plenty in the wings to take over for Miranda if needed.

He will not be non-tendered. They will either keep him or trade him, but he not be just let go.

First, the Twins have been near the MLB average in payroll for awhile, so to say the team never pushed into top half is just not accurate. Second, parity is a problem as a whole. Yes, you get teams that pop up for a year to two because all their players start to peak or have career years all at once, then the team will go out and fill in holes in FA or trades as you indicated. But then after that quick peak they dump off players to get back to their lower salary. They generally then are bad for years waiting for that next window. The big spenders LA and NY generally will be competitive every year, because even when they are paying bad players they can go out and bring in players either via FA or trade and signs for top guys that other teams cannot afford. If they deal with injuries, they can go out and keep making trades. The CBA has been trying to address some of these things over the years, but with money from TV dropping the smaller and mid-market teams will be even more strapped for cash. The bigger markets will continue to be able to take the top talent. Does it mean they will keep winning WS, no because playoffs in baseball are generally a crap shoot and the "best" team hardly wins it all, it is the hottest teams. However, they will continue to make playoffs year after year, where the smaller teams have to rotate who has the window.

One thing the payroll numbers do not think about is teams with young guys, generally do not win, and they have low payrolls because pre-arb years generally. However, as guys get to arb years, if they are MVP level guys you have to pay more for them. Rarely will a team dump those guys because they do not want to pay for them. Sometimes, the Rays will trade them for prospects. I will still maintain trying to build a team on all FA will never work. Having 1 here or there, can work. But trades and bring from your own system is generally the best way. Now, that being said Dodgers and Yankess made trades for guys because they had the payroll ability. Also, each signed some big name FA as well. Yankees, built their team, mostly from their own talent, a couple of trades and a couple of big time pitching signings. Their starting line up, Stanton and Soto are two high paid guys they traded for. Soto high paid because arb says he worth it, not because he was signed to big deal. Both teams that traded them away could not afford what they needed to pay them, but Yankees could. The rest of the starting line up, other than Rizzo and Verdugo who were not good for them and did little to help them win, were drafted or signed by Yankees as international guys, or traded for while in minors. Their rotation had 2 big time signings Cole and Rondon(who was average at best) Stroman was a middle of rotation type signing that most clubs could have done, but would be a big chunk of budget. Their ability to pay more clearly allowed them to take on Stanton and Soto, resign Judge to his huge deal, bring in Cole, Rondon, and Stroman. However, that is only a few of their players. They still needed to get some from their homegrown guys. Dodgers, were very similar with trading for Betts, signing Freeman, Otahni, and signing Yamamoto and Glasnow. However, similar they had plenty of home grown guys as well. The big time clubs can take on a ton of payroll and miss on some guys. The smaller clubs can never miss on a vet signing or they pay for it for years. Payroll is not 100% success, but it can make up for a lot of bad mistakes. Either way you need to build from the farm system no matter what.

The point was they expected CC to hold down SS for years to come, and did not trust Lewis would cut it there. They had no real other plan at SS either. They knew they had to pay for him. They then hoped the young guys would step, which is needed for most teams that are not the super spending teams. Then they still need guys you are not expecting to step up to do it. Last year, they did. This year all the young guys fell pretty flat, along with the old guys by end of the season.

How good a team is currently has nothing to do with why someone would want to a buy a team. How good the players in the farm systems has nothing to do with why a person would want to buy a team. So, the first two reasons are just pointless for someone wanting to buy a team. You do not look to buy a team for a quick winning team. You buy it for long term growth of value and making money. The difference in stadium will have impact for sure though. Target Field is the better place to go watch a game. What really makes Twins more attractive is that they are the only baseball team in town and can draw from parts of the Dakotas generally for fans too. Where White Sox have long been the number 2 team in Chicago. Their recent terrible run has soured some of their fans as well. Unlike the Cubs who still draw fans when they are not winning, White Sox were nearly empty by second half. However, we have also seen when Twins are losing attendance will drop too. Not sure which area could have more real estate around their stadiums for sale to buy up, because that is where owners really rake in the cash, is owning all the buildings that the bars and restaurants around the stadiums. I would imagine owning land in Chicago will be harder to come by then MPLS. One area the Sox will have on the Twins is they have limited players on long term contracts. They only have 2 guys on contracts beyond this year, Roberts and Benintendi. Moncada has 25 mil, but could be bought out for 5 mil next year, but then he is done after that. We have some big money tied up for a few more years in Buck, CC and Lopez. We also have several guys, looking to get raises in arb years coming up. Lewis, Ober, Ryan and so forth. Most owners will not want to come in having to pay large contracts if they are not breaking even because they need the cash to operate. That means, assuming they pay the 1.5 bil asking price, they need to first come up with that, then need the millions of cash on had to pay the day to day bills. When you think about the fact that if you buy during offseason, how much money is actually coming in? You still need to pay your yearly people, the cost of having offices running, the cost of getting ready for spring, and the facilities that are going on in offseason down there too. Bills will keep piling up before any game day cash comes in. My bet it will cost several millions of cash on had to cover those cost.

Having a guy with speed can be helpful, but over a full 162 game season their impact will be minimal if they cannot hit. In a short series having guys that can steal bases and score from first on doubles is a huge thing. You can pinch run them late in games for slower guys. However, in a 162 game season they will need to get some at-bats. Iglesias had a career year for Mets as a part timer. The other 2 cannot hit and I doubt Iglesias will hit over 100 OPS over his career next year. I would not go out just to find guys that an run fast, if that is what you want, go pick up a track star.

I have little faith in Stewart being both healthy and effective for an extended period of time. He has never pitched more than 34 innings in a season. Outside of his great 28 innings in 2023 he has never been good, outside of a few innings. Why are we putting any faith in Stewart? I keep seeing people write about how he will help next year, what evidence do we have that he will throw more than 30 innings? None, because outside of 1 year where he did 34 innings he has never topped 28 even. He should be thought of as a bonus guy. If he can be healthy and pitch like 2023 then great, but to expect he will pitch like 2023 and pitch a full year is just wishes.

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.