Trov

In all the duel cities teams have been around long enough that fans will have picked their team. Rarely will a fan be a passive fan of their other city team. Under the hypo that both Yankees and Mets for example win a division it would not increase any viewership or fandom than if they were fighting for a single division race, as it would still be likely they are fighting for wild card too. Sure, there could be limited seasons where they would be fighting for division and wild card is not an option, and the losing team fan base will not be happy and not follow playoffs. However, in that situation it would be unlikely that the other team would have won the other division, being they would not have had a good enough record to be a wild card, so they for sure would have been worse than the division leader of the other division, unless the very rare case that on of the other remaining divisions would have the wild card spots. I just do not see how keeping them in different divisions would be all that important in a geography based division. I mean in NBA Clipper fans are Clipper fans, and Laker fans are Laker fans. There are times that celebs will go to both games, they are the rare situation, and not all of them do that. NBA has "divisions" but they mean nothing now as top 6 make playoffs, and remaining top 10 make play in. I would propose if you do geography based conferences, you just do similar top 6 make playoffs, top 2 get byes. Why break it down by division, if you are trying to get to play each team. Back in the day when you had weight to division play it made sense, but now that it is more equal, and you could make almost fully equal, who cares about divisions then?

I have held there was more going on behind the scene with Varland. On the surface it clearly makes little sense to give up a back of pen guy with that many years of control. However, if the FO has some issues with him, then it makes sense. I am not saying Varland is a bad guy or anything, but when he was flopped to pen in 23, he was not happy with it. He then failed as starter in 24, and was moved full time pen in 25. Based on his age and years of control his earning potential is greatly decreased now. He would have slotted right into the closer roll, increasing her earning potential, and my guess he would have wanted to recoup that lost value in his arb years, assuming he stayed "closer". That would have led to bigger fights.

I can see why the Twins will fight over such a small amount. If they cave and give into player request every time then they lose their leverage in trying to get a good contract in their opinion. However, I fully agree fighting over this small amount for a guy that has greatly out earned his contracts over the years sours that relationship. To me, this increase the expectation he will get traded this year as no way will he sign long term with Twins after this.

How does making sure the New Yorks, Chicagos, and LA teams in different divisions(assuming you go east and west conferences/leagues) maximize baseball interest in large markets? The teams are so well established you are a fan of one or the other. Could you explain the risk of having Yankees and Mets in same division would reduce New Yorks interest baseball, versus they being in different divisions? The fact that if you go East and West they would never play in the World Series already has that affect. So being in different divisions would help? Personally, I think if they go the route of East and West, they should do away with divisions, as they already are playing every team at least once, and do like what NBA does straight up top 6 teams make it on each side. Top 2 get byes with top ranked teams getting home field. I personally would love to keep the NL AL aspect and have divisions still split up like they do, I think that keeps more interest and then no worries about having same cities same league even.

There is talks about baseball expanding two teams. This would lead to some realignment. For nearly 100 years MLB had the NL and AL and the two sides never crossed until the world series. They had their east and west divisions, each having one winner to meet for their league championship. Then in the 90's baseball said we need to make some changes to engage fans after the strike. So they realigned some teams moved from AL to NL and divisions were made. The leagues, after the expansion of Marlins and Rockies had 14 in AL and 16 in NL. The divisions were not equal in numbers. AL west had 4 teams, and NL central had 6 teams. Then as interleague play developed MLB took Houston out of NL to even up the leagues and divisions. Playoffs over the years have expanded again, but still had NL and AL. In recent article shared on the main page here from diamondcentric suggest a radical change. A part of that change would also hose the Twins for geography based division, not uncommon for MN teams. I wanted to first touch base on the idea of getting rid of AL and NL. Personally, I do not care about it being the rules are uniform now and you play each team at least 1 series every year anyways. It is more about the history of the two leagues. The history of Yankees or Boston in AL and Dodgers in NL. The fact that you can have a "subway" series for world series, or the bay area world series(not possible now with Oakland leaving) but the point is you can have world series that has a city or state rivalry built in. That will go away. You can still have playoffs that do that, but not for the whole thing. Personally, that is where I would be a little upset. The other thing I wanted to comment on is the fact that suggest divisions put Twins in division with Rockies, Rangers, and Astros. We have no close ties to any of them, and really there are better options in my opinion for the sport. What is interesting is they split up the Chicago teams into East and West, how does that make sense? Assuming the World Series would be east versus west you could still have a chi-town throw down. For some odd reason the New Yorks are not in same division either. I would flop Mets and Baltimore is it lines up more with geography anyways. I get the writer wanted to keep some "rivalries" but why not make new ones if you are blowing up the whole thing? You already have the rivalry weekend with interleague play. It will be interesting to see with expansion how much of a blow up of the divisions and league there will be. I think it will be hard to sell some fans on getting rid of AL NL. I mean I get it is not what it once was, but to scrap it all together would be something Manfred would do in a push to the future, but will really get upset a lot of fans too. https://diamondcentric.net/news-rumors/diamondcentric/heres-how-mlb-realignment-should-look-after-expansion-r5407/

Since he is a catcher, I assume the team will more care about that side of the ball first and foremost over the offense. Yes, offense is important, but I remember when we had an 18 year old catcher with hype and the team said if he was not a catcher we could look to have him hit at MLB level soon/now, but catching is where he needs to improve. Catcher are at an interesting cross-roads too with defense. We have the challenge system in place now, and I will assume the full ABS in next 5 years. Framing is a skill of past and will play no roll in catcher in the future. What I think will be the big things now calling games, and controlling the run game. Part of the reason MLB went challenge versus full ABS is because catchers that got deals based on framing, also to ease it into the old heads that are opposed to it.

I personally hate using up a roster spot for a guy that will hopefully help like 50 to 75 at bats a season.

Sometimes I wonder how much of all this advanced swing, and pitching, stuff gets into some players heads too much that it works against them. I am all for more info the better, and trying to figure out how to play better, but I feel with baseball, the head game plays such a roll that when you start thinking a ton about every little thing, that you start to try to change what worked for you all the years you played. Your mind and body loses the muscle memory and then you fail. I like to point to Buxton as one guy I feel like all the adjustments they tried with him early in his career really held him back. Eventually he get settled in and mostly, to what he did all his life. Are there some guys that will really benefit from this type of stuff, yeah, but not all will. Sometimes you just need to let the kids hit and make adjustments without going into the lab.

I would agree Lewis would be biggest need, as we thought he was the future and he had terrible year last year. As for Wallner, he is one that when he is on he is huge for us, but he really is just a platoon guy. He cannot hit lefties in his history, but actually last year he did well when he got a chance against them. Very small sample size, 97 PA but improved over his prior numbers, which was unplayable with nearly same amount of PA. Maybe new manager will allow him to try to hit lefties this year. As for Lee, I agree he is not a key to the line up. If he can improve to what we thought he would be that will help, but he was never going to be a middle of line up type guy most likely.

Ranking international prospects is no different than throwing darts at a board. Very rarely is the "top" prospect ending up being the best player in their class. Normally it is some guy in the 20 to 30's. You can look at just about any of the class. Go back to 2015 class Juan Soto was ranked 25th, Tatis Jr. 30th. Vlad Jr. was 7th. May of the other top guys never made majors or are pen guys. There are times yes, the top few guys end up being the best in the group, but year after year that is not the case. When you are projecting these kids it is like pulling names out of a hat for rankings.

I remember when Cuddy walked the FO was ripped for not getting anything for him, but as this article points out, they did actually get something for him.

The crazy thing about Harper is that he was a negative WAR player until he came to Twins. He also was back to negative after he left. I would agree that the FA that helped win the ships, Morris, Davis, and Harper, should all be above Cruz. Cruz was great, and was flipped for even more value, but he did not bring in even a playoff win.

For some fans the only way he can win them back is by dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into players, and hope they win. Even if the team does win without doing that some fans will not care, they will demand trades for players and signing every top free agent and who cares how much money it costs. I would hope most fans could be brought back by simply trying to win and not clearly dumping payroll. The CC trade was done for that, despite him clearly not living up to his pay, but if that is not reinvested back into payroll then fans will be upset. Now, I am not one who says teams should spend just to spend, because that is how you get mid-level vets getting big time money just because you spend because you have it. However, if we do not retain our top FA that we think will be helpful that becomes and issue. Some years the FA crop is just not worth major dollars, and if you pass on it one year with intent to spend more the next I am okay with that, but if you just keep coasting by on cheap contracts hoping to hit on the low cost deals they do not always pan out. We have seen that many times where they do not, and some times they do. We have seen the big FA not work out as well. I personally like spending big on retaining your own guys if you think they are worth it.

I think he is a big risk. After 2024 he would have been a strong target as he had back to back big offense years in minors. However, last year he struggled not just at MLB level but back when he was in AAA. What caused that? Was it injury, or was he finally scouted well and pitchers know his holes? Will he fix that or just become another power hitter that once pitchers know how to pitch him and he falls apart? Clearly Baltimore was not sold on him long term with the fact they paid huge for some to be ahead of him. Maybe he could DH for them but my guess they may have concerns of him long term. I would not give up much for him at this point.

He is fine enough to fill in for a year. Really his ability to hit right handed helps as that is his stronger side and we were loaded with left hand hitting guys. He does not move a needle but he has always been above average hitter, very streaky guy that when on hot a streak can carry an offense for a week or two.

No worries, looks like no team believes he is worth an MLB spot this year as he was not taken.

Why do we look at a couple of weeks out outlining performance and say hey this is who this guy is going forward? I have nothing against Clemons, but he is 29, had a career year that was mostly built from a few hot weeks. He was still below average for a full season, but we are acting like he should just be planned to get 500 at bats plus next year, either at 1st or somewhere else. I am not saying his defense could not be helpful, but can we just say that at 29 his couple of hot weeks in the season were just that, SSS hot streaks and accept he is who he is, an okay defender that is not a good hitter but can get hot?

Please stop pushing Paul Goldsmidt. The writers on here seem to love him despite the fact he is clearly cooked. He had a huge hot start to year last year then was terrible for a month, and then below average for a couple of months to close out well below average again. He would have been negative WAR player if not for his crazy hot months to start season.

I would agree both of them should not just be held onto because you can, if either show they are passed over then DFA them.

I expect Buck will get traded, and really for the long term view he should get traded this year. He is coming off his best season, mainly from health. He is willing to waive his no trade clause. Pounce now. You will never have a better time to trade him value wise. I will miss him, but even with him what are we doing this year? Nothing most likely. I always said his value will drop off a cliff due to the nature of his value being speed. He has developed more of a hitter, but the speed and the defense will go sooner than later. Maybe he has 1 more good to great year, but sell before he hits that cliff. His contract is not bad, but I would not be surprised if next year he is back to missing half the year, and then going forward he is barely above replacement, moving to RF. If you can get a couple of top prospects now, go for it.

To me the worst trade of them all was including Varland, although long term it could work out. The rest were guys that were unlikely to return next year, or at minimum give little value the rest of the year to a bad team. Duran would have been back for sure, but at what price? Also, how valuable is a closer on a bad team? Think about it, if you hardly have leads late to save, how much value do they have? Sure, if we make a huge turn around this season he will be missed, but that is not likely, and even if we do, closers across a season are way overvalued. Varland had years of control that is where he was surprising and felt was worst of the trades. CC was not earning his contract, and rumors were he may have been bad for the young guys in the club house development, cannot speak to that, but if true getting rid of him is a plus.

A cap helps provide parity and balance. A floor helps make spending on vets and middle of the road players, it may hurt some of the stars a little. If there is a cap and floor it will require a reworking of the whole pre-free agent timelines as well. The players do not want a cap because they do not want to cap what they can make, and they do not trust the owners on opening the books on what revenue looks like. Plus, the players have long argued the non-baseball revenue that is generated by owners for owning real estate around the stadiums that has value due to the teams being there. Regardless, the players should see that a cap and floor systems is not only better for the game, but better for the average player and vets. The biggest issue the players have had over the last decade or so is the 30 something vets not getting jobs or getting the contracts they were getting late 90's early 2000's. This is because the way free agency works in baseball now, the owners/GM's learned it makes more sense to not call up a guy until he is 24 or 25, unless a mega start in making, and use them up cheap in peak years, then let walk where their output is not much better if better then a new 24 or 25 year old. How would a cap/floor system help the game, and the average vet player? First, lets say it is a cap similar to NBA, the soft cap with tax implications. That would be something I would suggest for MLB. It would give players staying with home grown teams incentive to stay as teams could go over the cap to keep their own players home. The stars will still get paid, but there will be less hoarding of star players on the few top paying teams, unless they home grew them, or traded for them prior. This would mean less likely mid-level or small market teams always losing top guys to bigger markets. With the floor it would also stop teams from doing the full mass rebuild route and brining in league min guys that are not ready MLB just because they are cheap. Normally when a team goes that route they are not calling up true future prospects either to waste service time, but they are rolling out mid-level guys. More vets would be retained to fill out rosters. Assuming an overhaul off the pre free agent rules there would be less service time manipulation too. The downfall to the players are less long term deals of like 10 years or more. The reason is one most likely CBA would block it but even if not, teams will not want to risk getting stuck in cap problems with an aging player that is not producing. Right now, the big market teams know they will be paying a player for bad production, but they are okay with the cost of that. Mid and small markets cannot afford that. Do I think it will happen, no. That is because the players will not back down, and the owners will eventually say, well we are losing all this money having to pay employees(not the players) during a shut down, and just the cost of upkeep for the ball parks and taking in no money. So they will cave eventually. The players will complain about how the teams could be paying the players more but choosing not too, and the owners will complain they do not bring in enough money, while the big markets continue to out bid every small to mid market team for players and continue to march into playoffs.

If he wants a minor league deal I would not be opposed to it, but I doubt he ever plays a major league game again.

Some have said DeBarge should be considered a down stock from draft, due to not having as much bat as was hoping. However, his OBP is reasonable .347, could it be higher sure, but being that he walked at high rate, that normally carries to each level, and if he can still steal at the rate he does, he will have value. Also, if he can defend multiple positions at above average that hold huge value too. Think of Willie Castro as a possible comp.

I was just pondering a question that if a player drafted by a front office, not limited to Twins, and they trade that player quickly, within a year or two, and the drafted player turns out to be a bust, should the front office get credit for the trade, assuming they got value in the trade, or attacked for the poor draft choice? As I said this is not about the Twins front office but we have been on both sides of this in recent years. We traded for Austin Martin, who was traded one year after being drafted, and we traded away guys like Chase Petty and Noah Millar were traded away within a couple of years of being drafted. Now, none are to be considered "busts" at this point but just was highlighting them as players who were traded early in time with team that drafted. I am sure there are many possible trades this could be looked at. The question I have though is if you draft a player in first round or two and they fail we call them a bust and blame the front office or at least organization for failing. However, if they get traded when they still have value as a prospect because shortly after drafted and you get value out of that, do we give praise for the front office making the trade? Do we say the front office did a bad job of drafting but good job of maximizing the value? I think it is an interesting question. For example, we traded away Chase Petty, and got two good years from Sonny Grey for it. Petty did well enough to get up to MLB level last year, but did terrible at MLB level. He may not be a bust and may be just fine, but his last year was terrible. His AAA numbers were not good and his couple of starts at MLB level were terrible. He is still very young and may develop into a good pitcher. However, if he ends up being a bust and starts bouncing around from one organization to next, should front office get credit for getting value out of him, or attacked for drafting him to begin with?