chpettit19

Correct. But the discussion was about Santana taking ABs from him against righties or Santana hitting against righties at all. Santana has no business hitting against righties. AK needs to be the everyday 1B against righties and Santana needs to enjoy the seeds and gum on the bench.

2023 vs RHP: Kirilloff- .300/.373/.485/.858 Santana- .231/.306/.421/.727 Santana's quad-slash the 2 previous years vs righties were .178/.289/.366/.655 in 2022 and .184/.309/.327/.636 in 2021. I'd say AK reached what we thought last year vs righties. You're taking AK's first 2 injury riddled years and counting those vs Santana's best year by far in 3 years. 2021-2023 vs RHP: Kirilloff- .274/.328/.440/.768 and a 112 wRC+ Santana- .200/.302/.372/.675 and a 86 wRC+ So for 2023 Kirilloff beat him by 131 points of OPS and for the 3 year stretch of AK's injury riddled career he's beat him by 93 points of OPS. It's a black hole in comparison.

What's the definition of "good against LHP?" Is there something specific about those 3 that make them unlikely to be good, or is it just lefties in general? Kepler has been pretty hit or miss against lefties, but had a 108 wRC+ against them last year. I agree there's very few lefties he can mash lefties (Freddie Freeman, Yordan Alvarez, Kyle Tucker, Corey Seager, Juan Soto, Bryce Harper types being outliers), but there's certainly a number of lefties out there who can hold their own against same-side armed pitchers. Much of it is small sample size noise. To maximize offensive production you need to get your lefties to at least serviceable against lefties.

I know everyone loves Stewart after last year's 27.2 inning sample, but, to @Karbo's point, that is his 1 great season in his MLB career at the age of 31. Obviously makes sense that he's someone to have high hopes for in 2024, but there's not a lot of track record there at all. And Thielbar isn't getting any younger. Topa was solid for 1 year at the age of 32. Again, I believe that's Karbo's point. The pen has better names in it to start the year than any Twins pen I can remember. Nice depth for sure. But there is still a ton of variance and it's no sure thing that they'll be as great as people think. This pen isn't full of guys who don't have the same "bullpen arms are extremely volatile year to year" caveat as every other pen. The depth in their pitching ranks overall gives them a great chance at having a really solid playoff pen, and that's what I care about. But listing guys in their 30s coming off career years as some sort of sure thing pen arms is ignoring a very long history of pen performance. Is Brock Stewart an elite shutdown arm or is he an unusable major leaguer who didn't throw a single major league pitch for 3 seasons after having been a really bad MLB pitcher before his breakout?

Man, it must have been hard for you to call the Pohlads and Dave St Peter incompetent when they first signed Correa. Because you know full well that was a 1 year deal in their minds. Glad nobody got fired after that one. I never claimed the spending would be a 1 year thing. You asked for an example and I provided one. My idea this entire offseason has been to invest to grow revenue. I know that's a crazy business idea "your firm" never would've suggested so it's fine you don't think that's plausible. But if you make more you can generally spend more. My idea is that they invest to make more and thus the extra dollars over the 3-year that's really a 1-year deal wouldn't cause them to lose money. Our differing goals have everything to do with how you want the roster built over the long-haul and that was what I was referring to. Because, again, I never said the spending should be a 1 year thing. That was your idea. But I'm sorry if I misinterpreted things there and caused confusion. I won't be responding to you anymore. On any thread. Congratulations. You win.

Cody Bellinger is the obvious answer if you wanted someone for just 1 year. Maybe Snell and/or Montgomery end up with similar deals if their markets never come to their asking price. I don't have the energy to debate with you on why it has to be a 1 year thing. I think they can grow revenue by investing in a better product that reaches more fans. You don't. You're more qualified than me so you win. Congratulations. You know my definition of success is different than yours. You watch "120+ games a year and care about seeing a quality product more often than not in those games" while I care about winning the World Series. I'm not going to have this discussion with you again. You can either accept we have different goals or not, I don't really care, but I'm not going to go through this with you again. We don't agree on what we'd like their goals to be. I'm glad you approve of their strategies on both the business side and baseball side. The strategy you endorse hasn't met either of our ideas for success, but at least they're making money so you can be happy about the business side.

I don't "trust" any of their numbers. There's tons of ways for teams to have more revenue than is publicly available. Plenty of ways for them to be spending more or less than is publicly guessed. It's just a source people have been using here so it's the one I went with. Atlanta is the only team with numbers I trust because it's all publicly available. But your stance was basically "it's either as bad as I say or worse" and I'm just not going to buy that. As far as big picture profit goes, the Twins aren't losing money. They have a year here or there (1 apparently in the 9 year non-2020 sample you quoted) where they guess wrong and lose money. But the idea that the Twins are a losing business is not something I'll ever believe. No professional sports team is a losing business. And if the owner can't make it work they can sell it for an incredible profit and let someone else figure it out. If the Twins are such a terrible business for the Pohlads they can sell it for nearly 2 billion and move on with their lives. The fact that they don't I think should tell us all we need to know about whether or not they're struggling to make ends meet over at 1 Twins Way.

You're talking big picture I'm talking this moment in time specifically. I don't know where the Twins rank in profit because I don't care where any team ranks. They all make more than they spend in the big picture and they could all sell their teams today for a massive profit (unless they just bought it) if they weren't making money. You can claim they're 30th in relative profitability and I'll accept it and not care. My point is they make money on the team even when it's bad. When it's good (2019) they make more money. 2019 was the only year the fanbase was nearly as excited as it was coming into this offseason and that excitement got destroyed by outside factors. That's legitimately a bad situation for them. But this time the excitement is being hurt by them and their decisions. The twin cities have shown they'll turn out and support any pro sports team in this area if it's successful. Including the Twins. I'm not on these boards every year yelling "cheap Pohlads." I'm not even yelling that now even though that's the thing you want to argue against. I'm yelling "shortsighted Pohlads" because they're choosing to chase as much short-term money as they can while self-inflicting damage on their own fan's excitement. So I don't care about relative profit. They make money nearly every year. They make more when they're good. They had their fanbase as excited as it's been in 30 years. And they decided to play poor. That's what I'm complaining about. Not their ownership in general, but their ownership decisions this offseason.

I have no idea how it ranks. And frankly, I don't care. That's what you care about, and you're more than welcome to. Not telling you not to. Do other teams invest at moments like this in their team's winning cycle or do they all slash payroll? That's something I'd find intriguing. The point of the other number for me is to simply show the Twins aren't out there losing money as others have suggested. They were really good in 2019 and saw their profits rise considerably. Yet when some of us suggest they should be looking to invest now to improve their team and set themselves up in a great position to do that for many years we're told that's crazy and they just need to ensure what you claim is middling profits each year. They make what you believe to be low levels of comparative profits while being terrible most of the time, but then you turn around and claim they shouldn't invest to become good to see their profits rise. I don't get it, but I'm not the business genius around here.

So believe Forbes when they give info you like, don't trust them when the numbers don't match. Got it.

That's what I get for trusting someone else's post. Fair enough. But that Forbes page also says the Twins were up 114 million from 2013-2022. Including the massive loss they took in 2020 and the 2022 loss. In 2013 they lost 96 games. 92 in 2014. Nice 2015 where they were 2 games above .500! Then down to 103 losses in 2016. 85 wins in 2017 was nice. 78 wins in 2018 wasn't. Incredible 2019 with 101 wins (and apparently made 43 mil in profits! crazy that building a good team leads to more money, who knew?). Craziness of 2020 season with a nice "regular season" before getting swept by the Astros. Follow that up with 89 and 84 losses in 21 and 22. So in that 10 year period the Twins went 729-789 with 6 losing seasons while making $114 million in profit. Averaged nearly 26 mil a year in profit for the 7 years before covid season while 4 of those 7 seasons were losing seasons. They were so kind to sacrifice so much in that 2022 season. I'll never ask them to make a short-term spending risk again when they finally win a postseason game for the first time in 2 decades. How silly of me. Should've known the expectations shouldn't change with winning or losing seasons. Always need to make the Pohlads 25+ mil even when they put out garbage teams and can't expect them to make less when they're good. Fair enough.

Eh. In terms of trade value it's nice. But in terms of 2024 Twins impact I'm not overly impressed. Solid 4th OFer with no real upside, but a reasonable enough floor. Have to assume if (when?) Buxton goes down that Margot likely stays in his 4th OF role if Martin or whoever on the farm is performing and they are the ones who take over in CF. If you're going to build your lineup around platooning as much as you can this is a solid piece to pickup assuming there's a reasonable chance at a bounce back to his normal performance against lefties. I'd just prefer they were less "all in" on the extreme platoon stuff.

I'm certainly not suggesting they're actually going to even file a grievance, let alone actually get it to go their way. But he got close enough to the line by saying "The players that are out there right now, that, probably, a bunch of fans are talking about, we're not in the market for those players" and tying that to the 30 million number. Not saying the actual names is why it's not a violation. Or if he'd mentioned names but not a number that'd also be fine. But he made it abundantly clear who he was talking about and put a specific price on it. Makes sense that the MLBPA got a little puffed up about it, especially because they're Boras clients and you know he was in their ears. Much ado about nothing, really. But I can see why the MLBPA wanted to fire a warning shot from it.

Couple nice swings from Lee so far. Julien with a nice left on left laser is good to see.

But there's nothing to tie a leak to unless you think the MLBPA and MLB are going to start going around demanding sources from reporters. And I'm pretty sure they don't have any power to force reporters to give up sources. We all assume that Kike leak is from his agent (and that's a rock solid assumption), but it's not policeable at all because it doesn't say it anywhere. Who files a claim against "sources briefed on his discussions," the MLBPA or MLB? MLB can't say "we're pretty sure that came from his agent so here's our grievance against them." And that leak didn't include any numbers. Joe included a number. That's what the clause is really forbidding. You can confirm or deny that you're talking to someone, but you can't provide substance or details about it. Pohlad threw a number out. The Kike leak didn't. If Joe just said "we aren't in position to spend a significant amount moving forward this offseason" the MLBPA doesn't blink an eye. He specifically put a dollar amount on it, and was so obvious that there was no real question who he was referring to. He didn't actually say a name so it's fine, but the number is what got him in trouble. Leaks aren't prohibited, detailed leaks are.

The agent wasn't on the radio saying directly that those 4 teams are in on his guy. There's a difference between the leaked things from "sources" and individuals going out publicly and speaking on things. Joe got himself in questionable waters by saying things publicly. The PA shouldn't be careful at all about bringing attention to actual public comments from individual owners that include a number (30 mil in this case) attached to specific free agents (where Joe saved himself even though everyone knew who he was talking about). Generalized leaked information from anonymous sources is not the same thing. "The agent" may have put out the Kike news, but his name is nowhere to be found on it. It's not "loose enforcement" when there's no name attached to the report. "Source" can't violate a rule. And that leak didn't include contract numbers which is another important factor.

For sure. And doing a couple of cool tricks early after picking them back up (winning a bunch of games) will help the crowd forget even quicker. But they picked a really bad offseason to drop their oranges and kick one of them off stage. St Peter dropped an orange after 2022 when he questioned fans not showing up, but that was during an offseason with a team coming off back to back dismal seasons right after the covid season. The stakes weren't so high when you lost the division by 14 games after having lost it by 20 the season before. The half-filled crowd wasn't paying much attention to the juggling act anyways. This time they had a sold-out crowd watching in anticipation and they almost immediately started dropping orange after orange. And the killer is that they could've just sat on the stage and done nothing and it would've been just fine. Should've just let the crowd imagine you juggling oranges instead of failing at juggling the oranges.

Kike and his people didn't say it publicly in a statement. They leaked news the same way teams do. But it wasn't him or his agent on a radio show naming teams. Pohlad didn't technically break the rule so there's no problem there, but the Kike list of teams is not a good comp to Pohlad making comments on a radio show. Kike's "news" is just from a "source." Can't file a grievance against "source."

For sure. There's nothing that's ever going to stop payroll discussions or be "good enough" until they get a cap system in baseball (and even then some folks will complain if they aren't at the cap every year). I think this offseason has been a bigger discussion about business practices than simply "cheap Pohlad" shouts, though. My problem is with people lumping it all in as people just blindly screaming "cheap Pohlads" when we're really talking about bigger things, like the TV deal and streaming option that this article is about. Payroll naturally gets connected to that, but just dropping this into the same bucket as the typical "cheap Pohlad" talk is missing the point many of us are trying to make. I'd be happier if they'd slashed payroll down to $100 mil if it meant they were actually adding streaming and expanding their reach with the fanbase. They'd get less pushback if they were way better at messaging and simply never let Dave St Peter speak publicly (maybe Joe Pohlad, too). I'd be happier if they hadn't sent Provus out to talk up the "no more blackouts" stuff before they actually had that deal signed, sealed, and delivered. There's always going to be "cheap Pohlad" talk as long as there's no salary cap in baseball. But lumping all of our complaints into just that 1 bucket and then being annoyed by it is going to get some pushback from me, and others. They're always going to get pushback from a certain segment of the fanbase. But they also don't do themselves any favors. I don't know how this offseason could've been handled much worse from a messaging/PR standpoint. You know what may help quiet some of the shouts? Building a winning team and then building on that momentum. They had their chance this year and chose to not do that. I think it's worth noting that this offseason's complaints are different than the typical "cheap Pohlad" screams that will never go away.

It doesn't look like he really broke the rule because he didn't mention any player by name, but this is exactly what the players should want from their union. Everyone knew who he was talking about (the "Boras four") and having any team come out and say they're not paying a certain price for a free agent hurts that player's negotiating power. That rule is in place for a reason. While Joe looks to have flirted with the line without crossing it, the players should be happy their union is sending a message to the league that they need to watch themselves when it comes to undercutting player's negotiations publicly.

Why should we believe they were made in 22 and 23? Someone brings up the 23 BAM money in all these articles. Forbes said the Twins likely made about 16 mil in 22. That's them investing? If making 16 mil is them sacrificing financially for the betterment of their product I'm even more upset that they slashed payroll now. I'm not asking them to be the Padres or Mets and spend to the luxury tax. Convenient that you left out the Dodgers, Yankees, and Rangers in that, though. Especially the Rangers who invested big time and I believe they won a world series recently, no? And the article is literally about the DBacks so if you have a problem with me following the lead of the article perhaps take it up with Ted. I'm glad you're happy with the team's spending. Not telling you not to be. But I don't get how finally winning and then slashing payroll and not coming through on streaming is a praise-able situation. To each their own.

Trading Jorge Polanco to save money isn't investing. Using that money for a 38 year old 1B who can't hit righties isn't investing. Replacing Gray with DeSclafani isn't investing. It doesn't need to be an overpay, but the fact that they cut payroll and traded one of their better players sure would suggest it actually was an overpay. I want them to invest in the team. Signing an expensive guy over here while trading another one over there isn't investing. Clearing the way? Who have they cleared the way for? Bringing in Santana wasn't "clearing the way." DeSclafani isn't "clearing the way." A whole bunch of 30+ year old relievers with very little track record isn't "clearing the way." Farmer for 6+ mil isn't "clearing the way." And I hope they do keep them all, but, again, they haven't extended them and I'm not going to praise them for things they haven't done. The young guys with opening day jobs earned them last year. They didn't "clear the way" for them. I'm glad you're sold that they're automatically going to jump payroll next year. "Right-sizing our business" doesn't scream "we're about to spend a bunch more" to me, but we'll see. I'm not praising them for 2025 until I see what they do. All I know is that they went to the ALDS last year and had their fanbase more excited than it's been in literally decades. They had the chance to take a real shot at gaining another generation of fans. Instead they told us they needed to right-size and took a TV deal that doesn't include the streaming they sent Provus out to promote. You're more than welcome to be happy with things. Nobody is telling you not to be. I'm not. If you don't get that it's fine.

1. I acknowledged there were those fans. So we agree. But that's not what many of the complaints are on this site right now so it shouldn't just be a blanket statement about fans complaining about spending. 2. I've never said I'm not excited about the season. I can both believe they're shooting themselves in the foot and have a solid team. I don't think their team is better now than when they lost to the Astros, and that's what I care about. And an extra 10-20 mil in spending would help that. 3. Pohlad himself said they're done spending in any meaningful way. Could they add another $5 mil? Sure. That doesn't impress me. And waiting until the deadline to get into massive bidding wars with other teams isn't some magic bullet that inspires me. With the expanded playoffs there's far fewer sellers and far more buyers now than there used to be. It's not a store. They can't just wait and then go pick out the piece they want at the deadline. 4. I haven't said I do know what they're making. I know they're not losing money, though. Really not losing money during all the 90+ loss seasons they've produced over the last 20 years. And, again, me and plenty others aren't claiming that. We are saying their desire to look short-term hurts them in the long-term. St Peter was out last offseason questioning fans and why they didn't show up to support a team that lost the division by 14 games a season after they lost the division by 20 games. Then when the fanbase is actually excited they choose to kneecap themselves and will probably be super confused as to why the fans are mad again. I'm not even screaming "cheap Pohlads," I'm screaming "short-sighted Pohlads!" 5. They "invested" in Buxton at 1/2 the market rate. No, they don't get credit for that. They "invested" in Correa after he fell into their lap at a shortened, and discounted, rate for the 2nd straight offseason. They get 1/2 credit for that. Lopez is a nice deal for sure. When they actually make extensions I'll give them credit for them. They don't get credit for things they haven't yet done. I'm glad you're excited and have high hopes. Not telling you, or anyone else, not to feel that way. I see a team that's in the same general win range as last year which should lead to another division title. I don't see them any closer to the World Series. Is Baltimore mid-market? Cuz I'll take them over the Twins in a heartbeat (no, I'm not going to go cheer for them so I hope nobody says that. I can cheer for the Twins and still acknowledge Baltimore is younger and better than the Twins on paper). I would prefer Polanco, but I agree this is a solid roster. My problem is the Twins were handed the opportunity to make this roster more than "solid" while expanding their fanbase and they chose a short-term payday. It's their business and they can do what they want. But they better not be confused when the attendance still doesn't reach their projections after the decisions they've made.

Are there a lot of fans asking for the Twins to "consistently lose money?" I don't see much of that. I do see a whole lot of fans suggesting making a long-term investment in the team coming off its first playoff win in 2 decades with its fan base the most excited its been in the same time frame as opposed to immediately throwing water on its own consumer's excitement. And there are absolutely teams that make that decision. Ted is suggesting here that the DBacks are making that very choice. Are there fans who scream "cheap Pohlads" every season no matter what? Of course. But this offseason is very different. They had the choice to sacrifice a little financially to dramatically grow their reach with the fanbase. I believe it was Gleeman who said they're in basically 1/4 of households in their viewing area. They chased short-term money over the chance to significantly increase their reach at the perfect time with some actual success last year. Everything came together as they got out from the TV deal they themselves have complained about for years while they were hitting an exciting point in their team development and they chose to go back to the same terrible TV situation while delivering terrible messaging and hurting their connection to their fan base. The DBacks are showing that some teams do take short-term financial hits to improve their long-term outlook. I don't think it's too crazy that fans suggest the Pohlads could make the same decision.

I think you and I are probably 2 of the higher folks around here on Kirilloff. I think he's a natural born hitter and am just hoping to see a healthy season out of him so we can see what he can really do. Julien-Lewis-Kirilloff could be really fun for the next 5-10 years if they all hit their peaks. I would disagree that there's not a spot for Lee right now. I think the DH spot is wide open. I don't think they should be rushing to get him to the majors after his solid, but far from spectacular AAA debut last year. But if he looks like one of their 9 best hitters during the spring they could definitely call him up, start him at 2B, and use the DH spot to fit their 9 best hitters in against righties and lefties. With the way they're talking him up I've actually started leaning towards them maybe hoping he tears spring apart and gives them their 9th hitter against righties and lefties that they traded away with Polanco. I'm so excited that we actually get to see game action starting tonight and we can start discussing actual play instead of all our hypotheticals and predictions!