chpettit19

Yes? I don't believe Carlos Santana is taking Alex Kirilloff's job. They have a DH spot. So while I don't think Kirilloff is a 1B only, there's also a possibility he doesn't play in the OF. I don't think they're going to refuse to play him in the OF, but I don't think the Santana signing is some sort of indication that he isn't playing 1B primarily, or even solely. So I don't believe any story is ended. They have Larnach as a lefthanded OFer so does that end the story on Kirilloff playing the OF? I don't see any story being ended at all, sorry.

Yeah, like I said, I don't see them making any trade that takes away from their current major league lineup. Was just saying, hypothetically, if they did, and those were the 3 options on who they traded, I'd trade Kepler. I love Kirilloff's bat, and if he's worth anything in trade it's because he's putting up more .850 or .900+ OPS months. I'm not trading that.

I don't see what story this ends at all, but you're welcome to complete any story you'd like.

Right now they have an opening at DH so I'd put Kirilloff (and/or Julien) there. But I don't know why they wouldn't put Kirilloff back in the outfield if that's what gives them the best fit. I wouldn't actually trade any of these guys. I think they need to bring a bat in, not trade them away. But if you're giving me Lee, Kirilloff, and Kepler as my options for trading at all between now and the deadline there's no doubt Kepler is the guy I'm trading. His Twins career is almost guaranteed to be over after this season. Kirilloff's and Lee's aren't. I'm trading the guy who's leaving anyways before I'm trading the guys I still have cheap control of.

I remember them saying he's going to focus on 1B, but I don't remember anything about him being a 1B only. It goes against their standard operating procedure to limit him to 1 spot and say they'll never move him. Even Lewis this offseason said he's not totally locked into 3B only. It'd be Kepler vs Kirilloff, to me, because I'd assume they take the future into consideration when making any trade. They certainly did with the Polanco trade. What's coming back in return? What do the standings look like? How is everyone playing? Lots of factors would go into it so it's awfully hard to make too strong of a stance either way right now. But of the the 3 guys you listed 2 of them are controlled into the future and 1 isn't. I actually wouldn't expect them to make any mid-season trades that included sending out part of their major league lineup, but if they did I'd think they'd certainly factor in Kepler's lack of team control. If Lee has convinced them that he's a better hitter than Kirilloff they're certainly not trading Lee, but if Kirilloff has built up enough value to be a worthwhile trade chip why would they want to move him? If anyone from the major league lineup is being traded at the deadline I'd assume it's a guy who's about to be a free agent (Kepler, Farmer (unlikely his option is picked up), Santana types).

I'd imagine it's pretty hard to get the value right for both teams in a Kirilloff trade right now. The deadline would probably be a more realistic time to see him dealt. Unless another team wants to pay you as if his May or July production from last year is his full season production it's probably best that the Twins see what kind of start he gets off to. And then I agree with @DJL44 and it becomes a question of Kepler or Kirilloff and there'd be a whole lot of other factors that went into that decision. But I don't know that I'd expect a Kirilloff trade before opening day.

Those are basically Jorge Polanco type OPS+ numbers with the 1 spike year in '64 being a standout. You got Jorge Polanco in the HOF?

So his glove and the fact that he played for 23 seasons. Fair.

@Schmoeman5 I'm not taking a shot at Brooks, but there's literally no way a hitter with his career stats makes the HOF without his glove. Like he's nowhere near a HOF bat. He had a nice, not great, but nice, 4 year run from 64-67 with the bat, but otherwise he was nothing special at all. He's in the HOF for his glove.

.280 and 20 isn't why he's in the HOF. He's in the HOF for his glove 100%.

Mind blowing that the business folks don't seem to see urgency in that problem. I have to imagine they recognize the problem, but they seem so confused when they don't get fans that I question how much they're really understanding the mindset of the casual fan.

With maybe a little more speed and WAY more walks. But the concern with him has always been that he doesn't impact the ball much better than a Madrigal type. That's really his make or break skill. How hard is he going to hit the ball to give him the chance to really use his eye.

Yeah, I think that's the more likely setup if/when he establishes himself in the bigs. The game is changing and teams are leaning more and more into just getting their best overall hitters at the top of the lineup (Acuna being the most obvious example, with Shohei rumored to be taking over for Betts in the leadoff spot in LA being another). Against righties I'm betting it's Martin 9, Julien 1, then into the Lewis, Correa, Buxton types. A 9 hole hitter with a .380+ OBP and some steals would be really nice in front of the boom those other 4 guys can bring.

Carlos Correa was signed for 6 years and 200 million. Pretty big long-term contract to leave out there. Along with Vazquez for 3 years and 30 mil. You left 43.3 million in annual contracts out.

This is a fun way to look at the roster. Expansion is definitely coming so it'll be interesting to see what the roster looks like then and do this exercise again. I think I'd probably go with the same 15 guys if this were happening tomorrow. Who they'd lose is always going to be tough to predict until you see all the available guys from other teams so you know where the strengths are. Fun exercise and will be really interesting to see how things go sometime in the next 5-10 years when it happens for real.

The TV revenue is not widely reported. We didn't know how much they were making on their TV deal until the bankruptcy hearing after their entire contract ended. They've now hidden their new 1 year deal. What's "pretty accurate" for attendance numbers? Where do those numbers come from? Now it's 4% variance instead of 5? 5% variance on the Twins revenue you showed is an extra 13.5 million. An extra 13.5 million jumps them from 25th in profit to 19th. An extra 5% on Boston's number is +/-26 million. That could move them from 4th in profit to easily #1 or down to #11. These aren't facts. They're guesses.

No, you said "I don't take hard positions without facts." But you take "hard positions" on the Twins spending constantly on here. Those are not facts you presented. If you're going to talk down to/about people who make claims without facts while claiming to have facts it's not petty to point out that you're not actually providing facts. Don't claim to have facts and then say "it went without saying that these are not audited." They aren't facts.

So not facts. Guesses. But guesses that you like so you claim are facts. Edit to add: The Braves and Toronto being the exception as those are actually team provided data sets.

I'm 100% on the "create new fans" bandwagon. When you haven't won a playoff game in 2 decades you've given an entire generation 0 playoff wins. That's hard to build upon your core fan base. On top of that you have a bunch of really bad teams that finish towards, or at, the bottom of a mostly bad division so aren't even reaching the playoffs. Then you mix in the recent years of lack of streaming options during the cord cutting boom, which is not their fault necessarily as they were already locked into a TV deal, and it makes it worse. But doubling down on that by knowing you're hurting your ability to reach more people by chasing a 1 year payment for a worse deal than the one you've been complaining about for years because you want as much revenue as you can get for 1 year is 100% their fault. And then they top it all off with St Peter and Pohlad being absolutely horrendous with messaging and you've just put a cherry on top of your "how to alienate fans and shoot yourself in the foot" sundae.

Bit of a chicken and egg situation here. Who's supposed to spend first? The team or the fans?

Do the Twins not have PR people? Why are they allowing St Peter and Pohlad out to talk about these things? Whether there's reasonable explanations for any of their decisions or not, it is just such terrible messaging over and over out of the business department folks. Let Falvey and Levine do the talking, and have them stick to the patented "ownership gives us all the tools we need to compete" line and pump up the roster. "Tone-deaf" and "right-size" are phrases just begging to be spun around and used against them. Especially when it comes 2 offseasons after St Peter publicly questioned fan support for a team that completely collapsed and ended up 14 games back in a horrible division the year after it finished dead last and 20 games back in a horrible division. Just stay in your offices and figure out how to get your product in front of more people.

#1. Bellinger for that original Correa deal #2. Montgomery for that original Correa deal #3. Snell for 1 year I'm not as sold on the offense as many others. I think there's a clear need for Bellinger's bat as is, but I want as good of Buxton/Kirilloff insurance as I can get also. And he covers both of them about as well as one could hope for. I think it's easier to bullpen their way through some playoff games if the rotation falters than it is to platoon their way to a good offense if the lineup falters. Give me the bat.

Where I have a problem is with the idea that they really had to do much of anything to turn their 40 mil investment into one that's worth close to 2 bil now. That's more just the nature of pro sports teams. Pick any NBA, MLB, or NFL team that you feel is the worst run of all. That team has seen a massive increase in their valuation despite being horribly run (assuming they weren't just purchased). Look at the Wolves right across the street from the Twins. At one point in the last few years they held some pretty horrible records for the most losing franchise in major North American sports history. They were just sold for $1.5 billion. That's kind of my point here. Pro sports teams aren't normal businesses that some people want to compare them to. They don't have to succeed to succeed. You can be the losingest team in history and turn a $94 million purchase into a $1.5 billion sale (what Glen Taylor did with the Wolves).

Why is there a good chance it's been eaten already? I'm told by you and MLR that their 30 million BAM money was why they could spend last year and since it's gone that's why they can't spend. Why did they lose money in 2022? What's your reasoning there? Other than 2020, why would we believe the Twins ever lose money? Your honest opinion is that the Twins literally couldn't have survived without Target Field? You honestly believe that? The business wasn't possibly functional without a publicly funded stadium? That's your honest belief? More power to ya, I guess. I'm not going in circles. My argument all offseason from the second Falvey told us they were slashing payroll is that it was a shortsighted move that focused on immediate profits instead of long-term growth. After it was announced they were wrong about ending blackouts because they went with short-term money instead of building their fanbase I again said it was a shortsighted move that focused on immediate profits instead of long-term growth. As you've noted, you've continually told me "this isn't the hill to die on." But now you literally said you did exactly what I'm asking them to do with your own business. That's not an emotional conclusion. You literally said you took a short-term hit to "build a long term winner." I've spent all offseason suggesting they take a short-term hit to "build a long term winner" and you've told me that's a ridiculous idea. And, again, quit telling me how to be a fan. If you don't want to have a back and forth with someone you disagree with then just ignore my comments. Me disagreeing with you isn't automatically an "emotional conclusion," and even if it is I'm entitled to it. So if you don't like it just ignore me and move on with the rest of your life. You fan however you want to fan and I'll fan how I want to.

The Twins get all the massive tax breaks of any big business. Other big businesses don't get their buildings built for them. The scaling matters. Pretending they're the same as every other business is ignoring the realities. They aren't. Their tax benefits are on a different scale, yes. But then they add 500 million in tax payer money to directly pay for their facilities. Those "different degrees" matter, and change things drastically. Oh, so now George owns a hot dog franchise? There used to be a Dairy Queen by my house. Franchise, right? It didn't produce a good enough product. Now it's closed. How many seasons of bad product do you think it would take the Twins to close? How realistic do you think it is that the Twins just close their doors someday? Oh wait, you invested your own money into your product to improve it? You didn't just ask your customers to continue supporting it while refusing to invest your own money so you actively took a loss for 3 years to better improve your position? You're literally telling me you did what many of us are asking the Twins to do while you tell me I'm being crazy to think that should be an option. My argument this entire offseason, while you've been telling me not to die on this hill, is that the Pohlads should take this opportunity coming off the excitement from last season and not kill their momentum, but instead take a purposeful loss (if that's what is needed) to build a "long term winner." So a "regular" business like yours should do that, but it's crazy for me to think the Twins should do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the Twins play in the same business pool as you and my argument about purposeful losses for long-term improvement is valid or the Twins don't play in the same business pool as you. You can't have it both ways. My argument all offseason has been to eat some money this year if that's what's needed to build their fan base and help drive more revenue for a better long-term situation. You're now telling me that's a very normal practice. In fact you did it for 3 years, I'm only asking for 1 (to start). But you've been telling me not to die on this hill. Interesting.