Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,094

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    Taxpayers built the building your business is in? As in the government literally paid for that building to be built? Not tax benefits. Not tax breaks. Literally paid the company that built your building. That's your claim? That tax payer dollars have built every commercial building in America? Dang, I guess I learned something new today. The reality of the Twins business is very different than the reality of George's, yes. Until George is getting paid by other hot dog companies simply to have hot dogs, even if they're bad, then, yes, he is dealing with a different business reality than the Twins. You own a business? If your business had a 13 year stretch where it was successful at it's job 5 years and failed 8 would your business still be racking in profits? The Twins have had a .500 record 5 of the last 13 seasons. And they continue to rack in profits. Their business reality simply is not the same as yours.
  2. chpettit19
    And I'll wait for you to explain to me how many other businesses have anti-trust laws for them since the 1950s. How many other businesses get taxpayer dollars to build their facilities. How many other businesses get paid directly by their competitors so the product they produce literally doesn't matter because their competitors just need them there. Your "George and his hot dog" analogy doesn't work. The Twins aren't always producing a "fantastic hot dog." But it doesn't matter. They're literally paid by the 29 other teams whether their hot dog is edible or not. The Pohlads make money every year whether their "hot dog" is good or not. George doesn't have the luxury of not caring about how good his hot dog is and still making money. George doesn't get his hot dog restaurant built by tax payers because he threatens politicians with leaving if they don't do it. The Twins are not George and his hot dog restaurant. The Twins hadn't won a single playoff game in nearly 2 decades, but I'm supposed to praise them because they were able to lose cheaply? Yeah, no thanks. If George doesn't make a "fantastic" hot dog for 2 decades he goes out of business. The Twins aren't George and the Twins are literally paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year by their competitors simply to exist. They don't have to be good, they don't have to try. They simply have to be there to give other teams someone to play. And, on a side note, quit telling me what should and shouldn't effect my fandom. Some fans care about titles. Some care about well played games throughout the year. Some care about having players around a long time so they can get to know them. We all care about different things when it comes to the teams we cheer for. I can choose to be a fan however I want to. I'm happy for you if you don't care about payroll or the processes behind building the team. I do.
  3. chpettit19
    Interesting. Spotrac is showing very different numbers. I take back my stance on Duran/Jax if your numbers are correct. Probably a prorated thing for that being the 2020 season that I didn't take into account.
  4. chpettit19
    It's an article about the payroll so it's pretty reasonable to expect some opinions that are going to be negative. Especially when there's some pretty disputable numbers. An increase of 2.61 for Farmer, Jackson, and Alcala? I'll take the under on that. By at least 9 million. Duran and Jax each getting an extra million in arb 1? Josh Hader didn't even get that. I'll take that arb 1 group for an extra 8 instead of 10. Arb 2 and 3 players? Jeffers will be back for an extra 2.5-3.5, and Kirlloff is a decent bet for an extra mil or 2. The other 4 are prime non-tender guys as a league average hitter utility guy and middle relievers. So I'll take that group for an extra 5-6 instead of 9. It's an article based on "worst case" scenario for spending. If Farmer is on this team next year it means a bunch of guys most fans are counting on in 2024 failed. If a 37 year old Jay Jackson is on this team in 2025 it means things have gone terribly with their pitching prospects. I just took a pretty straight forward 14 to 15 mil off his projection. Now it's an increase of 5 million. So, yeah, there's going to be some pushback on every article, and when it's about the payroll and it's easy to combat the numbers provided there's going to be pushback about "pocket protecting."
  5. chpettit19
    From a business perspective they simply existed. They didn't build some wonderful product that drove revenue. They threatened to take their ball home if they didn't get free money. If you can't understand that professional sports teams get free stuff no matter how good their product is I can't help you with these topics. None of us can.
  6. chpettit19
    We must be reading different posts then. Because there are many that very clearly say they'd rather have young guys with options over having Santana, etc. Like a lot. We all deal with budgets in the real world. We can also all understand that the Twins aren't going out of business if they lose some money this year, but choosing a wider reach with their audience could lead to increased revenue in the future instead of making the short-term decision to make money in 2024. I spent more money than I brought in last year to do some garage and courtyard renovations at my house. I'm in the middle of renovating my kitchen and have spent more than I've brought in so far this year. Sometimes people choose to invest in things knowing they won't be maximizing their financial gains. Let's stop acting like that's some sort of outrageous idea. I'm glad you're happy that the Pohlads are going to make money this year. I'm not as thrilled. I'd rather they invest in their product. To each their own. I'm complaining about spending this year and I am also saying I am OK with the team not filling holes with the 5-10+ mil vets. Just because you don't like that stance doesn't mean people aren't saying it. Yes, I am OK with Correa struggling while hurt while I'm not OK with Gallo and Vazquez struggling while they aren't hurt. I'd rather take fewer big swings than many small swings. I'd rather they fill the Taylor and Solano roles with young guys and spend bigger on better players. And, yes, I realize that's a risk and if they get 1 or 2 of those big deals wrong things can go way south. But I'd rather them take a chance than have things still go way south while they take a ton of tiny swings on guys who's best outcomes are league average players.
  7. chpettit19
    What did the Twins do to "earn" a new stadium? They simply existed. That's not earning. They get paid by the rest of the league simply to exist. They didn't build a great product or do anything to get their revenue sharing checks or Target Field. They simply existed. So, yes, I call that unearned money.
  8. chpettit19
    Most of the posts on this site these days is about how great the system is and how they are going with all younger guys and don't need free agents anyways. So, yes, based on the posts here I'd think people would be just fine without free agent additions. I'd personally be just fine with no more Farmer, Santana, Vazquez, Gallo 5-10+ mil deals on older vets.
  9. chpettit19
    Twins have basically the same schedule this year. They just aren't really into skipping starters. They're all about rest and recovery for their entire roster. Just don't ever see them skipping starts until late in the season when it comes to lining up postseason rotation.
  10. chpettit19
    The Twins are treated as a stand-alone entity, and I'm totally good with that. Where I disagree is the idea that the lack of certainty in media revenues after this year should lead to them slashing payroll this year, and that blackouts are just an "annoyance." They're a stand-alone entertainment entity. If you can't get your entertainment in front of people who want to be entertained by it it should be viewed as far more than just an annoyance to fans. It's actively hurting their ability to increase revenue for their stand-alone entity. Their choice to view the Twins as an entity that needs to produce profit year in and year out is a business decision that leads to short-sighted decisions that hurt their ability to grow their fanbase and revenue. They rake in profits while providing a horrible, unentertaining product for years, but now that they have what could be a good, entertaining product they choose to not risk their profit and make the short-sighted decision to take as much money as they can instead of trying to expand their fanbase. It's not selfish fans being unreasonable, it's dedicated fans saying "we literally paid for your building and have made you 10s of millions of dollars a year while you provided us with nothing so now we'd like to see you guys sacrifice a little of your unearned money to provide us with the best product you can that we can actually watch." The Pohlads #1 priority is making profits. Totally fine. It's their business they can do what they want. But then they need to tell Dave St Peter to quit questioning their consumers and telling us they aren't tone-deaf. Nobody is asking the Pohalds to sell a bank to buy a FA pitcher, we're asking them to invest in their product like any other stand-alone entity has to do from time to time to improve their customer base and revenue. Not an unreasonable ask.
  11. chpettit19
    Money doesn't start getting tight until 2027. Any reasonable expectation for raises for the young guys is easily mitigated by the loss of Kepler, Vazquez, Farmer, Santana, Paddack, and DeSclafani the next 3 seasons. Correa's raise is immediately wiped out the next season as his contract starts to decrease.
  12. chpettit19
    They had some off days early last year and still ran their normal 5 man rotation to start the year. I think they use it as a natural way to give a little extra rest to arms early, so I don't expect them to skip their #5 starter early.
  13. chpettit19
    The new CBA provides incentive to not keep top prospects down, but not someone like Martin. Rookie of the year, top MVP finishes in their first 3 years, or top Cy Young finishes in their first 3 years are what's needed. Teams still have motivation to send guys like Martin down for 2 weeks.
  14. chpettit19
    It is 100% speculation. But that's all we can do at this point when talking about how good we think the team is, and judging how we feel they did this offseason. It doesn't mean anything, but it's what we all do when building our expectations for the season. We do our best to guess what the likelihood is of each outcome this season. I put my guess in that 85 win range, too. 84-88 is kind of my thought in general for the most likely outcome this year. I don't think it's pessimistic to suggest some players will regress. I think it's realistic. More young players go backwards than go forwards. Matt Wallner had a 139 OPS+ last year. Julien was 130. Lewis 150. I'd say I'm being a realist to suggest that at least 1 of those guys takes a step backwards from those numbers over the course of a full season when the league will come at them with very specific game plans to exploit their weaknesses. It's time for them to make adjustments to the adjustments. That is not an easy task, and I don't think it's too crazy to suggest that isn't a smooth process. I certainly hope everyone gets better, but that just isn't very likely. No matter what ages they're at.
  15. chpettit19
    How is it increasing by at least 20-25 million next year?
  16. chpettit19
    I can certainly understand why teams are nervous about a long-term deal for him, 100%. I'd love him on a deal similar to Correa's first one here. I think he would take this team from "good enough to win a horrid central" to "legit playoff contender." I don't at all expect him to sign here. Don't even expect them to make him a "real" offer. But I'd certainly take him on a 3 year deal, opt outs or not.
  17. chpettit19
    I think projecting how they'll do is the FO's job, and what we all try to do here playing armchair GM. No, I'd say the team rostered now is about the same as the team rostered end of year. I think the losses of 2023 Polanco, Gray, Maeda, Solano, MAT, and Pagan are not compensated for by the addition of 2024 DeSclafani, Santana, and a bunch of relievers almost nobody had heard of until they came here. That isn't to say that bringing those guys back would've replaced their 2023 performances, but I don't believe the contributions they made have been replaced. And I don't think every young player will improve so any improvements are simply making up for the loss of those other guys. I don't see a ton of improvement opportunities for Julien and Wallner offensively. So, at best, they're a wash for me, with a decent chance of being worse. Improvements from them over a full season would make them both borderline MVP candidates. I don't think that's likely. Same thing with Lewis, but I could see him actually being a borderline MVP candidate in a full year. I do expect Correa to be better than end of year Correa. I expect Martin, Lee, et al to debut this year, but I don't see any 2024 difference makers in there (I know that's not a popular take around here). I don't think the chances our 26/27/28 year old starters take sizeable steps forward is as likely as many others seem to. Could it happen? Of course. But is it likely? No. Buxton is the ultimate wildcard. He could make this roster better all on his own simply by playing 130+ games in CF. But I'm not willing to bet on that. I love to hear he's feeling great now, but, other than 2023, he's always "feeling great" at the start of spring. So I'm just not willing to bet on his health anymore. Although I fully acknowledge a healthy Buxton would be an absolute season changer. I can definitely see why people are excited. There is more talent here than what we're used to for sure. And I'm excited, too. But there's also very real concerns all over the roster. I can see a path to 95 wins and a deep playoff push. But I can just as easily see a path to 75 wins and the Twins basically switching spots with Cleveland from last year when their young core couldn't reproduce their performances. I think the offense has a gaping Polanco sized hole in it. I think the likelihood of improvements amongst the "young" players (pitchers or hitters) is pretty equally balanced with regression from others in that same group. So I think they're a wash. I think any Correa improvement is balanced out with the loss of Polanco. And I think the Ober, Ryan, Varland improvements are balanced by the loss of Gray and likely some regression in that same trio as well. I think they moved some pieces around and ended up with basically the same talent level. And that's disappointing coming off an ALDS appearance and being paired with a payroll slashing.
  18. chpettit19
    Why can we only look at the beginning of the year? Why can't I compare the roster on the last day of the season to the roster today? I sure hope that's what the FO is doing. I hope they're looking at how the season ended and the roster they had at that time and are/have been trying to improve upon that. I don't get why they'd look at their expectations for Jeffers, for example, going into 2023 and use that to decide if they've improved their chances of winning a world series in 2024 while ignoring what actually took place in 2023. I think it's nonsense to compare opening days when talking about if this team is likely to be better or worse than last year. The goal shouldn't be to improve on the OD 2023 roster for 2024, it should be to improve upon the last day 2023 roster for 2024.
  19. chpettit19
    I think the first 2 lies are tied to the same, mishandled situation...the TV contract. They didn't think they were going back to Ballys. They didn't think it was even going to be an option because they were going to fold up shop after 2024. So they were expecting to jump on the MLB streaming situation as the 4th option and were just waiting for that to all be finalized and see what kind of money that could produce, knowing it'd likely be significantly less. So they tried to balance the "we're cutting payroll" news with "but there won't be any blackouts!" news, but in the end it turned out they cut payroll and continued with the blackouts. That's where my frustrations come in the most. I believe they planned their payroll around the idea that they wouldn't be getting much, if any, TV money this year. But they are. And that didn't change their payroll plan. That's frustrating. And incredibly poorly handled messaging, if you ask me. You're not improving your viewership base, in fact you openly admit that it's likely going to be worse this year than last year as more people have "cut the cord," but you also hurt yourself by announcing a payroll decrease and tying it to the idea of expanded viewing options. Just horribly done, in my opinion. As for lie 3, I think it's actually true. The FO, as we speak about it, is trying to improve the team. The FO we talk about is the baseball ops department, and they're trying to improve the team within the limitations provided by the ownership/business department. The ownership/business department side isn't looking to improve the team, they're looking to improve profits. They have a desire to maximize profits in the near-term instead of working to improve them in the long-term. They could've decided to say "no" to Ballys and gone with the less lucrative "no blackouts" option to help grow their fanbase. Instead they went for the option with more money involved and set themselves up for Dave St Pete to again question why fans don't seem to be as supportive as he expected. Hopefully he throws in another "we're not tone deaf" like he did in his Athletic interview last week. So, really, all 3 came down to the TV deal and how they chose to handle that. But "lie" 3 really isn't a lie unless you're talking about the business department and not baseball ops department. Because when you're this deep into a baseball ops gig like Falvine is you don't have the luxury of not trying to improve the team. Not many people in those positions feel confident enough in their job status to pitch a step back in year 7 after an ALDS appearance.
  20. chpettit19
    Not a huge difference, but he wasn't DFA'd, he was non-tendered. He was never sent through waivers, he just didn't get tendered an arbitration offer in his last year of availability because he would've been in the 20+ range and they didn't think he was worth that. He still got 17.5 mil for 1 season with the Cubs. I fully agree that he isn't signed because teams don't trust him for the long-term deal he wants, but he was never DFA'd, and still got a huge amount on his 1 year deal last year.
  21. chpettit19
    Letting Carlos Santana stand in the way of signing Bellinger would be a massive mistake. Trade Santana for a bag of balls if that's the concern. Why would we let a lesser player who's 10 years older stand in the way of signing the better player? The Twins not being willing to spend the money should be the only reason they don't sign Bellinger. Not Carlos Santana.
  22. chpettit19
    And his 2 years before that were .655 and .636. He's 38. His big bounce back was "pretty close to league average." As a 1B/DH "pretty close to league average" isn't cutting it. Especially at the age of 38 with his 2 previous seasons being well below league average. I don't think their plan should be to have Santana in the lineup everyday against righties. They should be able to do better than that at a bat first or bat only position.
  23. chpettit19
    I want nothing to do with Santana hitting everyday against righties. But I do acknowledge that it's likely in the plans for him to hit against them way more than I'd like. Castro is an interesting guy to me. He thrived in a limited role, but that "thriving" was a league average hitter overall. What is he really? Do they really want him in an everyday role as a starter? I don't think it's out of the question, but it'll be interesting to see what he looks like this year.
  24. chpettit19
    I don't think they're handing Martin an opening day job. At best he's likely looking at a minimum of 2 weeks in St Paul to get an extra year of control. If Larnach hasn't figured out how to hit an off speed pitch it's probably the end of the line for him, but this article is about a spring position battle for the last bench spot and I think Larnach is the clear favorite for that because he's likely the opening day DH as of right now. Not ideal and it's why I still strongly dislike the Polanco trade. But I agree he's far less encouraging than I'd like in that spot right now.
  25. chpettit19
    If you can't throw you're not healthy. And I'm no Dr so what do I really know, but didn't he also say half the time his shoulder hurt after hitting? That doesn't sound like a guy I want on my opening day roster. Still plenty of time to go before opening day, but if a guy who can't throw and has pain after hitting half the time beats you out it's probably the end of the road for you. I like Miranda. I actually think he's being overlooked by many on the TD threads (what have you done for me lately mixed with offseason hope fest with prospects), but I don't think his bat is DH only good. He's going to need to figure out the glove if he wants to earn an everyday job, I think. His 2022 114 OPS+ isn't DH worthy. But it is certainly roster worthy if he's healthy and back to a more disciplined hitter.
×
×
  • Create New...