Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,226

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    168

 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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    Bit of a chicken and egg situation here. Who's supposed to spend first? The team or the fans?
  2. chpettit19
    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.
  3. chpettit19
    #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.
  4. chpettit19
    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).
  5. chpettit19
    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.
  6. chpettit19
    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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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."
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. chpettit19
    How is it increasing by at least 20-25 million next year?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...