chpettit19

I don't know that the Twins should really be adding much beyond Kepler and Polanco in that deal. Certainly not multiple top-20 prospects or MLB ready prospects. I think the 3 player veteran swap of pitching for hitting is probably pretty close to even to start with. And it's an intriguing deal.

Where do his hard hit rate and HR rates rank? If I'm not mistaken his hard hit percentage has been getting worse year over year, and I don't expect him to be able to recover that. HRs kill you in the playoffs, and I don't trust him to not give up HRs in the playoffs. I didn't say Joe Ryan is bad. I'm glad to have him on the staff. But I think he's likelier to regress than progress from here on out.

Are they really "young," though? Ober is older than Lopez. Ryan is the same age. They're not 24, they're 27 and 28. That's not exactly "young" in the world of baseball. It's certainly not out of the question that they'd improve, but I wouldn't bet on it. I actually would bet on Ober improving more than Ryan. I actually think Ryan starts going backwards and ends up as a #4 or 5 over the rest of his team control. His stuff simply isn't that good, and he has a real HR problem that isn't going to be easy to solve as long as he's a guy who relies on his FB over 50% of the time, and lives at the top of the zone. But we shall see.

If you buy the notion that Lopez took that step forward because of the sweeper the Twins taught him then I'd put the chances of the guys who've been with the Twins for multiple years already having the same kind of breakout to be pretty low. Every trade is a crapshoot. It involves risk. You have to give something to get something. Trading Arraez was a crapshoot. That's why Falvey and Levine make the big bucks. I don't think Ryan or Ober are better than #3 starters in a playoff rotation, and I'd take a shot at moving them for someone who could be a #1 or 2 in a playoff rotation. But I also didn't think Lopez was more than a #3 so what do I know? It's all a risk, and I think having them as a possible piece in a trade for someone who's already shown they can be better should be an option. We'll see where the FO goes.

I'd put Luzardo, Perez (never going to happen), and Garrett ahead of them, but I think the other 3 are guys I'd put in the same tier as Ryan and Ober. I'm not really interested in giving up useful assets for a piece like that. But I'd think there's other "high impact arms" available for less than Luzardo because they have less control than Luzardo. Established frontline arms with 3 years of control are not cheap. As @nicksaviking suggested, I'd be interested in using someone from the Ryan and Ober tier to gain a guy from the higher tier. If that means that top tier pitcher has less control, so be it, but I'd want to feel comfortable that I could extend them. But I think the cost of someone in that tier is going to shock, and/or upset, people. Just like the Arraez deal last year. They're going to have to take a chance on someone, and I hope they pick the right pieces to keep.

I'm with you on this idea. I also think one of them should be considered a possible trade piece. My #1 priority this offseason would be bringing in someone I can pair with Lopez at the top of the rotation for the next 4 years (that may not be someone with 4 years of control, but someone I believe I could extend to 4 years). I think this FO can develop guys that fill the rest of the rotation (Ryan, Ober types), but I haven't seen anything that suggests they can really nail a frontline, playoff pitcher yet. The window is opening (we hope), and I don't want to rely on someone making that jump if I can go get someone who's a near sure thing instead. Pair 2 guys at the top and have faith you can fill the rest internally while focusing on adding the needed offense moving forward. Adding Ryan or Ober to a trade is certainly a plausible way to do that, and I hope it's something they're considering.

He'd be a wonderful fit for the rotation, but I think he'd cost more than the Twins should be willing to pay. I think it's far more likely they trade from the Cabrera, Rogers, Meyer group than the Luzardo, Perez, Garrett group. While I wouldn't be completely shocked by a Luzardo trade, I think we'd likely be shocked by the Luzardo price. Feels more like a "you have to blow us away" type deal.

I like the Lugo and Wacha signings for them. I think "raising their floor" is a good way to describe it. Certainly doesn't make them contenders, but their offseason is at least raising the expectations. I believe they also brought in Kyle Wright, but I'm not sure what his health status is. He was hurt in 2023 I think. But he's another legit major league pitcher if he's healthy. There's something to be said about simply getting actual major leaguers. Can Witt take another step? Can Pasquantino come back healthy and form a dangerous duo with Witt? Can Melendez take another step or 2 forward? Those are the key questions for that team to really start to push towards that .500 mark. The Tigers are doing things as well. Not big splash moves, but they're improving. The central is still going to be a bad division, but the Twins only won 87 games last year. They weren't some 100 win powerhouse. I have no doubt they'll make moves, and they have to. Chicago is going down, but Cleveland is always a threat to just find so much pitching that they're a threat, and the Royal and Tigers are at least trying. Division will still be bad, but I don't think it'll be the cakewalk it was in 2023. Twins are going to have to work for it.

It's a great deal for MLB. Only thing that could've been better was it being a NY team so it was on the east coast instead of west. I get that it sucks for fans of teams like the Twins, but it's great for the league to have him in a big market and have that team be able to load up more. The league loves it cuz it drives revenue. The owners of teams like the Twins love it cuz it puts more revenue sharing money in their pocket while they don't have to even try. There's a reason the owners of small and mid-market teams don't just force changes, and it's that they like this. It's not fun for fans in those markets, but most of the owners in those markets aren't good for the fans in those markets. Until all 30 owners are actually trying to win I'm not going to be mad at the ones who are. What isn't good for the league is to have a bunch of owners happy to collect revenue sharing and never really invest to win. That's way worse than the big guys actually trying, in my opinion.

They'd have the 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027 drafts to replace Festa and Raya. If they can't do that they should be fired. If Lopez, Ryan, Ober, and Varland are so good as to lock down rotation spots through 2027, how many more of the young guys do we need? Especially if you bring in another controllable arm through trade this offseason. Are Festa and Raya going to simply be injury replacements between now and 2028? Neither of them could be called up this year if that's the case because they'd run out of options by 2027. Then what are they going to do with Lewis, Culpepper, Prielipp, Ohl, etc? Having 4 or 5 guys locked into rotation spots for 4 years is exactly when you trade some guys to upgrade the team because you don't have anywhere to put them anyways. Don't trade all of them, but 2 of them shouldn't hurt that bad.

They pay taxes in both states when they play games, and then get a credit for one of them thus meaning they're really paying just their state tax unless they live in a non-tax state and then they're only paying taxes in the states where they play their games.

Fascinating.

If the Twins can't replace some starters by 2028 they're doomed anyways.

I'm confused on how all that works. It doesn't make sense to me that he'd be able to dodge any taxes this way since he signed the contract for work in California, and is being paid for work done for a California company. Somebody much smarter than me is going to have to explain to me exactly how this all works.

I believe the league does between 10 and 11 billion in revenue each year. If the MLB were to follow the NFL situation it'd be about 51% that has to go to players, which sets the floor. Let's call it 10.5 bil in revenue. 51% of that is 5.355 bil. Divided amongst 30 teams the floor would be 178.5 mil.

In a "salary floor/salary cap" world the revenues are all (mostly) shared. That's how the NFL does it. It's not about what each individual team can make in revenue, it's about what the entire league makes. The NFL rule (I believe still after the new CBA) is that 51% of total football revenue has to go to the players. That sets the floor for the salary cap. The Jags and Cowboys don't make the same revenue, but because the league shares revenue they're both able to, and forced to, spend to at least the floor. A floor wouldn't come in without a drastic change to revenue sharing.

I agree payroll matters. But, honestly, I'm not sure why I should care about "right or fair" when some owners are clearly not interested in winning, but instead are just happy to take their revenue sharing dollars, put it in their pockets, and watch their franchise appreciate year over year. If every owner were actually interested in winning I'd have a different stance. But they aren't. So at that point I'm all for the big guys going out and flexing their muscle in an attempt to win. I hate the Yankees. Always have, always will. But Steinbrenner wanted to win, played within the rules, and did everything he could to achieve that goal. I'll never be mad at that. Jealous? Absolutely. But not mad. Owners who take their fan's money, their publicly subsidized stadiums, and their revenue sharing and make no attempt to actually invest in winning are what make me mad. The Dodgers are the ones showing an interest in competitiveness. Cohen showed an interest in competitiveness. The Padres have shown an interest in competitiveness. I'll never be mad at them. I want them to lose because they aren't the Twins, not because they're actually trying to win and are using every tool at their disposal to do it. The reason the rules are how they are despite there being more have nots than haves is because the teams are just businesses to most of the have nots. I don't know why I'd want them to have a fair playing field when they're not even really trying to compete in the field in the first place.

Almost 0 players would do that, but isn't that all the more reason to praise Ohtani instead of being mad that him and the Dodgers are doing this? The CBT break is definitely nice, but taking only 2 mil in actual payments while providing your team with reportedly 50-100 mil in extra revenue makes it much easier for that team to manage their finances, no? It wouldn't be helpful for the Twins to be able to pay Correa 2 mil now while putting aside extra revenue he produces that they can earn interest on or invest or whatever they do to increase that stash to be able to then pay him 30 mil down the road when their revenue would be expected to have grown anyways? They couldn't use that extra 30 mil this season because they aren't in the luxury tax? I'd think saving the literal cash is just as important as the CBT implications. Not sure why not being in the luxury tax makes it unrealistic for the Twins to do creative contracts that manipulate their spending. If the modest cost moves are just as good why do we care about the Dodgers spending or not spending on Ohtani? If you don't need to make big deals why do we care that other teams do? Shouldn't we be happy they are if the big deals aren't really helpful?

Why? Would that make a significant difference? The only way to truly show he wants to win is to take less than half of what he could get? Seems dramatic. There's also the push from the MLBPA to maximize your value so the guys who come after you can maximize theirs. He's getting paid, helping future players, and still setting himself to be on the best team in baseball while allowing them more flexibility to improve their team.

If the Twins showed a larger investment in winning maybe they'd have players like Ohtani wanting to come to their team on creative deals within the rules which would also raise their revenue they could produce through advertising and thus be able to afford more good players and continue the cycle. Of course the Twins are never going to be able to spend like the Dodgers, but I'm told nearly everyday on TD that "payroll doesn't matter" and "you can't buy championships" so why do we care? The Dodgers have a big advantage in their market, but they also run their business significantly better than the Twins. I just don't understand why people are upset with players and teams trying to win. Is it a bummer for us that we're in a smaller market than LA and we have owners who don't really care to invest in winning? Absolutely. But I don't know why that makes people upset with the teams that are actually trying invest in winning within the rules that the players and owners both agree to. But to each their own.

I'd argue the Rangers just clearly bought a World Series.

The best part is that it wasn't even the Dodgers innovative idea, it was Ohtani's (and probably his reps as they likely know the rules better than him). Ohtani asked for this because he cares about winning. He picked the Dodgers because he cares about winning. He sacrificed hundreds of millions in actual cash by deferring nearly his entire deal because he cares about winning. Why are we mad that a player and team are actually trying to win?

By all reports I've seen it was Ohtani's idea to do it this way, not the Dodgers. Ohtani wants to win so he wanted them to be able to have the extra cash to be able to put as many good pieces around him as possible. He's doing what many fans have begged players to do and sacrificed some cash in the name of winning. Why are we mad at the Dodgers for listening to what Ohtani and his representatives proposed? Why don't other teams just try to do the same thing? NFL teams take advantage of their CBA rules about contracts all the time. Why are we mad at teams for trying their hardest to win within the rules, especially when the player is the one suggesting the strategy? I wish the Twins would actually put in this kind of creative effort towards winning instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "we need to cut payroll."

They've already "cut salary." The losses to free agency has already dropped them below the range that was reported. If they then trade any of the "expensive" vets they have even more space. All I'm trying to say is that they should be able to afford Hoskins at 15 mil even with a reduced payroll. It's a shame to have the excitement of their first playoff wins in 19 years, and have Target Field rocking, and then immediately respond by announcing payroll cuts and setting the table for a possible drop from the top of an already horrid division. Hopefully they have some tricks up their sleeves. I'm not handing the division to Detroit or Cleveland yet, but the FO better do some real work before opening day if they want to keep their top spot locked up. Certainly aren't making it easy on themselves.

I'm pretty much right in line with Nick. That's how I rank these guys, too. Unless Pablo falls apart I have no problem with him starting a playoff game. And I was against him being the guy they got from the Marlins so that shows what I know. Ober is good when he's strong. If he maintains his strength through the whole season I'd trust him as the #3 guy for sure, and maybe even the #2. He's had a ton of injury problems, and clearly tired as the season got longer. Which is obviously to be expected when he absolutely crushed his previous lifetime high in innings. If he stays healthy for a second straight year, and doesn't clearly tire, I'd have him as my #3 guy without much concern. Although, he can get a little homer prone, and that's not ideal for a playoff starter. I'm not sold on Ryan, especially in the playoffs. As Nick noted, he didn't hold up well in the 2nd half of 2022 either, so I don't think we can just put it all on the hidden injury. His fastball can be dominant despite it's lack of velo when he's locating it well. His off-speed stuff isn't very good, though, and that leads to a homerun prone pitcher when he's not dotting his fastball. HRs kill you in the playoffs. My biggest question with him is if he can come into 2024 with a couple off-speed offerings that can truly be trusted. That's the next step in his development. We'll see. Paddack has the best stuff of the guys below Lopez, and maybe even as good as Lopez's. But it feels like he's almost guaranteed to have an Ober/Ryan style second half swoon. Will be interesting to see how they handle him. I think he has the talent to be the guy to jump above Ober, but I wouldn't go into 2024 expecting that out of him come playoff time. Maybe 2025, but not 2024. Varland is a regular season starter to me. I think having him start through August and then join the pen again (like him and Maeda did last year) is likely the best use of him. I just don't see a guy who can get much higher than he currently is. If one of the prospects has a good showing in their injury fill-in shots this year Varland may join Jax and Duran in the pen come 2025. I'd bet that's a pretty disappointing result for him, but he's 26 and the kids are breathing down his neck. As a fan I'd be quite happy with a Duran, Jax, Varland back end of the pen if that's how it turns out come 2025. 2024 may be Varland's last chance at the rotation. And he deserves that chance. Just not sold he can really claim that spot moving forward. I think the Twins should be doing whatever they can to get another Lopez style trade done on someone they'd either already control for another 4+ years, or someone they could extend. I think locking in Lopez and another legit playoff arm through 2027 would put them in a place to not have to worry much at all about pitching moving forward and they can put all their efforts into improving the offense. Lopez, co-#1, Ober, Ryan, Paddack/youth would be a starting situation that shouldn't need much help at all over the next handful of years if they can pull it off.