chpettit19

The Rockies signed him for less than half the price the Twins paid him in arbitration the year before. I agree Larnach would get a contract if he were a free agent. My contention is the idea that they can tender and trade him. I don't think they'll find a buyer for him if they've already tied him to a 4.7ish arbitration number. If they non-tender him he'll get signed after he clears all the arbitration requirements for a couple mil. But I think people's thought that he can be obviously traded is significantly off base. I don't think they can trade him.

If I remember correctly, Gleeman said in 1 or more of the Gleeman and the Geek podcasts that the Twins tried to trade Larnach at the deadline and there was no interest. I can't imagine the demand went up with his arb number going up. The Twins should absolutely be putting feelers out before just non-tendering him, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's no market for him on the trade market. A .759 OPS against righties is not DH material. That's slightly above average while being unplayable against lefties and bringing no baserunning or defense to the table. That being said, the Twins are an awful offensive team. I mean truly horrendous. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they keep him just because he can provide an average bat against righties and they have so few players who can be counted on to do that. It'll all depend on how far into the rebuild they want to lean vs pretending to compete.

The Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, and everyone else in the green box need to develop too. Development is the life blood of every major league organization. You know I'm fully on board with your "develop or die" stance. Carlos Correa's deal didn't kill the Twins, the failure to develop even a singular consistent MLB starting position player around him did. The Yankees and Dodgers can pay for studs, but they also develop the Judges and Kershaws of the world. They develop the prospects needed to win the bidding wars for the Betts and Stantons. They develop Buehler and Schlittler. Will Smith and Ben Rice. The Mets struggle because Vientos turns back into a pumpkin, Mauricio doesn't live up to the hype, and Francisco Alvarez can't quite get over the hump. It's all about development. For everyone. It's why the league is in trouble now like they've never been before. Because the Dodgers are the best development team in the league and they're the richest. But development is king for everyone. Without development to back fill their pitching the Dodgers aren't the Dodgers the last handful of years. The big spenders still need to develop. Everyone does. The spending just allows you to go above and beyond. But development is still the core of it all.

I didn't eliminate outliers. There is a category of "overachievers," and the Angels are called out as well as an underachiever. The outliers are literally highlighted. And, FYI, I didn't do anything. That isn't my chart. I pulled it from a much larger article about the finances of MLB from much smarter people than me.

For sure. But this article laid out a wide variety of payrolls. A poster suggested that was "outright stupid" because spending doesn't matter. The difference between an 80 mil payroll and an 160 mil payroll absolutely matters. That's the difference between the As and the Mariners. It's huge. It matters. And people should care about the Twins ability and willingness to spend.

Do it. Provide the data. I'm happy to admit I'm wrong and spending doesn't matter. Show me the data.

Brooks needs to establish he's worth keeping in the bigs before he worries about being a long-term anything. He doesn't have the glove you'd prefer in a utility man or the bat you'd want from a starter at any position. He either needs to significantly improve his defense (not likely with his foot speed and athleticism) or his bat (at least start by actually having a good eye like the article falsely claims he already has) just to stick around. Right now he's AAA filler on a halfway decent team.

The Mets were in the NLCS last season. They were a wild card team in 2022. Yes, spending doesn't guarantee winning, and it's not always going to be the top 6 payrolls in each league making the playoffs. But it isn't hard to find the multitude of studies showing that payroll and winning in Major League Baseball are correlated. Pointing to 3 outliers and saying it's "mystifying" is pretty wild. The highest spending teams in baseball win more than the lower spending teams. It's been this way for a long time. I think you should do some research on the overall correlation between payroll and record before calling anything "outright stupid." I'll help out with this handy little chart to start. Yes, there's a handful of overachievers and the Angels being way off, but otherwise it's a pretty clear correlation. Payroll matters.

I mean, nobody would've predicted Miranda would have a 49 wRC+ in AAA, but yes, the use of the word "elite" when talking about so many prospects really sets up some pretty wild expectations. Ohtani, Judge, Ramirez, Soto. Those are "elite" bats. Buxton started knocking on the door this year. Otherwise, the Twins don't have anyone even sniffing it. Jenkins is the only guy in the system with any reasonable hope at this point of possibly reaching those kinds of heights and the chances are still very low because it's just incredibly hard to be "elite." All that being said, Mendez's bat is quite intriguing. If he can learn to lift the ball just a little more frequently there is a lot to like there. But he's yet again another slow footed, no glove prospect so that bat is going to have to do all the work unless this 1B thing really works out. He's one to watch, but he's not going to be on the opening day roster, and he's not an "elite" anything.

I came to add the rest of the context of the quote, you beat me to it. The word "expects" isn't what catches my eye at all. Not even a little. It's the word "hope" that stands out. Who cares about "expects" when "hope" is involved. The president of everything involved in the organization's stance is "hope?" Yeah, that is far more concerning than saying he "expects" something. I get selling the fans hope, but now he's trying to sell himself hope? Falvey has always, always, always said they're willing to listen on every deal. And they should be. You should never just refuse to answer the phone. But set a price that's appropriate and don't accept less. Most conversations will be very brief. He could've given the exact same answer he always gives and said "we're always willing to listen," but that isn't what he said. This was a brutal answer that absolutely sounds like payroll has a very real chance of staying where it is now (in the 90-100 mil range?) or even going down. And if that's the case those guys are very much on the block. The whole quote is FAR more damning than just "expects."

He didn't "extend" Rocco this summer. He picked up his option before the season started. Like nearly every team does. There are very few lame duck managers in major league baseball. It was reported in the middle of the season because that's when it leaked. But even when Hayes reported it he said he didn't think that was when the option was actually picked up. Falvey spoke on it at the presser Tuesday and said it was before the season. I don't think Falvey wanted to fire Rocco now, though. I think he was either told directly that he had to, or felt it was his only choice. And you can absolutely be successful with less money. It's not easy, and there's very few teams that actually do it, but it can be done. I think simply comparing payrolls in any given season misses a lot of important context, though. Cutting payroll by 30 mil after OKing Lopez and Correa contracts has a very real impact on team building. The question then becomes what Falvey (and Levine) knew, or should have known, at the time of those contract signings. If the Pohlads and DSP were promising them 150-160+ mil payrolls moving forward and then 1 year later cut it to 130 that is brutal for a front office. I'm not defending Falvey (even though I realize it sounds like I am). He deserves to be fired. He should be fired. The whole org needs to be cleaned out and they need to start over from the top down. It's broken. I'm just trying to get some details straight. The option being picked up is significantly overblown because of the timing of it being reported, and there is more to looking at payroll than just a 1-year snapshot. But Falvey has been here 9 years. And he did have plenty of payroll for multiple failed seasons before the last 2. I don't know why he should get a shot at a rebuild. He had his chance. He failed. But there are very few people in major league baseball who are as entrenched and as powerful as him. I don't understand why. But I don't understand much of what this franchise or the Pohlads do these days.

I heard the tariffs on scouts are really causing quite a spike in salaries.

I don't know if you've read or listened to anything from the end of year media session Falvey (and technically Zoll, but there's almost no answers from him out there) did, but the 2 departments are colliding. I mean, it's mostly just Falvey trying to corporate speak his way out of things like usual, but he essentially answered every question about the business side by saying "we need to win games and fans will show up and we'll make more money" while answering every question about competing by saying "it depends on how much money I have to spend." He can't compete without having more money to spend and he can't make more money without competing. He runs both sides and they're still colliding because neither side can succeed without the other side first succeeding.

You can look up job titles and roles for MLB teams on their websites. Orioles: POBaO: Mike Elias, POBuO: Catie Griggs Red Sox: Chief Baseball Officer: Craig Breslow, President and CEO: Sam Kennedy Yankees: Senior Vice President, General Manager: Brian Cashman, President: Randy Levine Rays: POBO: Erik Neander, Chief Business Officer: William Walsh Blue Jays: President and CEO: Mark Shapiro (there's one) I'm not going to do the whole league for you (I chose the AL east because I knew Shapiro was one), but there's like 3 guys in MLB who have the dual role. I don't know of any in any other sports, but I don't follow those leagues as closely. It is not a common thing. Because both jobs are fulltime gigs. I don't think it's a leap to say Dave St Peter and Derek Falvey were both working a ton of hours when they both held the positions separately. I think it's then a pretty logical step to say that combining those roles would be quite a lot to put on 1 person. And if it wasn't, more teams would do it. But they don't. Because they're very different roles and both massive roles. Of course Zoll does things. So does Daniel Adler and Kip Elliot and Sean Moore and John Avenson and Mike Clough and Mary Giesler and Matt Hoy and everyone else in the Twins front office. But they were all there doing those things while DSP was still working 60+ hours a week. But now they have less DSP (in theory) and part time Falvey instead. And the folks on the baseball side have no more Levine (who's hrs/efforts weren't replaced by another human as they didn't hire anyone new when he left) and a part time Falvey. The Twins have taken 2 of the top 3 ranking officials from the business and baseball side and either completely removed their efforts (Levine) or greatly reduced them (DSP) and replaced them with just Falvey doing 2 jobs. I don't think it's at all a logical stretch to say Falvey is likely overstretched by doing the 2 biggest jobs in the org, that very few people in the league are ever entrusted to do, while the org continues to whittle away at the workforce around him.

I think far more teams would have 1 person in charge if this were the case. It's exceedingly rare to have 1 person in charge of both the business and baseball operations of a major league organization. Does he have help? Of course he does. They have employees. But DSP wasn't working 20 hrs a week running the business and Falvey wasn't working 20 hrs a week running the baseball side. In fact, they were both working a pretty consistent 60+ hrs a week with help would be my bet. Now 1 person is supposed to be doing both jobs with the same or less help? Either they were both doing far too much work when they were both employed if Falvey can do both jobs himself now or Falvey has too much on his plate. There's a reason teams don't do this. How many other teams in any professional sport can you name that has a guy that runs both the business and "name your sport here" side? I'll be impressed if you can top 5 in all the sports combined. DSP was awful at his job. Especially if you believe the Pohlads story of them being 500 mil in debt from the Twins alone. He got awful television deals and was seemingly surprised that the RSN model was collapsing. He didn't set a high bar. But he had a lot of responsibilities. Falvey already had a lot of responsibilities. He's not doing all the work on his own, and is mostly just getting reports, but how realistic is it to be making the best decisions based on those reports when you are split between the 2 jobs and spread so thin? Again, I think there's a reason this isn't the norm.

Joe Maddon very much used spreadsheets and analytics. He was the pioneer of much of the modern baseball analytics based managerial decision making. But I'd also be a fan of his hiring as I agree that it'd signal a release of control by Falvey. But I also very much doubt Falvey would go that direction.

It's absolutely not impossible, I'm just going to have to see it to believe it. Falvey has made changes to some team building strategies over the years. He can absolutely make adjustments. Not very quickly, but he makes adjustments. And he very well might make an adjustment in the manager department. I'm just not going to celebrate any of this until I actually see things in action. This whole firing doesn't read to me like Falvey actually thinking Rocco needs to be fired. If he thought Rocco was the problem I'd think he would've fired him during the season before things got so out of hand they had to trade 40% of the roster. Falvey is a smart dude (despite what some people think). He knows that things going this horribly heats up his seat next. If you truly think your job is going to start being on the line if you don't start figuring things out and you think the guy under you is truly a problem, don't you fire them before things go completely upside down? Don't you give the team a chance to right the ship in May or June or July by replacing Rocco if you truly think what he's doing is the problem? Maybe he hires someone very different or gives them way more control. I'm absolutely not ruling out the possibility. I just need to actually see proof of it before I'm going to think any real changes are coming and we're not just getting Rocco 2.0.

This will be a fascinating process to follow, assuming names of interviewees come out. I fully agree with the idea that the Twins need somebody who will push back on Falvey and the FO, but what would make us think Falvey is going to hire somebody who is going to do things differently than he believes they should be done when his neck is the one on the chopping block now? Do a lot of other people have bosses that tend to hire people that constantly tell them they're wrong and they're going to do it a different way? That must be an interesting workplace. Falvey is the problem. I have no reason to believe anything will change in any meaningful way until he's gone. Maybe the names of who he's interviewing will start to give me reason to believe. But Falvey didn't sit in his suite and watch Rocco manage for 7 years while thinking "this guy is an idiot and he's running this team totally wrong" without firing him. The strategies deployed, the development plans used, and the rosters built all come down to Falvey. I don't care who they hire (none of us know anything about any of these guys anyways) until Falvey is gone or I'm shown actual actions that suggest a legitimate change in strategy from the very top.

I fully expect him to be on the Twins opening day roster next year, but that 100% doesn't prove he's an MLB player. The Twins will have multiple players who aren't MLB quality on their opening day roster next year. Just like they did this year. But if he's not, I'm more than willing to bet he makes no opening day roster. I've already said that on this very thread.

Like I said, you can like him. You can hold out hope. He has 711 PAs of .200/.265/.400/.665 slash. After May his slash line was nearly identical to his career line. Justify your belief however you want. He is who he is and it's the slash line I continue to provide. When I can take out 1 very clear outlier of a month and get essentially his exact career slash line for the rest of the season it's pretty obvious that month should be ignored. You can believe the 10%, I'll take the 90. Thanks for the chat, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"Maybe" that month is the best he can do? The rest of his season is nearly identical to his career line. I mean it's almost impossible to get closer. He was -.003 in BA, +.004 in OBP, -.001 in SLG, and +.004 in OPS. That is who he is. He's a .200/.265/.400/.665 hitter. He has 700+ major league PAs showing that. This conversation is going nowhere. You can like him. You can hold out hope he's closer to that 70 PA sample size from May. I'll go ahead and take the other 711 PAs that show he's very consistently the exact same .665 OPS hitter. And, no, absolutely not. If he'd cratered back down to his career norms for 4 months and 300+ PAs of .660 OPS he would not be with the Phillies anymore. You know how I know? Because that exact thing happened last season and they demoted him. He had a .908 OPS through May last year, .601 from June through September. Ended the season with a .706 OPS. But the Phillies didn't just carry him the whole season because his May stat line was carrying his season long OPS, they demoted him. He had 79 PAs after May because he was bad and they were trying to win and weren't going to waste PAs on a bad player. So, no, he wouldn't still be with the Phillies because teams aren't naive enough to blindly just look at overall OPS and not look into it any further. He didn't have options left this year so they didn't demote him they DFA'd him. Then the Twins got their hands on him and carried him all season despite him cratering back down and now you're arguing that he's actually good and a good team would still carry him despite that very team having refused to carry him just last season when he did the exact same thing because who he is is the .200/.265/.400/.665 hitter his career numbers over 700+ PAs say he is.

And that's why I described Gallo's season with the Twins as "a disaster." I don't care what Clemens was paid. He's not an MLB player. The fact that he's going into his age 30 season and hasn't hit true arbitration (he'll likely be a super 2) isn't some badge of honor, it's more evidence to my point. He couldn't get to 3 years service time before he was 30. That's the league screaming at you that he's not good enough. You shouldn't be surprised I'm unwilling to consider him a bench player when he has the stats he has at the age of 30. Having such a small sample size at this point of his career that 1 singular month can have such an outsized impact on his career line is not impressive, it's another indictment. Teams that ignore 5 months of data in favor of 1 month of data struggle. Teams that ignore 13 months of data for 1 month of data end up like the Twins. Kody Clemens has 13 months of data showing who he truly is, ignoring that 1 month carried his stat line this year to still below average instead of way below average is bad player evaluation. Kody Clemens is not a major leaguer and he is example A of how bad things truly are around 1 Twins Way.

Because Gallo put up significantly better numbers than Clemens. His career OBP and SLG were both 50 points higher than Clemens. And his peak was All Star level good where he was putting up multiple 800 to 900+ OPS seasons. Clemens great breakout season barely cracked 700 and he's a career .666 OPS guy. Even after his career completely fell apart Gallo still ended up with a career OPS 60 pts higher than Clemens big breakout year, and over 100 pts higher than Clemens career. He was a significantly better player. That's why he got his last couple shots. Shoot, Gallo's season with the Twins was a disaster and he still ended with nearly a .750 OPS while being over .300 in OBP with a .440 slug.

I hope you're right. I just see no reason to believe it. In order to believe that you have to believe he disagreed with things Rocco did and only fired him because he thought it was the right move and Rocco was bad at his job. Nothing he's ever said or done before this move has ever suggested that in the least. If Rocco had been fired early in the season when they got off to a rough start after the collapse last year I would feel differently. This doesn't read, to me, as a move made because Falvey learned a lesson and really thought an overhaul of clubhouse leadership and in game strategy needed to happen. It reads, to me, as the last scapegoat before Falvey so he had no choice but to pull the trigger. If Falvey was doing this because he thought a pivot was necessary, I would have expected that before the season turned into the post-deadline joke it became. It, in my opinion, would've came while the move still could've had an impact on the season.

And after his 1 outlier month of May he wasn't that player. He slugged .400 while hitting .200 with an OBP well below .300. That isn't the kind of power teams want. Especially not from a guy who's "position flexibility" is mostly 1B and the corner outfield. And he's 30, not 25. They'll hope to get more out of him on a minor league deal. His stats after May are almost identical to his career numbers. That's what teams are going to look at. .200/.260/.400. That isn't even a bench bat at the positions he plays. Unless you're the Twins.