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
    I want them to spend what this market is worthy of spending. And I have no expectation that they do that without actually making what this market should be making. If they're not making more then that's what I'm mad at. The "exploring" has been done. The Twins signed a CBA agreement based on the "exploring" MLB did on what this market should be generating. The Twins failing to meet the expectations is on them. And you're just assuming they aren't making that money. You throw around your own projections for what they're actually making on these threads all the time in order to justify them not spending. You don't have any actual knowledge of what the Twins make, but you're more than happy to tell us we shouldn't expect them to spend more. You're doing nothing but assuming they're spending what they "should" based on what they're bringing in. But you don't have any idea what they're really bringing in. You're doing the same thing as me, only I have actual numbers for the Braves, and all the research MLB did (far more than what anyone on here has done) that the Twins agreed was an acceptable number when they signed the CBA. Finally building a product worth being excited about, getting your stadium filled for some playoff W's and then immediately announcing you're cutting payroll is at least partly why they don't make more money (assuming they're not making more money). That's a terrible business strategy.
  2. chpettit19
    Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc is a public company that owns the Braves and The Battery (the area around their stadium). Because of this we can see what their financials are. The MLB CBA includes a "Market Score" ranking of all 30 teams. The Braves are a 97 and rank 14th compared to the Twins at 17th and a 79 (like OPS+ it compare to the league as a whole). The Braves payroll for 2023 was about 203 million compared to the Twins at 156ish. According to MLB's own numbers on what teams should be able to make in their markets the Twins were 10 mil below the number they should be able to hit for payroll based on the Braves publicly released information. I'm not asking the Pohlads to dig into their personal fortune to keep the Twins competitive, I'm asking them to run their business to the mark the CBA they signed says they should be able to. The Braves brought in $271,824,000 in revenue in Q3 2023. $15,558,000 of that was from The Battery. So their total baseball revenue was $256,266,000 for Q3 which included 37 home games. The Twins should be 18% lower ($46,127,880) than that so they should be at $210,138,120 in baseball revenue for Q3. They claim they spend 50-52% of baseball revenue on payroll. So Q3 alone should put them at $105,069,060 in payroll (50%). Q3 covers July, August, and September. So March, April, May, June, and October games aren't even included. The Twins very clearly aren't hitting those numbers. And it's all rough math lacking a lot of context. But the Braves are the team that we can actually see the real numbers on. Are they significantly out producing their market score, or are the Twins underperforming theirs? One team has spent and built a team that looks like a juggernaut for the foreseeable future and watched their YoY baseball revenue increase by 11%. The other is slashing payroll. I'm sure one, or two, or three, of the much more educated business folks on these threads will slice these numbers up and tell me my expectations aren't realistic. But from the actual numbers we have we know that Atlanta is expected to be a basically average (3% below) market for producing baseball revenue while the Twins are supposed to be solidly below (21%) average market for producing baseball revenue. We know the Braves actual revenue. We know the Twins payrolls don't match the marks they're supposed to compared to the Braves. We know the Braves are publicly speaking about adding payroll while the Twins publicly speak about cutting it. I think it's pretty fair that we ask the Twins to step it up and improve their numbers.
  3. chpettit19
    If they can get him for something reasonable I think it'd be a really big swing they can take. His ceiling is higher than Lopez, but this last season was a disaster for him. Injury would make a lot of sense. If they could do a Kepler/Polanco plus Winder type deal to get him I'd do it in a heartbeat, assuming they get medicals and there's nothing too concerning so it's likely he's not a AA player moving forward.
  4. chpettit19
    I don't think Meyers raises the ceiling for the Twins at all, so I wouldn't give up anything of any value for him. If they just want to dump him for a system reliever I'll take him, but he's just another guy as far as I'm concerned so I don't think there's any reason to try too hard to go get him.
  5. chpettit19
    I can't read the article so I'm not sure what the package they suggested there was. If we're going to play the hypothetical "Angels are starting a rebuild so they're going to move Trout" game I think Kepler probably isn't a piece they'd want back as they likely can't spin him into much at the deadline so they'd probably prefer a full package of prospects. From there the question is what can the Twins offer in comparison to other teams, and how much are teams willing to pay for an "aging," oft-injured, expensive Trout. I do think his contract lowers the prospect package they get if they don't eat a significant chunk. I'd guess they'd eat a chunk, and the amount would depend on what the prospect return would be. So its a little hard to get too specific, but I'd think a package likely starts with 2 of Lee, Jenkins, or ERod and the rest depends on what the Angels kick in for $. Probably looking at another top 10 system prospect (likely an arm) plus another 15-25 system type guy (again, likely an arm). I think that kind of package would be competitive compared to others, but not sure it'd be the winner. Just Trout the player is worth more than any team could/would ever give up. But that contract, and his recent injuries, do change the calculus, and makes it pretty difficult to truly judge what he'd fetch in return.
  6. chpettit19
    It's sort of a weird situation when you have someone like Peralta. He's so good and so cheap that it almost makes him untradeable because you simply can't get an equal return for him unless somebody completely blows up the top of their system, and nobody does that (or at least it's very, very rare). If he's traded it's almost guaranteed to be for less than they should get for him. I don't think they'll trade him, at least partially because of this.
  7. chpettit19
    And if they're crappy or get hurt the rookie is there to fill in. Just like what happened last year. When you start the season with that rookie in that spot who's there to fill in for them? An even lower level prospect or some journeyman minor leaguer? No thanks. I'm not suggesting not adding rookies. I was happy with the 3 they added last year. That was an outlier group. I don't "fear" adding rookies. I don't want to rely on Lewis to stay healthy, and Kirilloff to stay healthy, and Julien to learn to hit lefties for the first time in his pro career while maintaining last year's production after the league makes adjustments to him, and Wallner being able to cut down his Ks and maintain last year's production after the league makes adjustments to him, and Jeffers to maintain his top of the league OPS while playing more games, and Martin being a legit major leaguer from the jump. That's not fearing adding one rookie, that's believing the best odds for taking a step forward from 2023 isn't to rely on 6 unproven players in your opening day lineup. I'm sorry if that is baffling to you.
  8. chpettit19
    Rowson was in Detroit this last year, FYI.
  9. chpettit19
    Only thing that can stop it (or delay it being official official) now is the folks in Vegas (lead by teachers) trying to get the public funding put to a vote in the November 2024 elections.
  10. chpettit19
    Yeah, I don't expect AA, but I'm hoping for it. The difference, for me, between Jenkins and Keaschall/Schobel types are that Keaschall and Schobel aren't expected to be heart of the order stars. They absolutely could become those guys, but I think their most likely ceilings are Spencer Steer types who have to bounce around the diamond to find playing time (for the record that's no shot at Steer as I'd very much take him back on the Twins) while trying not to be pushed out by the Jenkins types. Which then makes them likely trade candidates, as you said. Or they become the excellent "bench" options you want when you play as many guys as regularly as the Twins do. The Twins seemed to have found the ability to produce at least average major league talented bats. Not what we were expecting when they hired Falvey as it was the "pitching pipeline" that was supposed to be built, but if they can keep producing bats they can find the arms through non-developmental means if needed. If they can turn Soto, Raya, Festa, Prielipp, whoever into a frontline arm or 2 then they'll really be onto something. Exciting times ahead! (Hopefully)
  11. chpettit19
    To me, you're just describing the goal, and plan, of every MLB team. Youth movements that take 4 or 5 years are just called team building. Some of those "top pedigree draft picks" are going to fail (see Sabato, Cavaco, and to a lesser degree Larnach). I'm by no means saying that this youth movement through 2027/28 shouldn't be the plan. And by 2027/28 they should have another batch of "top pedigree draft picks, international signees and huge group of minor league pitchers" ready to start a new youth movement in 2029 through 2034. That's just team building 101. Keep drafting and signing kids and developing them. Every team is trying to do that. My point is that you can't just rely on all of those young guys succeeding, and not have some 1 year vets, or big FA signings, to supplement them. If things work out the way many fans seem to expect them to over the next handful of years the Twins are going to be a dynasty. I hope you're all correct.
  12. chpettit19
    I know the 2026 timeline is probably the most realistic for Jenkins, and debuting at 21 is very nice, but it feels like a disappointing timeline at the same time. If his debut was any real sign of his talent, and not just a flash in the pan of beginner's luck, I think it's pretty darn realistic to think he could end 2024 in AA. And if he does that the 2nd half of 2025 would be a pretty reasonable debut timeline. And if he's the superstar we all hope he is, that's the timeline I think we should be hoping for, even though we shouldn't necessarily be expecting it. Jackson Holliday just went from Low-A to AAA in his first full season. I'm not even expecting that from Jenkins, but being 1 step below that at AA feels doable after his debut this year. For comparison: Jenkins in 26 games between rookie ball and A ball .362/.417/.571 (.989) at age 18. Jackson Holliday in 20 games between rookie ball and A ball .297/.489/.422 (.911) at age 18. So I'm not being too crazy here. I just think only advancing from A to A+ would be a slightly disappointing result for 2024.
  13. chpettit19
    I agree there's a lot of different ways this offseason can play out. I'm quite interested to see what they do. But Donovan Solano was a $2M one year signing. MAT was a $4.5M one year guy. Gallo was a disaster over most of the season, but he won games for the Twins in April. I don't know how they're going to replace Gray, but I sure hope it's their #1 priority, and they aren't going to cheap out on it (with $ or trade capital). Just pointing at the failed 1 year guys seems to be ignoring the other side of things, though. I think banking on Castro to be a .300+ OBP guy again is asking a lot. His 8.3% BB rate last year wasn't anything crazy (13th best out of 17 Twins players with at least 100 PAs), but it was by far his highest of his career. Maybe it's his new norm, but his 4 previous MLB stints had BB% of 5.5, 5.0, 5.1, and 3.8 (was in that same kind of range for his minor league career, too). I think that's where I differ with a lot of folks around here. Castro's career year in 2023 was him being a league average hitter. He's a very nice utility player to have, but I want no part of relying on him everyday. "Find another kid that can get on base regularly" is much easier said than done. Miranda was the toast of the town after tearing up the minors then having a very nice rookie year, and now people are saying he has no future here because these other unproven guys are clearly not going to have a regression like he did (his very well could've been injury driven). I'm excited for the kids, too. But I don't think pointing to an historic Twins rookie class in 2023 as some sort of expected result moving forward is being realistic, and I want proven MLB players to start the year and let the rookies take jobs as injuries and poor performance will undoubtedly allow them chances to do. I just think if you start with the young guys and they don't succeed (which is very likely whether we like it or not) then you're looking at minor league journeymen or even worse prospects having to fill in. Then you're very much looking at the possibility of 80+ losses.
  14. chpettit19
    My question to you is if those growing pains lead to a 79-83 record after having just played in the ALDS will you be singing the praises of the FO for letting the kids work through their growing pains or will you be upset at the substantial step back in season results? Not saying that'd be the result, or that there's a right or wrong answer. Just curious. Cuz it is a possibility.
  15. chpettit19
    They are only eligible if they aren't put on the 40-man roster. If you're able to protect a whole bunch of guys from the Rule 5 it's because you have a whole bunch of open 40-man spots. Having a whole bunch of open 40-man spots means your team is likely not very good. I wasn't suggesting teams want a bunch of guys unprotected who are likely to be picked, but if the reason you don't have to worry about the Rule 5 is because you can add 10 eligible guys to your 40-man you're likely having some really bad records with your major league team. I was just saying that simply saying you don't want guys able to be picked is missing context. There are some situations where it's not a great sign that you don't have any eligible players.
  16. chpettit19
    We will definitely disagree if you think handing starting spots at the beginning of the season to guys who "often go back down" is the right answer for building a contending team. Which, I believe, is the point of this article. When you build your team heading into the season around guys who "often go back down" you're not building a team with the best chance to win the most games they can.
  17. chpettit19
    Yeah, I would've lost a bet if I'd had to recall what actually happened. I didn't like it in real time at all, but I'm less annoyed now. With Gallo being the real cause of frustration for me now. I think we both know there's no exact answer to that question. So many things play into it. But we saw it last year. You have to be succeeding in AAA (or AA for some guys) when an opportunity opens in the majors (which they do every year) and you have to hold your own when you get your first shot. At least don't look completely overwhelmed. Then a lot depends on how long that opportunity is. If you go back down you start the cycle again. There are not a lot of jobs on contending teams that are just handed to rookies. Mike Trout was sent back down. It took until late June for Wander Franco to get his shot. Adley Rutschman got his shot on May 21st of 2022 compared to Julien on May 20, 2023 and Adley was the #1 pick out of college in the same draft. Gavin Lux was a top 100 (top 10 even) prospect and has bounced back and forth between the majors and the minors since 2019 (then hurt this year). Evan Carter was a top 50 prospect absolutely slaughtering the minors for the 3rd straight year and wasn't called up until September 8th. Noelvi Marte wasn't called up until the end of August. Curtis Mead wasn't called up until August. Then got sent back down before being called back up in September. Miguel Vargas debuted in August 2022, was sent back down, came back in September, was back in late March 2023, and sent back down in July never to be seen again in 2023. CES was doing everything Wallner was doing for a team in the "get the young guys experience" part of their rebuild and it took until July 17 for him to debut. There is no straight answer to what a guy has to do to "force their way up." It depends on way too many variables. Martin can wait his turn until there's an opening in CF, LF, 2B, etc. Then he can come up and show he's got a chance to be a real player.
  18. chpettit19
    This isn't totally true. Julien's first stint in the majors was an 8 game stretch from April 12 through 20. He hit .222/.276/.444/.720 while playing horrid defense in that stretch. After he was recalled in May he spent another week in AAA before being a regular in the Twins lineup. I mean the kid played in 109 games. It's not like they had him down for months after his first stint, which wasn't impressive. Wallner played far fewer total games (76), but his first stint in the majors was horrid. Super small sample size, no doubt, but from April 9 through April 14 he had a .000/.273/.000/.273 slash line. Again, limited playing time and very small sample. In his next 5 game stint in May he had better success, but, again, a super small sample size. Everyone remembers his ending that stint by reaching base 8 straight times, but he'd reached base 2 times total before that 8 PA stretch. Once he was back in July he was a regular the rest of the year. It's not like these guys came in and did otherworldly things for a long stretch and then were sent back down. I remember being quite upset about things during the season, but going back and looking at it makes me see it wasn't that egregious. Gallo over Wallner is certainly frustrating, but giving Polanco run over Julien until the middle of May isn't ridiculous at all in my opinion. I think they actually managed this pretty well overall. Even though it certainly didn't feel like it at the time.
  19. chpettit19
    If he doesn't want to rehab and try to make it back each year why would the team be interested in paying him to retire?
  20. chpettit19
    Yeah, the world of pro sports isn't really the world where people "cut bait and give the guy a chance to go somewhere else." And I'll disagree that Castro should be in any spot "daily." He's not good enough for that. Larnach is still a reasonable enough guy to have in AAA to start the year to see how Wallner and Kepler do out of the gate. He has an option left so I don't see them just DFAing him. After this year I'd be awfully surprised if he's on the 40-man if he hasn't established himself as an option to replace Kepler (in LF while Wallner would shift to RF) in 2025 (obviously we hope ERod is also in the running for that job), though. Overall I just don't see "surplus" because surplus means you have too much of what you need. What the Twins need is talent, not guys who happen to play the same spots, but none are talented enough. I don't see a talent surplus. But I know others do. I'm just not as high on the prospects as others. Which is totally fine.
  21. chpettit19
    I mean I think it's pretty well known they want infield help and if you can get a SS I'm pretty sure you're happy with it as they can move basically anywhere in the IF and succeed.
  22. chpettit19
    Has Seattle gotten off their "Crawford is our SS" stance? From my recollection all their SS chasing has been with the goal to actually move them to 2B because Crawford was their guy at short.
  23. chpettit19
    Depends how you're coming to players being eligible or not. If you're able to add a whole bunch of guys to your 40-man to protect them it likely means your 40-man isn't very good, and that's very much less than ideal.
  24. chpettit19
    To me, it's a question of what your goals for 2024 are, and what gives you the best odds of reaching those goals. If your goal for 2024 is simply to get the young guys ABs and be ready for a bigger push in 2025 then by all means cut payroll and don't bring in anyone but maybe a starting pitcher. If the goal for 2024 is to improve on the 2023 results (the goal I'd like them to pursue) then I don't think the best odds of reaching that goal are to rely on health and/or maintained production from Lewis, Julien, Wallner, Kirilloff, and Jeffers while handing CF to Martin and trading away Polanco and/or Kepler which would open 2 more lineup spots as some on TD are suggesting they should do.
  25. chpettit19
    The "thoughts of 1st base" are 100% fan created. The team isn't talking about putting him at 1B. It's just fans trying to come up with ways they think would work to keep him on the field. The Twins aren't putting Byron Buxton at 1B. And they're not buying out his contract so he can retire. If he's going to retire he's going to retire. If they want to get rid of him but he wants to keep playing they'll have to talk him into waiving his no trade and moving him while attaching a prospect and/or eating some salary.
×
×
  • Create New...