chpettit19

Yeah, I'm not at all going to read anything like you are into that stuff. Feel free, but you're not basing those opinions on anything real, in my opinion. He turned down a contract with a team that was in free fall with no sign of coming out of it and bet on himself to be able to make even more while picking where he wanted to play. I don't find that as a character flaw. He wasn't an "ego issue" when he won a World Series. Tying the manager leaving to Soto in anyway is a bridge way too far for me. Especially because it's been widely reported that AJ Preller is terrible to work with as a manager, and Melvin and him didn't get along at all (some rumors were that Preller wasn't even talking to Melvin anymore). I don't expect the Mets to trade Alonso, and definitely don't expect the Twins to be the ones to get him if they do, but not wanting a .260+ batter (he's hit .260+ in 3 of 5 seasons) with 40 HRs because other guys in the Twins lineup strikeout is a bold stance. He struck out fewer than 130 times the 2 previous seasons which puts him right in line with Soto. The bet is that he gets back to who he was in 2019, 2021, and 2022. His K% was 22.9% last year, by the way. It's not like he's striking out 30+% of the time. He was under 20% the 2 previous seasons in 150+ games played each year. Pete Alonso would be the best bat in the Twins lineup immediately. I don't get why you wouldn't want that because other guys in the lineup are bad. But to each their own.

I disagree that the Padres are a mess. They were absolutely disappointing in the win total last year, but their run differential was 1 spot behind the Twins, and 8th best in baseball. It was incredible how poorly they did in 1 run games. Like unbelievable that they ended with only 82 wins (which is only 5 less than the Twins while playing in a way tougher division). The Padres have already said it's more likely they trade Soto at the deadline if they trade him, and the Mets have already said they're not looking to trade Alonso and are having extension talks. I'm not saying it's impossible either guy is traded, but both teams have spoken on them already.

I'm a "ceiling" guy, and want all the pro sports team I cheer for to take risks on ceiling instead of staying "safe" with floor. Burnes is ceiling while Ryan is floor to me. The Mitchell piece is intriguing. I see a Kevin Kiermaier type there. Big time speed and defense, but probably best served hitting 9th in your order. And I'm good with that as their CFer until something better comes along (ERod or Jenkins maybe?) and if/when something better comes along you can do a lot worse than that profile as your 4th OFer. I'll call Falvey now and let him know we've figured out his big move for the offseason and to just get it done 🤝

The bet on Alonso is that he gets back to being a .260-.270 hitter that he was the previous years, and not a .217 hitter. The Mets have actually been quite "committal" as far as baseball folks go. David Stearns has said since the second he got there that he has no intention of trading Alonso. Why does Soto "seem like a disruption, particularly in the Twin Cities market?"

I love the Ryan trade scenario (I also don't think he takes the next step). If they could swing that deal I think they should. The one that includes Jax I don't think is realistic. Just compiling a whole bunch of low value guys to reach the 45 "value" mark isn't a realistic trade formula, in my opinion. I don't think the Brewers aren't trading Burnes for a bunch of 26 and 27 year old AAAA players and a reliever. I also like the Giolito or Cabrera type replacement ideas for Ryan. I know many others won't agree because they see Ryan as being better than I do (and apparently you see him more like I do). I'd actually be ok with replacing Ryan with Varland to start the year, too, if it meant they bring in Burnes and lock him up through 2027 with Lopez to front the rotation. Ryan is never going to be as good as Burnes. The reason their values are similar is because of years of control. If you can turn a lesser pitcher with more control into a better pitcher that you can extend you have to do it 100% of the time, I think.

That's a really interesting thought. The price tags on their young arms are going to be astronomical (way higher than what people are talking about here). Going after the expensive arm may actually be the way to go there. He's controlled through his age 34 season with a pretty high mark to hit to vest his age 35 season (180 innings in his age 34 season) so it's not like he's locked in until he's 40. You may actually be able to center a package around Polanco if you go after him because they want to clear money for Ohtani. I have no idea what their payroll goal is for 2024 so it's hard to say if saving money would be a motivator for them, but I think Castillo is certainly a name they should bring up on their call to Seattle about their arms. I think the bigger hurdle with them is going to be that they want to make the playoffs in 2024, and without Ohtani pitching, Castillo is probably a pretty important part of the reliability of their rotation. But, man, Lopez and Castillo both locked in a the top of the rotation through 2027 would be nice.

Twins should definitely be interested in both, but I don't see anyway they make a deal for either of these guys with budget cuts coming. Either of them completely changes this lineup and takes it to another level, but I don't see them giving up the sort of assets they'd have to for a 1 year rental in a year they're cutting payroll.

I'd certainly rather the team win more than it loses, but at some point you play for championships, and, as much as we as fans of mid-market teams don't like to admit it, spending is what wins those. I don't even ask for out of their market style spending. Part of the MLB CBA is a Market Score ranking in which the Twins rank 17th. With their ranking they should be in the 160-175 mil range at this point in time depending on the year and where the league is at financially. I think it's incredibly possible to win a title with a 160-175 payroll if they take advantage of times like this when they have cheap talent at a lot of positions. Instead they're talking about taking a step back, possibly as far as the 125 mil range. That's really frustrating as a fan as it's a move to maintain mediocrity in a terrible central division instead of trying to compete for a title. Totally agree that the quotes/reports yesterday are just as harmful, if not more so, than the non-spending itself. Mind blowing time to say things like that, in my opinion. No idea what the goal was by making any statement at all.

My general approach to prospects is to assume none of them are going to be stars until they start acting like stars in the majors. At that point it's gravy and you start building around them as they push out vets. I have high hopes that the current wave can provide a real floor, with a little ceiling boost even, but I just don't like the idea of counting on it before you need to. I think we see things pretty similar. And @Major League Ready and I do, too, actually (even though sometimes we bicker quite a bit). You need prospects. Absolutely need them. But I don't like forcing yourself to count on them over vets before you need to.

Well the Twins didn't even win 90 games this year in maybe the worst division in MLB history, and you're talking about trading their 2 hole hitter so that they're better in 2 years. Good luck with the year after year of 90 win teams strategy that way. I mean so far it's gotten them one 90 win season in the last 13 years. 6 total since the start of the 21st century. Oakland has three 90 win seasons in the last 10 years. Cleveland has been quite good with five 90 win seasons over the last 10. Your precious Rays have four 90 win seasons in the last 10 years. Your strategy doesn't even work to get you the "year after year of 90 win teams" you want as the team you want to model the Twins after doesn't even win 90 games half the time. They can execute my model. If they weren't slashing payroll right now they could afford another $30 million contract to go with Correa's for the next 5 years. They have Lopez for 21.5 a year after next year and they can afford that, too. It's absolutely false that they can't execute the strategy of paying high priced guys during the window that they have a wave of young talent coming. If the Pohlads really wanted to get crazy they could even jump their payroll up to 170 mil which would be in line with their MLB provided market score and then they could afford another $20 million deal without much problem. That's 4 deals over 20 million that they could easily afford for the next 5 years, but your strategy is instead to trade Polanco and his 10 mil so they can maybe get a prospect that's ready in 2 years when they'll have to trade Jeffers because now he's expensive and running out of contract. My strategy is that you marry your expensive guys with the cheap guys. When Buxton, Correa, Lopez, my dream 30 mil player, and 20 mil player come off the books in 5 years you replace their salaries with whichever internal guys have earned their paydays, or external guys if not enough of the internal guys have earned that money. Then you supplement them with the new guys you're developing on cheap deals. Rinse and repeat. If the Twins spent to the level MLB's own data suggests they should spend to they can absolutely afford multiple expensive contracts while developing well and not having to trade away their 2 hole hitter in hopes it improves their team 2 years down the road. My strategy gives them 5 more seasons to develop players to keep the cycle going. If they can't develop a handful of guys in the next 5 years without trading their veterans they're not going to succeed anyways. Yeah, I'll take the bet that Correa out performs Stott in 2024.

Bellinger was terrible in 2022 and 2021. He wasn't worth anywhere near 17 in those years. Hoskins got hurt, but there's no reason to believe he's going to be worse in 2024 than he was in 2021 and 2022 when he was healthy and was worth 15-18. I know people hate the Gallo deal, but that was a raise on his last arb deal. Bellinger getting the same value as his last arb deal when he'd been more unplayable than playable the 2 previous seasons is actually an argument for Hoskins getting a slight raise on his last arb deal when he'd been well worth that money and only missed a year for an injury that isn't at all likely to effect his play. But arguing about this is pointless. We'll see where he ends up.

Let me know the last World Series champ that didn't spend on free agents, or trade for an expensive veteran, or have someone on an expensive extension. You have to pay. Prospects are your life blood, and vital to success, but they don't win championships. I don't want to be Tampa, Oakland, and Cleveland. They don't win titles. The plan you're laying out is best for winning the central division for a bunch of years while never winning the World Series. I'm just not interested in that goal. Of course I'd rather win the central a bunch than lose a bunch, but I want a World Series. I know people don't like to hear it, but teams that spend win titles, and teams that don't don't. You can go look up the numbers. I posted them earlier for your convenience. Top 10 payrolls have won all but 8 World Series going back to 1992. Top 11 payrolls have won all but 6. Only 2 teams that have come in below the Twins 17th ranked market score and typical payroll slot recently have won the World Series since 1992. 2. The #1 payroll has won as many titles in that timeframe as the #11-30 slots combined. This idea that never spending is actually the right strategy is wrong. Unless the goal is just to dominate the central. I'm not interested in that goal. Trade Polanco. Trade Kepler. Trade Correa. Trade Buxton. Trade Lopez. Trade whoever you want. But that's not going to win you the World Series. Sorry. They already have a ton of prospects the level that Polanco is likely to bring back. Yes, prospects are a numbers game, but continually playing for the future means you're never playing for the now. Even if the future you're playing for is only 2 years away and not 4. If you're always playing for 2 years away you're never playing for this year. There's a reason the teams you name never win titles. If they weren't slashing payroll, which is what this whole discussion is about, the Twins would have the dollars for a top SP anyways, and still keep a guy who's one of their 4 best hitters right now. The teams that win at the level I want to win at don't trade their veterans away every time and are still able to produce young players to replace the ones that leave for comp picks or nothing. If you can develop well, like we agree is the real key, you don't need to be constantly trading guys away. And if you're willing to spend in your key windows where your team is loaded with cheap talent (like right now for the Twins) you have an actual chance at a title. Side note: Bryson Stott is absolutely not a better SS than Carlos Correa. Obviously the Cavaco pick was out of left field, and terrible, but Bryson Stott is not a better player than Carlos Correa. He is younger, and cheaper, though. But that actually proves my point. The Phillies are good because they pay the star SS while letting the cheap, league average to this point, talent grow and eventually take the star's spot. They don't force it and rely on the young guy to be the star before they are.

17 felt aggressive for a guy with a 44 OPS+ in 2021 and 81 OPS+ in 2022, but that's what Bellinger got in 2023. I think a weak FA class, especially for bats, helps drive his price up some. If you can get him for less you should obviously try to do that, but he was a 2+ WAR player before he got hurt, and he was already doing full sprints around the bases before the end of the year so by all signs he's healthy and 2 WAR generally costs you in the 16-18 mil range on the open market. It's not like speed was his game anyways so I don't think there's much concern about him not being able to bounce back on a 1 year pillow deal. Maybe it's only 15? But I'd bet he ends up in the 15-18 range.

It absolutely could be that, but I still don't understand the timing of it. Falvey has to know the fanbase is flying high off the playoff wins. He has to know that season ticket sales are an important part of their revenue. He has to know keeping fan moral high throughout the offseason only helps his payroll situation. They've already established that they're not quick workers in the offseason (shoot, there was just an article on TD about it) so they could've slow played the payroll decrease until March as them still working on things, and allowed their season ticket folks the chance to lock up a bunch of deposits. I just don't get what good can come from saying this now. Fans aren't exactly rational folks. I can't imagine many casual fans (TD skews are view on how in tune most fans are) are going to turn around in March and say "well, shoot, I was expecting a 125 payroll and they only cut it 15 instead so now I'll go buy season tickets!" Maybe they will and I'm just out of touch with casual fans. I just don't get why he'd say anything now. Even if the backlash is coming eventually at least let your people sell some tickets first. Last year it was Dave St Peter questioning why fans wouldn't show up to a team that struggled to stay above .500 before collapsing (due to injuries) and now it's Falvey admitting they're cutting payroll as free agency opens. Just really bizarre things for team execs to be saying out loud.

No, because we simply won't agree. I see 2 clear starting spots they can upgrade. I don't trust Buxton or Kirilloff to be healthy at all so I'd give both their spots to big ticket guys. Don't even have to be CF and 1B guys cuz I'd be just fine moving guys around the diamond defensively to make it work. And there's a clear and obvious hole in the rotation that could be filled with a big ticket guy. That's 3 spots without having to do any real work before I even have to think about Polanco and Kepler. Once I take care of those 3 so I've actually raised the talent level of the team then I can look at improving on the Polanco and Kepler spots. You seem to think they have 9 starters better than Polanco and Kepler. I don't. That's why we don't need to rehash it. We simply don't agree. It is about payroll. An extra 30 mil before I even have to touch their spots is absolutely a real factor. I don't get how you don't think it is. But to each their own.

You said you didn't think people had looked at the payroll situation and there was space for multiple sizeable contracts. No need for us to rehash the "replacing Kepler and/or Polanco with similar players doesn't improve the team" debate here. Was just curious if you were seeing a different payroll situation that allowed for multiple contracts with the current team.

A very reasonable target. Likely looking at a 1 year deal probably in the range of what Bellinger got last year around 17 mil. Not sure it'll fit in the budget depending on where it ends up and what other moves they make, but I think he'd be a great add to the 1B/DH role for the 2024 Twins.

If your comment was sarcastic you can skip reading the following, FYI. Hard to tell over written text. It won the Rangers a World Series title a couple weeks ago. The Yankees haven't had a losing season since 1995. The Dodgers have won 90+ games for 10 straight years. Bought the Astros a title last year. Braves one the year before that. Dodgers one the year before that. Nationals one the year before that. You get the idea. Did you know there's been 8 teams outside the top 10 in payroll to win a title since 1992? That's the same number of titles as the #1 payroll has won in the same timespan. That's 8 titles for the #1 spot, and 8 titles for the 11-30 spots combined. 2 of those 8 outside the top 10 went to the 11th highest payroll. 2 more to the 13th. There have been 2 titles since 1992 that went to teams with payrolls below the 17th best in baseball (that's the Twins market score rank, and about where they've ranked the last handful of years in payroll). The 2017 Astros were 18th, and the '03 Marlins were 25th. Even the 2015 Royals jumped up to 16th to win their title. Spending money absolutely doesn't guarantee you anything, but not spending certainly gets you pretty darn close to guaranteeing that you don't win. I disagree that that's all they're lacking. This team won 87 games in a historically bad division while playing almost nobody with a winning record the entire last 2 months of the season. They scored 3 runs or fewer in 4 of 6 playoff games, and only 4 runs in one of the other 2. Yes, it is possible Byron stays healthy for the 2nd time in his 10th year as a major leaguer. Why would we be upset with them cutting payroll when all the offense needs is Buxton to play over even 100 games for just the 2nd time in the last decade? Yes, Varland/Festa et al could possibly replace a top 3 Cy Young finalist while Bailey Ober stays healthy for the 2nd time in his professional career, Paddack comes back from basically 2 years off of starting and can be a fulltime starter for the year, Ryan can get back to his first half self and not his horrid 2nd half self, and Lopez can repeat his career year. Come on. I'm all good with still having faith that they'll win the central (I think they'll win the division), but acting like there's clear and obvious replacements in place to simply maintain an 87 win pace in the worst division in MLB history, let alone actually improve on that win total is not something you're going to sell me on.

Polanco is the only guy with even a slight chance of being on the 2025 roster, I agree. Castro doesn't belong anywhere near Correa and Buxton in terms of providing hope for the future, and Buxton really doesn't even belong there either at this point in time. My point is absolutely not that we shouldn't have hope for the young guys, or that they aren't the absolute key to any team being a sustained winner. My point is that Correa, Lopez and a whole bunch of kids is nowhere near your best chance at not just sustaining winning, but having a truly legitimate chance at winning a World Series. Being upset about the team announcing (through sources or Falvey himself) a payroll cut isn't because I don't have faith that they can produce a handful of MLB players from their system, it's because they need more than that to win a title. Winning this horrid division for 5 more years doesn't impress me. It's certainly better than losing, but it's an incredibly weak goal. They have talent coming, no doubt. I'm not sold that the internal options can replace the guys leaving. I won't be shocked, but I wouldn't bet on it. But my real complaint isn't in replacing the talent it's that self-inducing a step back as your window opens significantly reduces your chances to improve on the talent you have. Maybe you, and others, think the 2023 talent level was enough for a real shot at the WS. I don't. I think they need 2 more bats to plug in at the top of the order while losing nothing from the rest of the lineup, and they not only need to add a Gray replacement, but also a 3rd playoff starter. Totally fine banking on Paddack, Ryan, or Ober becoming that 3rd playoff starter, but I have no faith that any internal option can replace Gray or become a true top of the lineup bat. I don't want replacing of the players leaving, I want improving on. And spending money is the most likely way to do that while also maintaining some depth in the system over the next few years. Maybe Lee is a star. Maybe Lewis can stay healthy. Maybe Kirilloff can. Heck, maybe Buxton can. Maybe Julien gets even better. Maybe Wallner cuts his Ks. Maybe ERod has everything click next year and he's a star. They need multiple of these things to be true to truly contend, in my opinion. I don't like those odds. Maybe they have more surprise moves up their sleeves and they can improve the talent while cutting payroll, while also maintaining the top of the system for depth and sustained success. But that sure doesn't sound realistic to me. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd bet there's been very few WS Champs who went from LDS team that couldn't score more then 3 runs in 66% of their playoff games to cutting their payroll by 20% (if it really does go down to the 120s) and then winning the World Series. There's a difference, to me, between this transition to youth happening naturally while still supplementing with veterans and forcing the transition to happen immediately. I know fans were upset with how long it took to get the young guys into everyday roles (I was one of them who was upset), but we can't let that blind us into thinking it's realistic to back up this historic rookie class with another one. And that's what it'd take to just maintain the success, let alone build on it. The Twins are in the building stage at the opening of a window, and the report from this morning is what a team at the rebuilding stage at the closing of a window announces.

I didn't say anyone is saying they shouldn't bring in free agents. What you asked me was if I think spending on free agents was the "most pivotal aspect of developing a strategy/plan to get to the next level," and I said yes, right now I think it's the most pivotal part for where they're at. The suggestions around here, including from you, are that they can just trade away Polanco and/or Kepler (yes, I know you didn't say Kepler, but in general people are saying that) and that's how they can bring in free agents. My point is that trading away guys who reasonably hit at the top of your order in the playoffs last year in order to add guys who can hit at the top of your order in the playoffs isn't increasing the overall talent, and thus you're just changing the names like that somehow means the team will be better. Not 30 million, but they're in the 15-20 mil AAV range from time to time. And I'm not even asking for 30 mil guys (even though I'd like Yamamoto for close to 30 if that's what it took). Cleveland just signed Josh Bell to a 16.5 mil AAV deal last year. I think 16.5 probably can get you Jung Hoo Lee or Rhys Hoskins this year. If the Twins had 35 mil to spend on FA like they would if they were just maintaining payroll they can sign either of those guys without thinking twice and still have 15-20 mil to spend. Instead they're at 5-20 (according to Hayes) total. The Rays gave Morton 15 mil. Shoot, they gave a washed up Kluber 13 mil a year. If the Twins had 35 mil to spend they could get a Lee or Hoskins plus a Giolito, Wacha, maybe Rodriguez, Imanaga, maybe Stroman. I will admit I've been extreme today, but going from 35 to possibly 5 mil to spend this offseason when your team is in a contention window is a brutal thing to leak to fans. I'm generally not a "cheap Pohlads" screamer (I think you know that), especially not recently when they've been spending to their market score as compared to the rest of the league. But a $30 million payroll cut at this point of your team building cycle is absolutely, 100% a "cheap Pohlads" moment (maybe it's only 15 mil cut and I look like a jerk later on). And, no, I don't care what their revenues were, or what the new TV deal is, or any of that. The Pohlads raked in money while building cheap teams all throughout the 2010s and it's more than reasonable to expect them to invest in the team now. So I'm going to be a little exaggerated about this absolute slap in the face to fans who've watched their ticket prices continue to rise, concessions and merch prices continue to rise, and found it incredibly hard to even get the games on TV for years.

Is the payroll not at roughly 120 mil right now? Are the reports not that the Twins are looking at a 125-140 payroll? What's the definition of "sizable contracts" that they can fit multiple of with between 5 and 20 mil to spend?

I wasn't clear in my rantings?! Impossible! 🤪 Definitely was in regards to the payroll cut. If you have to remove Kepler to add Lee I don't think that's a significant upgrade in the overall talent of the team, but I would do it to get the younger player in there who I think will be better for longer. He may even be significantly better this year than Kepler, but the overall talent of the team won't go up if you're not replacing the CFer and are seeing a downgrade there. I would bet a lot that Lee is a significant upgrade on Gallo, but when it comes to the current roster and improving it I don't like the idea of switching out Kepler or Polanco (the 2 most likely guys due to their contracts) for someone else as you're taking from the top of the Twins talent pool instead of the bottom. I want to add to the top while replacing guys at the bottom, not guys at the top, or even the middle (maybe that's where Polanco and Kepler are now?). CF is a hole right now. If you bring in Lee to play CF while keeping Kepler I think that's an actual talent upgrade (I'm counting on 0 games in CF from Buxton).

At this stage of their team development, yes, I believe adding proven, veteran, top line talent is the most pivotal aspect of the strategy/plan to get to the next level. Did Houston develop Correa, Bregman, Altuve, Tucker, and Alvarez (not all at the same time mind you) and say "we should be good, let's just call up a bunch of ok prospects?" Or did they go get Verlander, Grienke, Brantley, Abreu, Pressly, etc. (not all at the same time mind you) to put them over the top? Did Texas see their young core coming and say "this'll do?" Or did they go get Seager, Semien, deGrom (that one didn't work), Scherzer, Eovaldi, etc. to put them over the top? Atlanta, the Dodgers, the Nationals, the Red Sox, the Cubs all had young cores coming, or established, and supplemented them with proven MLB talent. The Twins have taken 1 step there with Correa. I love it. But the teams that win championships mix their young core with paid for talent. So, yes, I believe that when you have a young, cheap core the most pivotal aspect of the strategy/plan to get to the next level is to add to it with proven, likely expensive, MLB talent to fill the gaps. The idea that teams are built just around calling up young talent is false. Even Tampa brings in free agents. Cleveland brought in bats last year (granted those didn't work out so swell). The Twins have a window opening, and 5 years of super controllable assets. The best bet for getting to the next level is to at least maintain payroll and supplement the cheap talent with the best proven players you can find.

Ok, just trading the 2 hole hitter. Polanco is absolutely still a primary player. He would start everyday for this team. And he'd hit in the 2 hole. Other teams trading their 2 hole hitter as their window for contention is opening while hoping to replace them with a young player that's never stepped foot on a major league field (Lee, Severino, pick your guy) has proven to be a very effective practice for other teams? I disagree. Don't just point to Tampa as an example either. The outlier is not a strong selling point. If you think Polanco was just going to be some bench bat who played 3 times a week and hit 7 hole we'll just never agree on this one. You said you saw the handing of jobs to young players, including replacing Polanco, as being a step forward. I responded that you hope it's a step forward. I retract my statement about also losing their 3/4 hole hitter from the playoffs, but remain steadfast in the idea that this "transition" to an incredibly young lineup is any sort of obvious step forward. It's a massive gamble that Lewis can finally stay healthy for a full year while also maintaining his numbers (you know I think he has star talent), Julien can maintain his production for a full year after the league makes adjustments to him, Wallner can maintain his production for a full year after the league makes adjustments to him, Jeffers can maintain his production for a full year as "the guy" behind the plate, and, on top of those 4 things, the other young guys can not only come up and reproduce what Polanco does, but actually be better than him and Kepler, and the other vets. Because "a step forward" suggests improvement. This team just made the ALDS with a historic rookie trio, and Jeffers making a massive jump. Those 4 things maintaining is no sure thing at all, but actually taking a step forward by replacing Polanco with any of the youngsters in the everyday lineup is a bridge too far for me. Thus my statement about you "hoping" it's a step forward.

I think Kepler is more likely to sustain that late season surge for 1 more season than any of the internal options. You called him redundant. Unless you have other options likely to be as good he's not redundant. Maybe you think Martin can immediately out perform him. Or Larnach is suddenly going to figure it out. It's not that I have great faith in Kepler, it's that I don't trust the current internal options that would replace him, thus making him redundant. I'm fine with moving them if you're going to maintain payroll. In that situation you have real room to aim higher. If you're going to cut payroll you've lost your ability to aim higher. I have no interest in rearranging the talent while keeping it at the same level (your example of trading them and then signing guys who are basically equal). Cutting payroll absolutely matters when it comes to this team's ability to take the best shot at raising their ceiling over the next few years. Yes, if you trade them you can replace them with equally mid level talent whether you cut payroll or not. My point is that's not what I think the goal should be, I think the goal should be to raise the ceiling. I don't think anyone has shown the ability to raise this team's ceiling if they cut payroll beyond hoping the kids become stars.