Minnesota Twins Takeaways from an Inactive Trade Deadline

[USAFChief]

7 minutes ago, singlesoverwalks said:

It goes both ways. The Twins don't want to give the Tigers a prospect who's going to beat them up for five years.

That's not what was claimed. It was reported the Twins contacted Detroit about Flaherty.

 

[singlesoverwalks]

11 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

That's not what was claimed. It was reported the Twins contacted Detroit about Flaherty.

I believe it, but they weren't going to offer too much because of the intra-division factor.

[jorgenswest]

49 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

BTW the best or second best reliever went from Miami to Arizona. Cheaply. 

AJ Puk? Can’t be. There must have been better relievers than Puk moved. As traded he had a declining strike out rate and a walk rate that has more than doubled. His velocity is a career low on all of his pitches except the change up where it is a career high. His BABiP and HR rate are at career lows. Is that sustainable? His velocity on the fastball and slider were both at or near career levels in his 2 Arizona innings so maybe they have something but his Miami performance was mediocre at best.

[USAFChief]

12 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

AJ Puk? Can’t be. There must have been better relievers than Puk moved. As traded he had a declining strike out rate and a walk rate that has more than doubled. His velocity is a career low on all of his pitches except the change up where it is a career high. His BABiP and HR rate are at career lows. Is that sustainable? His velocity on the fastball and slider were both at or near career levels in his 2 Arizona innings so maybe they have something but his Miami performance was mediocre at best.

Ignore the first four starts. 

As a reliever: 1.95 ERA. 0.795 WHIP. 10.3 K/9. 7 BB in 32.1 IP.

Left handed. History of success. 2.3 years of control. 

We could have used that

[Mike Sixel]

41 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Ignore the first four starts. 

As a reliever: 1.95 ERA. 0.795 WHIP. 10.3 K/9. 7 BB in 32.1 IP.

Left handed. History of success. 2.3 years of control. 

We could have used that

Correct. All day. 

[TheLeviathan]

21 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Correct. All day. 

Look, Puk would've been a possible bullpen improvement, but a look at his analytics tells you this might regress hard and look like Okert.  (From those two links, you'd say Okert is a better bet) That said, the price is worth a gamble, but let's not pretend he's some sure fire grab.  His hard hit rate, walk rate, and declining K rate are all red flags in their own right.

The fact that the Tigers and White Sox wanted guys like Walter Jenkins and Brooks Lee as a starting point because the trade is inter-division pretty much kills any realistic idea that they were attainable.  Of course the starting price is high, but that's "are you feeling ok" levels of high.  That's..."are you high?" levels of high.  Even moreso....the Yankees backed out on Flaherty due to medicals.  Call me crazy...but I'm sorta proud of the team for backing out on a player with that red flag.  We've had enough of that. 

The failure wasn't yesterday.  It was sixth months ago due to six years of stupid media practices.  Had there been a robust bunch of good pitchers moved yesterday, that would've been a different story.  

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Look, Puk would've been a possible bullpen improvement, but a look at his analytics tells you this might regress hard and look like Okert.  (From those two links, you'd say Okert is a better bet) That said, the price is worth a gamble, but let's not pretend he's some sure fire grab.  His hard hit rate, walk rate, and declining K rate are all red flags in their own right.

The fact that the Tigers and White Sox wanted guys like Walter Jenkins and Brooks Lee as a starting point because the trade is inter-division pretty much kills any realistic idea that they were attainable.  Of course the starting price is high, but that's "are you feeling ok" levels of high.  That's..."are you high?" levels of high.  Even moreso....the Yankees backed out on Flaherty due to medicals.  Call me crazy...but I'm sorta proud of the team for backing out on a player with that red flag.  We've had enough of that. 

The failure wasn't yesterday.  It was sixth months ago due to six years of stupid media practices.  Had there been a robust bunch of good pitchers moved yesterday, that would've been a different story.  

Who said it was certain to work? I said I'd pay that price. And, as I've said repeatedly, if it's the same story every year, there's more to it than just this year not being the right year. 

Also, it's a self fulfilling prophecy not to add players, and claim you don't have enough players to be good.... But yes, the key failure was the off season and cutting payroll. 

[USAFChief]

23 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Correct. All day. 

Personally I'd have rather had Puk than Tanner Scott, but I realize that's prolly a minority opinion. 

[USAFChief]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Look, Puk would've been a possible bullpen improvement, but a look at his analytics tells you this might regress hard and look like Okert.  (From those two links, you'd say Okert is a better bet) That said, the price is worth a gamble, but let's not pretend he's some sure fire grab.  Those hard hit rates, walk rates, and declining K rate are all red flags in their own right.

All of this is false. 

[TheLeviathan]

7 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Who said it was certain to work? I said I'd pay that price. And, as I've said repeatedly, if it's the same story every year, there's more to it than just this year not being the right year. 

Also, it's a self fulfilling prophecy not to add players, and claim you don't have enough players to be good.... But yes, the key failure was the off season and cutting payroll. 

Well, it's worth considering whether a player's performance is likely to continue....no?  There are red flags in that profile.  Pretty serious ones.  I'd also have taken the gamble, but it in no way helps the biggest issue that should've been addressed.  We needed a starting pitcher and our options were just dreadfully limited.

That said, had there been options, I'm pretty confident money would've been the bigger issue than trade price.  We won't know because this deadline offered jack squat worth acquiring.  (Other than Eflin.  That one I can concede should've been a reasonable target to go after)

[Aerodeliria]

8 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Ever green post. It's never the right year for the Twins apparently. 

Truth! We are always one or two years away...

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, karcherd said:

Joe Pohlad reports to the board only, DSP and Falvey report to him.  Jim is executive chair for baseball purposes,  Here is how Joe's role is described per the Pohlad Companies website.  "Joe Pohlad is Executive Chair of the Minnesota Twins, providing leadership to all facets of the Twins organization on behalf of the Pohlad Family."

That's be the first time in history the CEO and President reports to an EVP, wouldn't it? 

[bean5302]

6 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

It’s neither actually, but I can do the math on it...

Nope. You just said you don't have the data to calculate your numbers.

You just made some numbers up because you liked them. By the way, it was reported the Twins TV revenue was $54MM in 2023 so at least start with something valid.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Nope. You just said you don't have the data to calculate your numbers.

You just made some numbers up because you liked them. By the way, it was reported the Twins TV revenue was $54MM in 2023 so at least start with something valid.

That’s a cable tv contract.  That train left the building. I’m actually trying to make less money, but thank you, you’re proving my point about how difficult it is.  

[old nurse]

11 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So you're saying in the history of the team, since the Pohlad's bought it, it has only been the right year 1 time? Because that was the point of my post. It is never the right year. You'd think that would get the GMs fired faster.

If you never deal prospects until you have the best record in baseball, I doubt you'd get a GM job. Because lots of GMs do it, and still have their jobs. 

They went for it withe the Mahle and Lopez trades. All it created was more derision. 

[old nurse]

9 hours ago, USAFChief said:

All of this is false. 

Proof?

[old nurse]

12 hours ago, Western SD Fan said:

Let's try and do some math.  You're estimating that they need approximately 500,000 subscribers at $100 per year to replace the estimated Bally income.  For reference, I live in an area where the Rockies are a blackout area as well and MLB's Rockies TV was offered for $100 per year AND is still on local basic cable.  Whereas, Bally has cut off access to the local cable affiliates so the only options here are Direct TV or Fubo.  If we combine the estimated households per US Census in the basic Twins Territory (MN, ND, and SD) gives me 3,021,871 households (cut off at 3,000,000 for calculations). Let's estimate that 15% of those households would either pay the $100 or allow it to be part of their basic cable package.  That gets me 450,000 possible subscribers with the remaining 50,000 potentially coming from Iowa, Western WI, out of market subscriptions and business clients.  My estimation may be too high, and I'll gladly be wrong if someone explains why.

As for attendance, let's assume that the majority of the fans in attendance drive no more than two hours from the Twin Cities to attend more than 5 games in a season.  Personally, I live on the very edge of Twins Territory and it is a small trek to get to a game.  I end up spending at least $1,000 in tickets, merchandise, lodging, food, and various shopping plus the time away from work in order to make the trip.  I can only afford one of those trips per year and I am one of the lucky ones.  Should we just say eff the rest of the fan base because they live too far away to contribute enough to the ownership's pockets? I know that it's not ownership's job to negotiate tv contracts between Bally Sports and Comcast, Dish, Midco, Bluepeak, etc.  But for them to not ask any questions and live in blissful ignorance to me is still negligence at best.  

All of this to say that I believe most of us understand that we will never spend like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, or Mets and are alright with that.  But this has been a PR disaster nine months in the making.  An excited fan base gets doused in ice water bath reminiscent of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge by announcing they are cutting payroll prior to even getting a chance to sell a new season ticket.  Next, we find out that they are getting a one-year deal with Bally so there is hope that they will loosen the pocketbook a little somewhere during the season.  Then Bally and cable providers get into a carriage standoff.  While not the Twins fault, they signed the contract with Bally and now you have a fan base losing interest in the team that they can't watch. Apathy means no ticket or merchandise sales, which does affect the Twins bottom line.  Finally, MLB announces that teams like the Twins will be receiving up to $15 million in TV allocation funds in order to jump start the trade market.  So when other teams in similar situations make moves, you further anger the fan base.  While you may be technically correct that the prospect capital and/or payroll may have been too high to make a significant trade, the fact that this has fervor has been nine months in the making and just blowing it's top now.  A screaming fan base means they still care.  We don't want to get to Disney Star Wars territory and just have apathy.  That's when the swirl around the toilet bowl starts.

I think the announcers are employed by the Twins but the rest is paid for by Bally’s. You have to add the cost of production to your attendance figures 

[karcherd]

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

That's be the first time in history the CEO and President reports to an EVP, wouldn't it? 

He is the Executive Chair, he was the EVP before being elevated to Exec Chair.

[dxpavelka]

Yeah, we get it, just three proven starters.  Sadly for us, there has NEVER been a previously unproven starter make a post-season impact.  It would be impossible for SWR to perform well in the playoffs.  Or David Festa.  Or Louis Varland.  Or Paddack.  Just can't happen.

 

[Riverbrian]

I have often said... Buyers Buy and Seller Sell and anything else is just standing still. 

Sure looks like we stood still and we did so for the 2nd year in a row. So yeah... I'm disappointed.  

With that said... I will manage my disappointment because I have no idea what trade conversations took place. I have no idea what the ask on individual players were and I can only imagine what teams wanted from other teams in trades isn't going to just match up with Twins prospects who are ranked similarly. 

For example:

Arozarena to me appears to have gone fairly cheap but what do I know about what the Rays scouts think is cheap. They took a Single A pitcher and Single A OF... So could we have offered Soto and Winokur who seem to be similiar value. But what I don't know is... Did Tampa like those players over the players they got from Seattle? I don't know...  Maybe they were asking for Jenkins from the Twins? Now how do we feel?  

Kikuchi... was a rental. I don't really care for Kikuchi because the guy has been real bad lately and never really been spectacular in my opinion. The Astros gave up a lot... their top minor league arm along with a current young MLB player in Loperfido that I'd love to have in the Twins system. Plus another top 30 prospect in Wagner. FOR A RENTAL.

I can type Buyers Buy all I want but if the Twins would have gave up Festa, Julien plus Severino to get Kikuchi... I'd be pissed. 

Anyway... Buyers Buy... Seller sell... anything else is standing still. This is the 2nd year in a row... I'm disappointed but lack the information to be pissed about it. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

4 hours ago, old nurse said:

They went for it withe the Mahle and Lopez trades. All it created was more derision. 

So it didn't work once so quit? How has not going for it worked the last two decades?

[LambchoP]

Remember back in like 2009-10 when ownership said if we give them a new stadium, then they were going to start adding payroll, signing stars and bring a championship to MN? Lol now they cut payroll, screw up TV rights and then adding insult to injury, they blame this on the fans and poor attendance. What a slap in the face to us fans. Players too. Even if they decided to try to sign some free agents in the off-season (won't happen) why would any player want to come play here with this financial mess of ownership?

[NYCTK]

13 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Personally I'd have rather had Puk than Tanner Scott, but I realize that's prolly a minority opinion. 

For the price, of course. But otherwise...

[old nurse]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So it didn't work once so quit? How has not going for it worked the last two decades?

You are the one complaining they do not go for it. I am pointing out the fallacy of that statement.  

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, old nurse said:

You are the one complaining they do not go for it. I am pointing out the fallacy of that statement.  

they went for it once. Which I acknowledged several times. 

[KirbyDome89]

16 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Look, Puk would've been a possible bullpen improvement, but a look at his analytics tells you this might regress hard and look like Okert.  (From those two links, you'd say Okert is a better bet) That said, the price is worth a gamble, but let's not pretend he's some sure fire grab.  His hard hit rate, walk rate, and declining K rate are all red flags in their own right.

The fact that the Tigers and White Sox wanted guys like Walter Jenkins and Brooks Lee as a starting point because the trade is inter-division pretty much kills any realistic idea that they were attainable.  Of course the starting price is high, but that's "are you feeling ok" levels of high.  That's..."are you high?" levels of high.  Even moreso....the Yankees backed out on Flaherty due to medicals.  Call me crazy...but I'm sorta proud of the team for backing out on a player with that red flag.  We've had enough of that. 

The failure wasn't yesterday.  It was sixth months ago due to six years of stupid media practices.  Had there been a robust bunch of good pitchers moved yesterday, that would've been a different story.  

Do you honestly believe Detroit was insistent on Jenkins or Lee headlining a deal for 2 months of Flaherty? I don't. I believe the Tigers asked about the price (any team looking to acquire prospects would) but I don't buy for one second that they were sabotaging negotiations and turning away a potentially viable (or best) offer.  

It's not exactly difficult for the Twins to feed the Jenkins/Lee inquiry to a media mouthpiece and suddenly that becomes the story. I don't view that reporting any differently than the "we were in on Player X until....." reports that flow out of 1 Twins Way during the offseason or other deadlines. 

[TheLeviathan]

43 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Do you honestly believe Detroit was insistent on Jenkins or Lee headlining a deal for 2 months of Flaherty? I don't. I believe the Tigers asked about the price (any team looking to acquire prospects would) but I don't buy for one second that they were sabotaging negotiations and turning away a potentially viable (or best) offer.  

It's not exactly difficult for the Twins to feed the Jenkins/Lee inquiry to a media mouthpiece and suddenly that becomes the story. I don't view that reporting any differently than the "we were in on Player X until....." reports that flow out of 1 Twins Way during the offseason or other deadlines. 

I absolutely do believe it.  The quotes in Gleeman's article and Hayes confirm that and neither of them are Sid Hartman.  They don't run that quote without some understanding that it's legitimate.  Do I believe they may have come down somewhat?  Yes, but if that's your starting point, it's already a negotiation that is unlikely to be fruitful.  

We've seen leaked trade discussions - teams absolutely do inexplicable, stupid things in negotiations.  As fans, we want to believe teams just do normal, rational things and have normal, rational trade discussions.  But we know that's not true.  The Twins convinced themselves to sit out the offseason because of their own ridiculous decision making on broadcasting.  They've used "well this guy is coming off the IL is like making a trade" to justify things.  Baseball, more than any other sport, is full of individuals and organizations that don't get out of their own way ALL THE TIME.  So...yes, I absolutely believe other MLB clubs make old-timey, short-sighted, stupid decisions quite regularly.  

[KirbyDome89]

On 8/1/2024 at 2:54 PM, TheLeviathan said:

I absolutely do believe it.  The quotes in Gleeman's article and Hayes confirm that and neither of them are Sid Hartman.  They don't run that quote without some understanding that it's legitimate.  Do I believe they may have come down somewhat?  Yes, but if that's your starting point, it's already a negotiation that is unlikely to be fruitful.  

We've seen leaked trade discussions - teams absolutely do inexplicable, stupid things in negotiations.  As fans, we want to believe teams just do normal, rational things and have normal, rational trade discussions.  But we know that's not true.  The Twins convinced themselves to sit out the offseason because of their own ridiculous decision making on broadcasting.  They've used "well this guy is coming off the IL is like making a trade" to justify things.  Baseball, more than any other sport, is full of individuals and organizations that don't get out of their own way ALL THE TIME.  So...yes, I absolutely believe other MLB clubs make old-timey, short-sighted, stupid decisions quite regularly.  

Sure, GMs (PBOs) aren't above making poor decisions. Insisting on some bull**** offer is beyond stupid or old-timey. You aren't just throwing away a potentially top offer, and alienating one of a very limited number of trade partners, you're destroying your own professional reputation, and possibly reshaping how other clubs will conduct business with you. 

I believe it's legitimate in the sense that at some point those teams asked about high end prospects, and eventually the Twins weren't willing to spend what it would've actually cost to acquire either SP. That isn't remotely the same as Detroit or Chicago insisting on Jenkins in a swap. Also, was the rest of baseball charging the Twins a "premium," too?

I think it's far more likely the Twins are leaking damage control than both divisional trade partners were behaving in wildly incompetent ways, especially since this same Twins team did essentially nothing with the other 27 teams across MLB. 

[TheLeviathan]

57 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, GMs (PBOs) aren't above making poor decisions. Insisting on some bull**** offer is beyond stupid or old-timey. You aren't just throwing away a potentially top offer, and alienating one of a very limited number of trade partners, you're destroying your own professional reputation, and possibly reshaping how other clubs will conduct business with you. 

I believe it's legitimate in the sense that at some point those teams asked about high end prospects, and eventually the Twins weren't willing to spend what it would've actually cost to acquire either SP. That isn't remotely the same as Detroit or Chicago insisting on Jenkins in a swap. Also, was the rest of baseball charging the Twins a "premium," too?

I think it's far more likely the Twins are leaking damage control than both divisional trade partners were behaving in wildly incompetent ways, especially since this same Twins team did essentially nothing with the other 27 teams across MLB. 

Your argument that X won't do Y because it doesn't make sense and is wildly incompetent is not how the world works.  It's the classic is/ought fallacy.  

Your line of reason can be proven wrong by reality in many, many ways.  I'll give a few profound examples from baseball alone: the Oakland Athletics.  The Florida Marlins.  Franchises who have basically decided that their operational philosophies are "Did you thoroughly piss off a baseball loving home sapien today?"  Or the Twins - who decided to pinch pennies after their first time winning a playoff game since sliced bread.  Or the Twins who looked at Bally's and said "What could go wrong?"  Or MLB that thinks regional blackouts are totally fine for, like, several decades.  Or pretty much every MLB team thinking the best way to build future athletes is to feed them McDonalds, live in a shack, and workout with rocks tied to sticks.

Not a god damn one of those things makes any sense.  Or would seem "likely" for an organization to do in any rational world.  And yet.....here we are.  Perhaps the old "don't trade in your own division" isn't some made up thing, but a relic that hasn't died no matter how badly it should.

[USAFChief]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

 Perhaps the old "don't trade in your own division" isn't some made up thing, but a relic that hasn't died no matter how badly it should.

Somebody forgot to tell the other 29 teams.