Balancing trades and roster management

[Trov]

As we near the trade deadline, most fans seem to be in the, well we hardly have a chance so sell what you can now boat.  I am in that general thought as well.  However, there is one thing many fans do not think of when it comes to this, what are the timelines of the players you are brining back in and how does that work with roster construction. 

I know most on here know the rules, but many seem to not, or really do not care what the rules are even if they do know them.  However, the rule is you can only have 40 people on your 40 man roster, unless they are on 60 day IL.  After the season all players are removed from the IL and the team must get to the 40 members.  If a player is not on the 40 man they cannot get called up to majors.  After being the system so long, they need to be placed on 40 man or be exposed to the rule 5 draft.  If they are on the 40 man and removed they are exposed to waivers where any team can take them and just pay them and occupy a 40 man spot. 

Why is this all important when thinking about trading players, either buying or selling?  Well each year the team needs to decide who to protect on the 40 man and not lose to rule 5 draft.  Some years it is an easy call for team, but others they really need to balance it risking losing players either on waivers or the rule 5.  This has to be thought about when trading players away, or brining them in.  

Of course for every player traded off the 40 man frees up a spot, but every player they bring in on a 40 man, must be put on the 40 man.  Also, if the player needs to be put on the 40 man after the year.  If you bring in 5 guys that need to be added, you better be planning on doing that, or you may not keep them. The team currently has 43 guys on the 40 man, Keaschall, Lopez, and Tonkin are all on 60 day IL.  Even if we make no moves that is 3 guys that need to be taken off.  The Twins have several players set to be FA and be off the list.  Vasquez, Paddack, Castro, Coulombe, France,  Tonkin,(Bader has mutual option).  That leaves plenty of room to add players, as there are plenty of guys that could get DFA and we would not miss them.

However, just because you have space does not mean you can start taking on a ton of guys on other 40 man rosters, or ready to be added. This also gets to my second point, sometimes you trade away a prospect now in a buying move, simply because you do not expect to add them to 40 man later on.  So you trade them before you risk losing for nothing.  I think this was part of what led to the Spencer Steer and CES trade years ago.  Both were guys that were going to need to take up space on 40 man or just risk losing for nothing after that year.  Neither were high on the depth chart for the team.   So even though the trade did not bring in big value, the team was not likely to put both on 40 man that year either. 

I am not saying you should just be willing to trade guys not on 40 man before they need to, or be afraid from brining in guys that will need to be on it, but it is something the fans should think about when the team trades for, or trades away certain players.  The FO will not do a deep dive as to that kind of thinking, but you know they are looking at that as well. 

[RpR]

52 minutes ago, Trov said:

As we near the trade deadline, most fans seem to be in the, well we hardly have a chance so sell what you can now boat. 

Fair Weather fans, only.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Trov said:

As we near the trade deadline, most fans seem to be in the, well we hardly have a chance so sell what you can now boat.  

 

2 hours ago, RpR said:

Fair Weather fans, only.

This morning there were 5 AL teams with 46 losses or fewer.  The current 6th place team and holder of the last Wild Card spot, the Red Sox, has 47 losses.  Below them, 4 other teams have fewer than the 51 losses our Twins have.  It's not enough to do as well as these 5 teams, counting Boston - we have to do BETTER than ALL of them. If we were all currently tied with those five, our random chances would be 1-in-6 - but we have unfortunately spotted each of those other teams between 1 and 4 losses for this closing sprint.

If we squeak through and land that final spot in place of Boston and all the others, what are our realistic chances in the post-season?  As good as what we had in 2023, even?  Bear in mind we just got done losing important games to the Pirates and Rockies, and in the post-season we'll face teams a tad bit tougher when it's win-or-go-home.

It's not a Fair Weather fan to see the writing on the wall that this just isn't our year. 

I'm not in favor of trading away the players with team-control beyond this year - I'm reluctant-but-willing to flush the rest of 2025 but not 2026 - but what value do players like Coulombe and the others with expiring contracts bring the Twins for the rest of 2025 alone?  (They won't be open to a contract extension this close to free-agency, unless we overpay their agent's fondest hope.)

"We're losing 89 with you. We can lose 92 without you."

The FO put together the roster, the players tried their best, but at this point the remainder of the season is worth very little, and the return from some teams who will value the collection of our departing players' contributions could be something nicely above zero.

And with luck, we pull a turnaround a la the 2024 Tigers and do well after the sell-off anyway.  That's hardly more implausible than the luck necessary to make the post-season with the current crew.

[Major League Ready]

8 hours ago, RpR said:

Fair Weather fans, only.

Fans that don't want to see mediocrity year after year.  Fans that don't think it's a good idea to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.  Fans that recognize that we took advantage of a lost year to acquire Ryan and Duran.  Fans that recognize that Cleveland and KC improved their teams for several years when they recognized a lost year and traded for Clause and Reagans.  

[RpR]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Fans that don't want to see mediocrity year after year.  Fans that don't think it's a good idea to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.  Fans that recognize that we took advantage of a lost year to acquire Ryan and Duran.  Fans that recognize that Cleveland and KC improved their teams for several years when they recognized a lost year and traded for Clause and Reagans.  

Ideas that are meaningless to the average baseball fan; the same people who go to games to see their team, not a gaggle of here today and gone tomorrow dudes get very large paychecks.

[NotAboutWinning]

Great explanation of the workings of the 40 man roster! This is another area the FO doesn't do well. Having the wrong players on the 40 man leads to AAA players seemingly stuck there when the team needs to try something different.

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, RpR said:

Ideas that are meaningless to the average baseball fan; the same people who go to games to see their team, not a gaggle of here today and gone tomorrow dudes get very large paychecks.

Your comment was not directed at "average fans".  It suggested that people here who supported selling were "fair weather fans".  Most of TDs, at least those who are advocating selling are not casual fans.  They are people that follow the game closely enough to know that we would not even have Duran or Ryan if not for selling.  They are fans that understand that not selling in a lost year (like the Angels last year) is gross mismanagement that can hurt the team for several years.  Many of those average fans you speak of will go to games regardless of those trades while others will go more or less frequently based on the quality of the product.  Those advocating selling understand selling provides an opportunity to put a better product on the field for several years.  

[Riverbrian]

12 hours ago, ashbury said:

 

This morning there were 5 AL teams with 46 losses or fewer.  The current 6th place team and holder of the last Wild Card spot, the Red Sox, has 47 losses.  Below them, 4 other teams have fewer than the 51 losses our Twins have.  It's not enough to do as well as these 5 teams, counting Boston - we have to do BETTER than ALL of them. If we were all currently tied with those five, our random chances would be 1-in-6 - but we have unfortunately spotted each of those other teams between 1 and 4 losses for this closing sprint.

If we squeak through and land that final spot in place of Boston and all the others, what are our realistic chances in the post-season?  As good as what we had in 2023, even?  Bear in mind we just got done losing important games to the Pirates and Rockies, and in the post-season we'll face teams a tad bit tougher when it's win-or-go-home.

It's not a Fair Weather fan to see the writing on the wall that this just isn't our year. 

I'm not in favor of trading away the players with team-control beyond this year - I'm reluctant-but-willing to flush the rest of 2025 but not 2026 - but what value do players like Coulombe and the others with expiring contracts bring the Twins for the rest of 2025 alone?  (They won't be open to a contract extension this close to free-agency, unless we overpay their agent's fondest hope.)

"We're losing 89 with you. We can lose 92 without you."

The FO put together the roster, the players tried their best, but at this point the remainder of the season is worth very little, and the return from some teams who will value the collection of our departing players' contributions could be something nicely above zero.

And with luck, we pull a turnaround a la the 2024 Tigers and do well after the sell-off anyway.  That's hardly more implausible than the luck necessary to make the post-season with the current crew.

While I strongly disagree with the "what are our realistic chances in the playoffs" reasoning.  

I do agree that I don't like our odds of reaching. 

For 2026... We will have at least 7 26 man roster spots to fill based on our current expiring contracts. The money saved on those contracts will be spent on arbitration raises. 

I don't have any expectation that a new owner will drastically increase pay roll. I have no reason to think the Twins manager or front office are comfortable just flooding the roster with an increase of youth to fill the roster spots.

So I'm guessing an additional move beyond the expiring contracts to free up additional money... that can be spread thinly across the open spots on the roster this off-season. 

 

 

[ashbury]

47 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

While I strongly disagree with the "what are our realistic chances in the playoffs" reasoning.  

I do agree that I don't like our odds of reaching. 

I came on here this morning to apologize for my part in the threadjack, so while I'm curious to see the different reasoning you use to get to approximately the same place, let's don't do it here. Message me, or start a different thread, or point me to an existing thread where you laid out your version already and I missed it.

As for the points made by the OP here, I think they're clear enough and correct so that they maybe won't even raise much debate.  Trades proposed in the comments section here can seem reasonable but if they put additional pressure on 40-man decisions then they might not be realistic.  A "haul" of prospects could do more harm than good.  I've repeatedly said that I'd prefer to go the other direction - package a valuable expiring contract with a middling prospect in exchange for a top-end prospect.  Funny thing, though, other GMs probably want to do much the same thing - package up several bodies in return for one of our best prospects - so the trade discussion along my lines could dry up quickly.  Every team wants to dispose of their so-so Rule 5 candidates, same as us.  Being GM isn't as easy as armchair analysts think.

[Trov]

1 hour ago, NotAboutWinning said:

Great explanation of the workings of the 40 man roster! This is another area the FO doesn't do well. Having the wrong players on the 40 man leads to AAA players seemingly stuck there when the team needs to try something different.

This is the exact kind of comment I was addressing in my post.  You cannot just shuffle guys on and off the 40 man without having them move onto other teams.  Generally, if a player is at AAA and not on the 40 man it is because they are not MLB qualify players, or they do not have to be on the 40 man because they still have time to be forced on it.  The FO needs to decide is it worth cutting ties completely with a player that may not be great, but is a MLB level player, or do they force the 40 man move, start option years when a guys is too young.  

If they were exposed to the rule 5 draft or was DFA from either our 40 man or another 40 man roster, then there is a reason they are sitting at AAA and not on a MLB roster.  They were exposed to every other team and could have been on a 40 man roster, but each team chose, for whatever reason, to pass on them. 

Calling for the FO to call up every hitter or pitcher from AAA that is putting up decent numbers, but not on 40 man will lead to removing of other guys on the 40 and most likely losing them to either another team or as a FA.  Then if the guy you call up fails, then who do you replace them with? You cannot just bring the guy you let go back.  Do you drop them off the 40 man and force more moves? 

[Trov]

5 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I came on here this morning to apologize for my part in the threadjack, so while I'm curious to see the different reasoning you use to get to approximately the same place, let's don't do it here. Message me, or start a different thread, or point me to an existing thread where you laid out your version already and I missed it.

As for the points made by the OP here, I think they're clear enough and correct so that they maybe won't even raise much debate.  Trades proposed in the comments section here can seem reasonable but if they put additional pressure on 40-man decisions then they might not be realistic.  A "haul" of prospects could do more harm than good.  I've repeatedly said that I'd prefer to go the other direction - package a valuable expiring contract with a middling prospect in exchange for a top-end prospect.  Funny thing, though, other GMs probably want to do much the same thing - package up several bodies in return for one of our best prospects - so the trade discussion along my lines could dry up quickly.  Every team wants to dispose of their so-so Rule 5 candidates, same as us.  Being GM isn't as easy as armchair analysts think.

I was not specifically looking for a bunch of debate, but more so wanted to address what I see as fans that get upset with certain trades in history where we "bought" and missed, or not traded for "MLB" ready prospects when we sell.  There is more to deciding what prospect to bring in or send out beyond just where they rank in lists.  How many other guys do we have at similar position, how much room on 40 man do we have, and many others.  

I also responded to one comment about essentially not caring about losing players when you DFA them just to see if some guy not on the 40 man can cut it at MLB level.  When we all know just having some success as a rookie does not mean long term success, we have 2 guys in AAA that proved that recently.  

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

I came on here this morning to apologize for my part in the threadjack, so while I'm curious to see the different reasoning you use to get to approximately the same place, let's don't do it here. Message me, or start a different thread, or point me to an existing thread where you laid out your version already and I missed it.

As for the points made by the OP here, I think they're clear enough and correct so that they maybe won't even raise much debate.  Trades proposed in the comments section here can seem reasonable but if they put additional pressure on 40-man decisions then they might not be realistic.  A "haul" of prospects could do more harm than good.  I've repeatedly said that I'd prefer to go the other direction - package a valuable expiring contract with a middling prospect in exchange for a top-end prospect.  Funny thing, though, other GMs probably want to do much the same thing - package up several bodies in return for one of our best prospects - so the trade discussion along my lines could dry up quickly.  Every team wants to dispose of their so-so Rule 5 candidates, same as us.  Being GM isn't as easy as armchair analysts think.

In regards to the original post. I think it was a fantastic post and something that needed to be said. I'm glad Trov said it. It won't raise much debate because in my opinion, it can't be argued with and those who attempt to debate it are probably not considering it nor inclined to consider it but they should be looking at it and looking at it hard. 

The GM or POBO job is extremely difficult. The CBA lays out clear limitations that make individual roster decisions for the 40 man or 26 man impossible to get 100% correct and I will contend until the Cows come home that there are a handful of superstars out there and there are handfull of players with no business in the major leagues. The rest are a big collection of players in the middle. Front offices must make these individual roster decisions in the face of additional filters such as trying to win right now. Projections, not past results but future performance because we assume the coaching staff is actively working with all players to get better and improve past performance. Front office has budget considerations because all teams have a budget, they have to work with what other teams want in terms of our excess talent and how they assess our talent. Players ping pong... sample sizes need to be built... the margins are thin and hard lines and decisions have to be drawn.     

I've been saying for multiple years that these roster spots are gold and should be treated as such. Intelligent posters can't understand my point about Bride just wasting a roster spot as I come across as some Bride Fan and the poster just doesn't like Jonah Bride. When I'm talking about the value of the roster spot and wasting it while Ty France plays every day because we haven't developed Ty France level.

I mainly refer to the 26 man spots that are available because that's the the first filter from the 40 man that players have to get through in order to improve the current team now and in the future. Regardless everything Trov is saying about the 40 man is correct. 

Admittedly my response to your post was talking about the 26 man roster holes and the budget remaining to fill those off-season holes and how it might play a role in our deadline decisions... which in my opinion is germaine to the topic... But OK, let's go to the 40 man. 

Trov is correct. Actually, he is off by one but his point remains valid and I'm not going to split hairs. They currently have two players on the 60 day for a total of 42. Keaschall and Lopez are on the 60. Tonkin accepted outright assignment about a month ago.  

Some of our current 40 man players will be easy calls to jettison to make room but not a bunch. Come December the Twins will have to consider additions to the 40 man or risk losing the player per CBA rules. I'm not going to project who I think the Twins will add out of names like Lewis, Morris, Schobel, De Andrade, G. Gonzalez, Prelipp and others but if the Twins feels there is a chance of any of them being claimed... they got to roster them. It's another filter attached to all trade considerations. Trov is correct. 

The Twins have put themselves in a position of being squeezed at the top financially because the budget is maxed out and will be maxed out next year and then squeezed on the 40 man at the bottom in terms of rising prospects plus the addition of whoever we acquire in sell mode. 

In the middle of all of that squeezing, we have watched our farm products crash against a major league wall resulting in the starting of this season with 8 pre-arb players which is well below the majority of our competition so you kind of wonder if it matters at all. AND HERE IT IS JULY and we have Keaschall and... and... umm... Travis Adams? that have auditioned for next year to add to the 5 pre-arb players (Wallner, Festa, Richarson, Varland and Lee) that we think will be with us next year. We have no major league information on players to get us up to 10 or 13 or 18 like other clubs and 40 MAN DECISIONS to make starting right now with this trade deadline.   

The 26 man is the critical point but it all starts with the 40 man. I'm scared for our future when I start wondering what's the point of gathering additional prospects in sell mode when the Twins are seemingly only willing to fully commit to only the bare minimum of players making the bare minimum resulting in the situation we are in now. 

Discussing on TwinsDaily the trade of Joe Ryan for prospects as Ty France and Christian Vazquez are played like superstars. 

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

When we all know just having some success as a rookie does not mean long term success, we have 2 guys in AAA that proved that recently.  

I think I know which two players you are talking about. Can you foresee any situation in which either of them ever plays another inning with the Twins at the MLB level? (barring a slew of sudden injuries) 

Actually, I could see one way for one of the players, but the Twins have shown they won’t try using the player that way. 

Anyway, bottom line is we could clear two spots from the 40 player roster right there, and not really miss a beat, aside from the initial shock of hearing the news.

So in those cases, it was the trades not already made, that the Twins missed on. 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

I was not specifically looking for a bunch of debate, but more so wanted to address what I see as fans that get upset with certain trades in history where we "bought" and missed, or not traded for "MLB" ready prospects when we sell.  There is more to deciding what prospect to bring in or send out beyond just where they rank in lists.  How many other guys do we have at similar position, how much room on 40 man do we have, and many others.  

I also responded to one comment about essentially not caring about losing players when you DFA them just to see if some guy not on the 40 man can cut it at MLB level.  When we all know just having some success as a rookie does not mean long term success, we have 2 guys in AAA that proved that recently.  

There are plenty of folks on this website who think the loss of Rooker was justified. The 40 man pressure that you are talking about and the 26 man rules and regulation certainly played a role in that loss. It played a role with the Royals and the Padres as well. 

 

[RpR]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Your comment was not directed at "average fans".  It suggested that people here who supported selling were "fair weather fans".  Most of TDs, at least those who are advocating selling are not casual fans.  They are people that follow the game closely enough to know that we would not even have Duran or Ryan if not for selling.  They are fans that understand that not selling in a lost year (like the Angels last year) is gross mismanagement that can hurt the team for several years.  Many of those average fans you speak of will go to games regardless of those trades while others will go more or less frequently based on the quality of the product.  Those advocating selling understand selling provides an opportunity to put a better product on the field for several years.  

The way the "fans" you speak of here pee and moan about not being done what there self appointed expertise say, as I said in another post, they do not care about the Twins winning or losing, they just want it their way or the highway.

The term - fans - is used here seemingly that everyone who watches baseball, agrees with the posters opinion.

 

[TheLeviathan]

5 hours ago, RpR said:

The way the "fans" you speak of here pee and moan about not being done what there self appointed expertise say, as I said in another post, they do not care about the Twins winning or losing, they just want it their way or the highway.

The term - fans - is used here seemingly that everyone who watches baseball, agrees with the posters opinion.

 

By all means....lay out your plan for the team to improve this year, next year, or by 2028 when every notable arm on the staff is set to hit free agency.  You disagree with posts that state facts, downgrade fans for their opinions, and speak in generalities about the right/wrong thing to do.

Maybe it's time for you to actually state an opinion rather than troll those posted by everyone else.  

[RpR]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

By all means....lay out your plan for the team to improve this year, next year, or by 2028 when every notable arm on the staff is set to hit free agency.  You disagree with posts that state facts, downgrade fans for their opinions, and speak in generalities about the right/wrong thing to do.

Maybe it's time for you to actually state an opinion rather than troll those posted by everyone else.  

I do not pretend to be a baseball expert  - that knows more that the Twins front office - which is why I do not continually insult the Front Office for now doing what , I, think should be done.

I find Baldelli's analytic obsession to be annoying, having watch the Twins since the get-go, and his after game - seemingly - being fine with the results, very annoying, but he has forgotten more about the game than I will ever know.

So many here do nothing but pee and moan and say they cannot watch this - well then don't, They/he are/is not fans, they/he speak ONLY for them/him selves/self as they do not speak for fans, they speak for themselves..

 

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, RpR said:

I do not pretend to be a baseball expert  

That's one heck of a way to start a post that then leads to a paragraph of baseball managing critiques.  It's also rich in irony from someone quick to tell everyone else they're wrong without ever having the decency to post their own thoughts.  (Including, when requested specifically, right now)

[Mike Sixel]

8 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

In regards to the original post. I think it was a fantastic post and something that needed to be said. I'm glad Trov said it. It won't raise much debate because in my opinion, it can't be argued with and those who attempt to debate it are probably not considering it nor inclined to consider it but they should be looking at it and looking at it hard. 

The GM or POBO job is extremely difficult. The CBA lays out clear limitations that make individual roster decisions for the 40 man or 26 man impossible to get 100% correct and I will contend until the Cows come home that there are a handful of superstars out there and there are handfull of players with no business in the major leagues. The rest are a big collection of players in the middle. Front offices must make these individual roster decisions in the face of additional filters such as trying to win right now. Projections, not past results but future performance because we assume the coaching staff is actively working with all players to get better and improve past performance. Front office has budget considerations because all teams have a budget, they have to work with what other teams want in terms of our excess talent and how they assess our talent. Players ping pong... sample sizes need to be built... the margins are thin and hard lines and decisions have to be drawn.     

I've been saying for multiple years that these roster spots are gold and should be treated as such. Intelligent posters can't understand my point about Bride just wasting a roster spot as I come across as some Bride Fan and the poster just doesn't like Jonah Bride. When I'm talking about the value of the roster spot and wasting it while Ty France plays every day because we haven't developed Ty France level.

I mainly refer to the 26 man spots that are available because that's the the first filter from the 40 man that players have to get through in order to improve the current team now and in the future. Regardless everything Trov is saying about the 40 man is correct. 

Admittedly my response to your post was talking about the 26 man roster holes and the budget remaining to fill those off-season holes and how it might play a role in our deadline decisions... which in my opinion is germaine to the topic... But OK, let's go to the 40 man. 

Trov is correct. Actually, he is off by one but his point remains valid and I'm not going to split hairs. They currently have two players on the 60 day for a total of 42. Keaschall and Lopez are on the 60. Tonkin accepted outright assignment about a month ago.  

Some of our current 40 man players will be easy calls to jettison to make room but not a bunch. Come December the Twins will have to consider additions to the 40 man or risk losing the player per CBA rules. I'm not going to project who I think the Twins will add out of names like Lewis, Morris, Schobel, De Andrade, G. Gonzalez, Prelipp and others but if the Twins feels there is a chance of any of them being claimed... they got to roster them. It's another filter attached to all trade considerations. Trov is correct. 

The Twins have put themselves in a position of being squeezed at the top financially because the budget is maxed out and will be maxed out next year and then squeezed on the 40 man at the bottom in terms of rising prospects plus the addition of whoever we acquire in sell mode. 

In the middle of all of that squeezing, we have watched our farm products crash against a major league wall resulting in the starting of this season with 8 pre-arb players which is well below the majority of our competition so you kind of wonder if it matters at all. AND HERE IT IS JULY and we have Keaschall and... and... umm... Travis Adams? that have auditioned for next year to add to the 5 pre-arb players (Wallner, Festa, Richarson, Varland and Lee) that we think will be with us next year. We have no major league information on players to get us up to 10 or 13 or 18 like other clubs and 40 MAN DECISIONS to make starting right now with this trade deadline.   

The 26 man is the critical point but it all starts with the 40 man. I'm scared for our future when I start wondering what's the point of gathering additional prospects in sell mode when the Twins are seemingly only willing to fully commit to only the bare minimum of players making the bare minimum resulting in the situation we are in now. 

Discussing on TwinsDaily the trade of Joe Ryan for prospects as Ty France and Christian Vazquez are played like superstars. 

 

 

One guy debuting.....and people wonder why I say they need to be more aggressive in the minors, to get guys close, so we don't have to read "they aren't even in AA or AAA yet."

I agree with the OP, balancing the 26 and 40 man is not easy. That said, this team has killed itself by refusing to move on from bad veterans and clogging the 40 man, and not debuting guys to get them experience. 

[RpR]

11 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

That's one heck of a way to start a post that then leads to a paragraph of baseball managing critiques.  It's also rich in irony from someone quick to tell everyone else they're wrong without ever having the decency to post their own thoughts.  (Including, when requested specifically, right now)

As I said, I do not pretend to be the expert where -  IF they DO as I SAY, -  all will better.

Change for the sake of change is chasing shadows.

I have been here long enough to see all the rah-rah for Kirilloff, Larnach, Keirsy Jr., Lee - bring them up and dump the new veterans, then, when they are not the wonder kid , so many, rah-rahed about - the chant changes to - dump them, bring newbie rookie X who will be - So Much Better -  by the bandwagon fans who turn on them.

I have my likes, and dislikes, but I do not pretend to be the All Knowing Mr. Fixit.

[Mike Sixel]

8 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I think I know which two players you are talking about. Can you foresee any situation in which either of them ever plays another inning with the Twins at the MLB level? (barring a slew of sudden injuries) 

Actually, I could see one way for one of the players, but the Twins have shown they won’t try using the player that way. 

Anyway, bottom line is we could clear two spots from the 40 player roster right there, and not really miss a beat, aside from the initial shock of hearing the news.

So in those cases, it was the trades not already made, that the Twins missed on. 

And they'll likely lose them for nothing, or keep them in AAA clogging the 40 man while refusing to either trade them or play them.......that's an issue for sure. 

[TheLeviathan]

9 minutes ago, RpR said:

As I said, I do not pretend to be the expert where -  IF they DO as I SAY, -  all will better.

Change for the sake of change is chasing shadows.

I have been here long enough to see all the rah-rah for Kirilloff, Larnach, Keirsy Jr., Lee - bring them up and dump the new veterans, then, when they are not the wonder kid , so many, rah-rahed about - the chant changes to - dump them, bring newbie rookie X who will be - So Much Better -  by the bandwagon fans who turn on them.

I have my likes, and dislikes, but I do not pretend to be the All Knowing Mr. Fixit.

You pretend you are Mr. Fixit every time you troll another post to tell them they are wrong.  It is implicit (at times explicit) criticism of their perspective.  If you were a neutral, humble observer.....you wouldn't find so much space to hit "disagree" and critique everyone else.

You don't get to go around telling everyone they're wrong and then hide behind a veil of not being an expert.  That's just not a fair way to conduct discussions or engage with decency.

[Sjoski]

If the 40 man balancing act isn't enough,  Trov didn't even mention options,  or how many times a player on the 40-man roster can be sent down to the minors during a single season.

Under the current rules (since the 2022 CBA), a player can be optioned to the minors no more than 5 times in one season. After that, if a team wants to send him down again, they have to designate him for assignment (DFA) — which means he’s exposed to waivers and can be claimed by another team.

And realize, SWR for example was send down,  then returned. That two times. 

He has 3 option left. 

[Sjoski]

On 7/21/2025 at 3:05 PM, Trov said:

The team currently has 43 guys on the 40 man, Keaschall, Lopez, and Tonkin are all on 60 day

Isn't Ober still on the DL.

If so, that's 4.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Sjoski said:

Isn't Ober still on the DL.

If so, that's 4.

 

 

15 day, not 60. 

[RpR]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

You pretend you are Mr. Fixit every time you troll another post to tell them they are wrong.  It is implicit (at times explicit) criticism of their perspective.  If you were a neutral, humble observer.....you wouldn't find so much space to hit "disagree" and critique everyone else.

You don't get to go around telling everyone they're wrong and then hide behind a veil of not being an expert.  That's just not a fair way to conduct discussions or engage with decency.

Sorry, if some one says crap, I do not drop my pants and squat.

People give me thumbs down, So what, they disagree, such is human nature.

I do not like a team that will be a sub .500 team for years, been there , saw that, so I disapprove, que sera, sera.