Dodgers Come Calling on Twins’ Dynamic Duo as Trade Rumors Pick Up

[S Bart]

2 hours ago, twinstalker said:

Rushing is not a high upside hitter.  I'm amazed people want players who don't project to be much of anything.  Rushing and Cub Owen Caissie are the two prime examples.  Don't get fooled by the minor league stats.  Use them.

For Rushing the biggest indicator is the one tough park in the Dodgers system: Great Lakes in the Midwest League.  Rushing was 22, in some ways old for the level prospect-wise, but he was following the same path the Twins have been mostly setting forth for their college prospects.  Spend the draft season at low A, then spend the first part of the next year at A+.  Except he couldn't get out of A+ (like DeBarge and Schobel).

At A+ Rushing had a K rate of close to 25%.  At age 22.  As a catcher.  And he didn't get promoted.  For comparison, Kaelen Culpepper was at 16%.  This is important.  My current analysis has KC as similar to or slightly better major leaguer than Brooks Lee.  Rushing, for me, projects as much less than Lee.  Strikeout rate isn't all that variable, though the ballpark can affect it.  Great hitting parks are great hitting in part because they're not conducive to strikeouts for whatever reason (mound, foul territory).   And the PCL is a whole league of that.  So Rushing's K rate is too high for his age/level/park.

K-rate comparison (they all are born within weeks of each other, relative to draft year)

Player                       A+                     AA                    AAA

Rushing                 24.3 (22y)         20.7  (23y)       20.1 (23y)  (22.0 in repeat age 24)

Lee                         15.8 (21y)          15.9 (22y)         16.7 (22y)  (14.0 in repeat age 23)

Culpepper               16.2 (22y)        14.9 (22y)          tbd  

There is no greater predictor of success than a combination of age/level/K-rate, assuming a baseline of a quality slash line.  Rushing is at best a mediocre player at the MLB level.  The slash lines for each are not really worthy of mention, other than Rushing's A+ being disturbing (.228/.404/.452) and a bit intriguing with an ISO of .224.  Extremely high walk rates, though, are actually negative indicators.

Also, Caissie's K rates are so bad, he's not worth mentioning, unless it's in reference to a race with EmRod to see who gets dumped first by their team.

Looking at slash lines is valuable if you account for K-rate and adjust for age, level, and park.  These don't only knock down Rushing considerably, they also knock down Culpepper and Lee, though Lee at this point in the analysis has some age advantage (not much on Culpepper).  

Finally, I've never considered Rushing a real catcher, but he's playing there for now, so I don't know what happens there.  Reports are not great.

 

 

You need to be a scout.

[chpettit19]

24 minutes ago, lake_guy said:

If only there was a way to get all of this info to Falvey...and he actually used it.  I have little confidence he'll get this right.

If age/level/k-rate was such an effective predictor of future major league success teams would never miss on prospects. There's a reason every team misses on so many prospects. Its far more complicated than is being presented there.

[LA Vikes Fan]

1 hour ago, LastOnePicked said:

You have to take that chance. This team isn't capable of taking things to the next level. It's time to build a roster that can.

I agree with the sentiment but not with trading Duran or Jax, although I would listen on Jax. Also, I live in LA and follow the Dodgers. Rushing is not seen here as any sort of "can't miss" guy. He's a potentially good hitter but not a great catcher (which may not matter as much if we get the electronic strike zone).  I think the comparisons to Lee are pretty accurate - much more likely to be a high floor, with a slightly above average regular ceiling than a star. 

You're right, we do need more hitting talent on the MLB roster. Maybe we can get someone by trading Castro and a 40-45 FV pitching prospect to a 2B or 3B needy team? Not sure I see much else. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

1 hour ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

I think that the time is right to get as much as we can for Duran.  Even though Jax is older, I favor keeping him.

I also have concerns that Rushing's reputation has been built up more than he is worth.  This seems to be LA's MO.  He may not even be capable of being a FT catcher since it appears that catching is his weak point.

We should get at least 1 pitcher back that has promise.

Varland can step into Jax's role with Jax going to closer.

I believe we could trade Duran AND still be competitive this season for the wild-card plus have the benefit of players coming from the trade in future seasons.

One last thought... Although Duran has service time remaining (which adds to his on-field value), don't forget that if we kept him through his service time that we'd get a sandwich pick.  Gotta factor that into the return.

I'm not sure where you guys are getting the idea that Jax can be the closer. His career record is 15 saves in 38 opportunities for a closing rate of 39.5%. Some of that is statistical noise from giving up leads in the 7th or 8th inning and going 1 for 7 in 2022, but in 2024 he went 10 for 16 for a 62.5% closing rate. Duran on the other hand is 73 for 82 since 2022, for a closing rate of 89%. This is why Duran closes and Jax does not. 

Jax is a fine, very good high leverage late inning arm. He is most definitely NOT a closer. Jax could be replaced by Varland (although I'm not sure who replaces Varland). We do not have a replacement for Duran. Nothing kills a team faster than losing late inning leads (we all remember Ron Davis). There is more to closing than throwing hard; you have to have the mental fortitude for the job and very few pitchers have it. You keep guys who can close unless you a are doing a tear down and rebuild or have one in waiting, which we don't. Keep Duran. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, jorgenswest said:

Not high enough. It has to be a top 10 prospect and another in the top 100.

Once you get outside the top of the top 100 the majority of players are not impactful major leaguers. Look back 20 years to the 2015 top 100 list. The top is pretty good short of Gallo and Russell. There are some very impactful players outside the top 10 but there are many more that have made little impact. Being in the top 100 is not that special. I need a 60 FV to headline these deals. Most of the top 100 has an FV of 50 and multiples of them isn’t good enough. 

Top 10 according to who? 60 FV according to who? Rushing was on Fangraphs preseason top 10, Jenkins wasn't. Would you rather have Rushing or Jenkins? Jenkins had a 55 FV grade compared to Rushing's 60. Nick Kurtz had a 55 on their board. They'd laugh at you trying to get Kurtz straight up for either Duran or Jax. Misiorowski was a 55. 

MLB has Jenkins 13th and with a 60 grade. But if you go by how they ended 2024 Rushing was a 55 and 75th overall. They had Brooks Lee as a 60 grade prospect. Would you like him as the lead in a package for either of Duran or Jax? They had Misiorowski as a 60.

So, which board do you go off of? Misiorowski was never a top 10 prospect, but I'm quite sure you'd take him in return for one of these guys, wouldn't you? Same with Kurtz. They were both more like 30ish types. Jenkins has fallen out of most top 10s that I'm aware of, would you take him as the center piece of a Duran or Jax trade? He's not a 60 FV on every board. 

Projecting prospects is hard. Like really hard. It's why so many on top 100 lists aren't impactful major leaguers. Because playing major league baseball is hard. Not every top 10 list is going to be the same. Some evaluators rank upside higher while others care more about proximity to the majors. Saying "it has to be a top 10 prospect" or "I need a 60 FV to headline these deals" doesn't mean a lot because those things are subjective. Who's doing the grading? Who's making the list?

[chpettit19]

13 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

I'm not sure where you guys are getting the idea that Jax can be the closer. His career record is 15 saves in 38 opportunities for a closing rate of 39.5%. Some of that is statistical noise from giving up leads in the 7th or 8th inning and going 1 for 7 in 2022, but in 2024 he went 10 for 16 for a 62.5% closing rate. Duran on the other hand is 73 for 82 since 2022, for a closing rate of 89%. This is why Duran closes and Jax does not. 

Jax is a fine, very good high leverage late inning arm. He is most definitely NOT a closer. Jax could be replaced by Varland (although I'm not sure who replaces Varland). We do not have a replacement for Duran. Nothing kills a team faster than losing late inning leads (we all remember Ron Davis). There is more to closing than throwing hard; you have to have the mental fortitude for the job and very few pitchers have it. You keep guys who can close unless you a are doing a tear down and rebuild or have one in waiting, which we don't. Keep Duran. 

Griffin Jax went 9-9 in 9th inning save opportunities in 2024. If you're going to call giving up leads in the 7th or 8th statistical noise you should probably check out what his blown saves in 2024 were before you give his closing rate. His blown saves in 2024 were as follows:

4/14 vs Tigers- 8th inning gave up 3 run lead (ouch)
5/6 vs Mariners- 7th inning gave up 1 run lead
6/28 vs Mariners- 8th inning gave up 1 run lead
7/8 vs White Sox- 8th inning gave up 1 run lead
9/7 vs Royals- 8th inning gave up 2 run lead
9/16 vs Guardians- 7th and 8th inning gave up 2 run lead

His 10th save was a 12th inning save on 9/20 against Boston.

I guess I'm confused on your stance here. Is this about Jax not being able to pitch the 9th? Because his 2024 stats show he's better in the 9th than the 7th and 8th.

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, TNtwins85 said:

I like how you’re looking at Milwaukee and Seattle because they ultimately have the catching prospects that would fit the Twins best in Jefferson Quero and Harry Ford. Both guys hitting well at AAA. Both are above average if not plus defensively. If they want MLB ready catching the question is what do those two teams need? It seems they would both need bats or bullpen. I don’t like rushing as you and I have discussed for the fact I don’t think he’s a catcher going forward. At least not every day. I think we involve the dodgers in a 3 team trade or just go with the Phillies. The Phillies don’t have the MLB ready catcher but they’ve got a lot more intriguing prospects that the cupboard to pick from that’s relatively close.

Do you think the Brewers would do a Lee - Quero deal?

[tony&rodney]

17 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Top 10 according to who? 60 FV according to who? Rushing was on Fangraphs preseason top 10, Jenkins wasn't. Would you rather have Rushing or Jenkins? Jenkins had a 55 FV grade compared to Rushing's 60. Nick Kurtz had a 55 on their board. They'd laugh at you trying to get Kurtz straight up for either Duran or Jax. Misiorowski was a 55. 

MLB has Jenkins 13th and with a 60 grade. But if you go by how they ended 2024 Rushing was a 55 and 75th overall. They had Brooks Lee as a 60 grade prospect. Would you like him as the lead in a package for either of Duran or Jax? They had Misiorowski as a 60.

So, which board do you go off of? Misiorowski was never a top 10 prospect, but I'm quite sure you'd take him in return for one of these guys, wouldn't you? Same with Kurtz. They were both more like 30ish types. Jenkins has fallen out of most top 10s that I'm aware of, would you take him as the center piece of a Duran or Jax trade? He's not a 60 FV on every board. 

Projecting prospects is hard. Like really hard. It's why so many on top 100 lists aren't impactful major leaguers. Because playing major league baseball is hard. Not every top 10 list is going to be the same. Some evaluators rank upside higher while others care more about proximity to the majors. Saying "it has to be a top 10 prospect" or "I need a 60 FV to headline these deals" doesn't mean a lot because those things are subjective. Who's doing the grading? Who's making the list?

Agree with your post. Valuations are all over the place.

On another point/guess/ wonder - Would the Athletics entertain a Ryan for Kurtz trade? Not enough? Add Soto? Or more likely Kurtz is just not available?

[jorgenswest]

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Top 10 according to who? 60 FV according to who? Rushing was on Fangraphs preseason top 10, Jenkins wasn't. Would you rather have Rushing or Jenkins? Jenkins had a 55 FV grade compared to Rushing's 60. Nick Kurtz had a 55 on their board. They'd laugh at you trying to get Kurtz straight up for either Duran or Jax. Misiorowski was a 55. 

MLB has Jenkins 13th and with a 60 grade. But if you go by how they ended 2024 Rushing was a 55 and 75th overall. They had Brooks Lee as a 60 grade prospect. Would you like him as the lead in a package for either of Duran or Jax? They had Misiorowski as a 60.

So, which board do you go off of? Misiorowski was never a top 10 prospect, but I'm quite sure you'd take him in return for one of these guys, wouldn't you? Same with Kurtz. They were both more like 30ish types. Jenkins has fallen out of most top 10s that I'm aware of, would you take him as the center piece of a Duran or Jax trade? He's not a 60 FV on every board. 

Projecting prospects is hard. Like really hard. It's why so many on top 100 lists aren't impactful major leaguers. Because playing major league baseball is hard. Not every top 10 list is going to be the same. Some evaluators rank upside higher while others care more about proximity to the majors. Saying "it has to be a top 10 prospect" or "I need a 60 FV to headline these deals" doesn't mean a lot because those things are subjective. Who's doing the grading? Who's making the list?

It isn’t my board I am worried about. I don’t know anything and can only go by MLB or Fangraphs. It is the Twins board I am worried about.

Did you hear Levine talk about how they use these boards to sell deals to the owner or the Twins base? They are already trying to sell us that they are insisting on multiple top 100 prospects. That is meaningless. Most of the top 100 are not going to be impactful major leaguers.

I don’t know who is in the top 10 or so of their top 100 but that has to be the bar they set. They have to se it there and be right or wait until next year. If I trusted them more to be right I might be more willing. I don’t want to end up with a #4 or #5 starter and a bench player for any of these three. The return of two top 100s that they received for Berrios is not enough with this much control left.

[jorgenswest]

I am looking for comps of all star level pitchers that have been traded at the deadline with 3 seasons of playoff control left.

There was one player last year traded with that control. For the previous season and a half he had been a league average player. Chisholm is not a comp.

In all these discussions I haven’t seen anyone bring one forward but I haven’t read through every discussion.

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

I am looking for comps of all star level pitchers that have been traded at the deadline with 3 seasons of playoff control left.

There was one player last year traded with that control. For the previous season and a half he had been a league average player. Chisholm is not a comp.

In all these discussions I haven’t seen anyone bring one forward but I haven’t read through every discussion.

Comps for Joe Ryan aren't many.  Juan Soto is a slightly similar case and the haul he got would be amazing.

But seriously, the demand of a top 10 prospect would be incredibly limiting by definition.  A simple look at MLB"s top 100 has 4 of the 10 belonging to teams that aren't buying.  Two more belong to our division rival in Detroit.  You're left with the Phillies, Brewers, Padres, and Red Sox.  That's not a wide range of options.

I hope our FO isn't artificially limiting those options.  Shop players.  To everyone.  See what you can get and pull the trigger if you can add some more talent (particularly in our regular nine) to this organization.  And definitely consider moving bullpen arms when they can fetch highly regarded position player talent.

[jorgenswest]

11 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Comps for Joe Ryan aren't many.  Juan Soto is a slightly similar case and the haul he got would be amazing.

Soto did have those three seasons playoff control. His haul was amazing. The return the Twins get for giving up three years playoff control better be a lot closer to the Soto haul as opposed to the Berrios haul. Otherwise wait a year

It is far easier to trade a Joe Ryan or Jhoan Duran than it to acquire one and if we have new owners and possibly leadership by next deadline they can set the direction.

As for comps I wonder if the Rays or Guardians have moved a pitcher with three years of playoff control at the deadline. They seem to be models of teams that keep turning over talent.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

3 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

I agree. I wouldn’t even want Rushing really if I had to choose cause I don’t believe he’s a catcher. Same with Painter from the Phillies. Seems like a Tyler Glasnow to me. I’d rather get a big time prospect no matter the position and fill the trade with electric arms you can plug right into the bullpen. Don’t mess with trying to salvage a starter out of LA’s glut of pitchers. What I’m saying is don’t pull a Varland. Find guys that have stalled out on these teams as starters and take their one or two electric pitches and throw them in the BP right away. 

Sorry.  That’s not what I actually said.  I said that if I were choosing between a deal with Rushing included and one without him that I thought were roughly equal, I would definitely take Rushing (or some other similar catcher from another team).  I certainly agree that getting the best talent is the most important, but getting someone to fill a direct need in the organization is also very important.  Going into next year, our #2 catcher is ????  Good catchers are hard to find. 

[TheLeviathan]

33 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

Soto did have those three seasons playoff control. His haul was amazing. The return the Twins get for giving up three years playoff control better be a lot closer to the Soto haul as opposed to the Berrios haul. Otherwise wait a year

It is far easier to trade a Joe Ryan or Jhoan Duran than it to acquire one and if we have new owners and possibly leadership by next deadline they can set the direction.

As for comps I wonder if the Rays or Guardians have moved a pitcher with three years of playoff control at the deadline. They seem to be models of teams that keep turning over talent.

I mean....we traded for Joe Ryan.  We dealt a 342 year old dude who was a super cool cat and good at launching bombs.....but we got Joe Ryan for him.

And....um....we got Duran for an ok third baseman.  

So I'm going to disagree with you my friend....you absolutely can acquire this kind of talent.  If you're willing to deal talent.

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Not high enough. It has to be a top 10 prospect and another in the top 100.

Once you get outside the top of the top 100 the majority of players are not impactful major leaguers. Look back 20 years to the 2015 top 100 list. The top is pretty good short of Gallo and Russell. There are some very impactful players outside the top 10 but there are many more that have made little impact. Being in the top 100 is not that special. I need a 60 FV to headline these deals. Most of the top 100 has an FV of 50 and multiples of them isn’t good enough. 

You aren't getting a top ten prospect and another top prospect for a RP. You certainly aren't getting Painter, the top pitcher in the minors. I mean, go look at the top ten..... It's not realistic.

[jorgenswest]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I mean....we traded for Joe Ryan.  We dealt a 342 year old dude who was a super cool cat and good at launching bombs.....but we got Joe Ryan for him.

And....um....we got Duran for an ok third baseman.  

So I'm going to disagree with you my friend....you absolutely can acquire this kind of talent.  If you're willing to deal talent.

Do you trust this owner and this front office to hold out to make sure they get this kind of talent?

I am asking that they set the bar very high and be blown away by an offer. I don’t want them to take an offer that BTV would rate as equal. They have the leverage. Don’t settle for a two top 100 prospects.

 

[Mike Sixel]

14 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I mean....we traded for Joe Ryan.  We dealt a 342 year old dude who was a super cool cat and good at launching bombs.....but we got Joe Ryan for him.

And....um....we got Duran for an ok third baseman.  

So I'm going to disagree with you my friend....you absolutely can acquire this kind of talent.  If you're willing to deal talent.

This. 

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, jorgenswest said:

Do you trust this owner and this front office to hold out to make sure they get this kind of talent?

I am asking that they set the bar very high and be blown away by an offer. I don’t want them to take an offer that BTV would rate as equal. They have the leverage. Don’t settle for a two top 100 prospects.

 

They've done it twice. Why world you think they can't now?

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, jorgenswest said:

Do you trust this owner and this front office to hold out to make sure they get this kind of talent?

I am asking that they set the bar very high and be blown away by an offer. I don’t want them to take an offer that BTV would rate as equal. They have the leverage. Don’t settle for a two top 100 prospects.

 

I agree with you in general - set a high bar.  I think when you've gone in to detail about what that means for you personally, it has run into some problems.  

This FO is the one that traded for Duran and Ryan.  So yeah.....they actually might be good at that.

[chpettit19]

38 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

It isn’t my board I am worried about. I don’t know anything and can only go by MLB or Fangraphs. It is the Twins board I am worried about.

Did you hear Levine talk about how they use these boards to sell deals to the owner or the Twins base? They are already trying to sell us that they are insisting on multiple top 100 prospects. That is meaningless. Most of the top 100 are not going to be impactful major leaguers.

I don’t know who is in the top 10 or so of their top 100 but that has to be the bar they set. They have to se it there and be right or wait until next year. If I trusted them more to be right I might be more willing. I don’t want to end up with a #4 or #5 starter and a bench player for any of these three. The return of two top 100s that they received for Berrios is not enough with this much control left.

For sure. None of our boards or opinions matter. Them saying "it has to be a top 10 prospect" doesn't matter though, either. Everything they say is meaningless. The prospect they get back being in their top 10 is meaningless. Austin Martin had just been the #5 pick in the draft. That was meaningless. He was a top 20ish prospect on many public boards and was quite possibly a top 10 or 20 prospect on their board. Meaningless.

Yes, I heard the podcast. The moral I got from it was that all their words are meaningless. Which was my take already. Nobody wants to end up with a #4 or 5 starter and a bench player. A tweet saying "The Twins are demanding a top 10 prospect and another top 100 prospect" wouldn't make me feel any better. Who cares? They have to be right. And they have to be able to develop the guy once they get them. 

But they have to do something to inject more talent into this org. How else are you going to improve this team? Holding on to all this pitching and still having a lineup that isn't good enough is a good way to ensure 2026 goes like 2024 and 2025 and then all the pitching is worth less. So, yes, set a high price. But don't be arrogant enough to think 2 guys with 55 FV grades isn't good enough because one doesn't have a 60 grade and there's no way you couldn't be wrong and by the end of the season he doesn't go on a 2 month heater that jumps that grade to 60. Because nobody is that good at prospect evaluation. That's why it's a numbers game. Just add as much talent as you can. Because even top 10 prospects are more likely to not be impactful than be impactful. 

I can build a better team off prospects from #11-100 any given year than you can off just the 1-10 guys.

[jorgenswest]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

They've done it twice. Why world you think they can't now?

They haven’t done it. All they are doing is resetting the clock. Joe Ryan is finally to the point where he is a game 1 worthy playoff starter and they might trade him they fully realize his talents. In Duran’s case we needed to wait four years before he was on the roster. He wasn’t around to help the playoff teams in 2019 and 2020. Ryan wasn’t ready in 2023 to make an impact as a playoff starter. He has pitched two playoff innings. That isn’t doing it. 

Why are some so hopeful they are traded now instead of next year? Hardly any impactful player is traded with this much service time. Rightfully so teams ask for a king’s ransom to let them go. So far we have come up with Juan Soto.

[tony&rodney]

8 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

You aren't getting a top ten prospect and another top prospect for a RP. You certainly aren't getting Painter, the top pitcher in the minors. I mean, go look at the top ten..... It's not realistic.

Just a friendly reminder .... Gleybar Torres was the price for 2 months of Aroldis Chapman. Torres, as a shortstop, was higher rated than any player prospect currently in baseball including Roman Anthony. The Cubs will never regret that trade. Duran and Jax are available for 3 playoff seasons. We don't really have any idea what a team will decide. Philly is in a tough spot. they need a few players and especially a closer. The price should be high. There are possibilities. 

When I watch the Twins I see a slow, defensively challenged team that runs the bases poorly but has decent pitching. My opinion is that the Twins have the pieces in place to win 81 games, plus or minus 5, year after year going forward. I guess I'm hoping for more, which might be greed on my part. In order to take the next steps the Twins need better talent.

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

They haven’t done it. All they are doing is resetting the clock. Joe Ryan is finally to the point where he is a game 1 worthy playoff starter and they might trade him they fully realize his talents. In Duran’s case we needed to wait four years before he was on the roster. He wasn’t around to help the playoff teams in 2019 and 2020. Ryan wasn’t ready in 2023 to make an impact as a playoff starter. He has pitched two playoff innings. That isn’t doing it. 

Why are some so hopeful they are traded now instead of next year? Hardly any impactful player is traded with this much service time. Rightfully so teams ask for a king’s ransom to let them go. So far we have come up with Juan Soto.

I'm not suggesting either be dealt now ... I'm suggesting they've successfully traded in the past, so saying they can't is not logical. They gave up nothing for Ryan, and you are questioning that deal? Speechless. Truly. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Griffin Jax went 9-9 in 9th inning save opportunities in 2024. If you're going to call giving up leads in the 7th or 8th statistical noise you should probably check out what his blown saves in 2024 were before you give his closing rate. His blown saves in 2024 were as follows:

4/14 vs Tigers- 8th inning gave up 3 run lead (ouch)
5/6 vs Mariners- 7th inning gave up 1 run lead
6/28 vs Mariners- 8th inning gave up 1 run lead
7/8 vs White Sox- 8th inning gave up 1 run lead
9/7 vs Royals- 8th inning gave up 2 run lead
9/16 vs Guardians- 7th and 8th inning gave up 2 run lead

His 10th save was a 12th inning save on 9/20 against Boston.

I guess I'm confused on your stance here. Is this about Jax not being able to pitch the 9th? Because his 2024 stats show he's better in the 9th than the 7th and 8th.

I guess I wasn't very clear with what I meant by "statistical noise". I was attempting to refer to the tendency of fans to dismiss giving up the lead in the 7th or 8th as a blown save.  Giving up the lead in the 7th or 8th is a blown save statistically and is a fair reflection of a relievers ability to close out games. The numbers don't lie, Duran is better at preserving leads of less than 3 runs in the late innings than is Jax. In fact, using the last 3 innings is a more valid statistical analysis because over time it tends to take out the variables of the size of the lead and portion of the order faced. Focusing on only one inning, be it the 7th, 8th, or 9th, skews the analysis.  

My point is simple, however inarticulately argued - Duran is better at closing out games than Jax, and by a fairly significant amount. My view is that the team would feel the loss of Duran much more than the loss of Jax so if I were to trade one (and wouldn't trade either), I would trade Jax. That's especially true since I think Varland can take over Jax's role.  

[jorgenswest]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

For sure. None of our boards or opinions matter. Them saying "it has to be a top 10 prospect" doesn't matter though, either. Everything they say is meaningless. The prospect they get back being in their top 10 is meaningless. Austin Martin had just been the #5 pick in the draft. That was meaningless. He was a top 20ish prospect on many public boards and was quite possibly a top 10 or 20 prospect on their board. Meaningless.

Yes, I heard the podcast. The moral I got from it was that all their words are meaningless. Which was my take already. Nobody wants to end up with a #4 or 5 starter and a bench player. A tweet saying "The Twins are demanding a top 10 prospect and another top 100 prospect" wouldn't make me feel any better. Who cares? They have to be right. And they have to be able to develop the guy once they get them. 

But they have to do something to inject more talent into this org. How else are you going to improve this team? Holding on to all this pitching and still having a lineup that isn't good enough is a good way to ensure 2026 goes like 2024 and 2025 and then all the pitching is worth less. So, yes, set a high price. But don't be arrogant enough to think 2 guys with 55 FV grades isn't good enough because one doesn't have a 60 grade and there's no way you couldn't be wrong and by the end of the season he doesn't go on a 2 month heater that jumps that grade to 60. Because nobody is that good at prospect evaluation. That's why it's a numbers game. Just add as much talent as you can. Because even top 10 prospects are more likely to not be impactful than be impactful. 

I can build a better team off prospects from #11-100 any given year than you can off just the 1-10 guys.

We don’t know anything. I accept that.

I think then FV value is more meaningful than a number. Would you accept a deal where the best player acquired has an FV of 50 in the various sources available. Maybe they get two of those  guys. In your opinion would that be enough for Ryan? Duran? Jax? For me I think it would be for Jax. I need more for Duran. I need someone seen among the best for Ryan. 

[chpettit19]

30 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

I guess I wasn't very clear with what I meant by "statistical noise". I was attempting to refer to the tendency of fans to dismiss giving up the lead in the 7th or 8th as a blown save.  Giving up the lead in the 7th or 8th is a blown save statistically and is a fair reflection of a relievers ability to close out games. The numbers don't lie, Duran is better at preserving leads of less than 3 runs in the late innings than is Jax. In fact, using the last 3 innings is a more valid statistical analysis because over time it tends to take out the variables of the size of the lead and portion of the order faced. Focusing on only one inning, be it the 7th, 8th, or 9th, skews the analysis.  

My point is simple, however inarticulately argued - Duran is better at closing out games than Jax, and by a fairly significant amount. My view is that the team would feel the loss of Duran much more than the loss of Jax so if I were to trade one (and wouldn't trade either), I would trade Jax. That's especially true since I think Varland can take over Jax's role.  

But that's not how the blown save stat works in the 7th and 8th. You ignored all his holds which is the stat that balances blown saves in the 7th and 8th, not saves. You ignored his 20 holds and significantly skewed the data. He doesn't have the chance to earn a save in the 7th or 8th, only holds. By not counting his holds you gave wildly inaccurate data, not just "statistical noise."

[chpettit19]

19 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

We don’t know anything. I accept that.

I think then FV value is more meaningful than a number. Would you accept a deal where the best player acquired has an FV of 50 in the various sources available. Maybe they get two of those  guys. In your opinion would that be enough for Ryan? Duran? Jax? For me I think it would be for Jax. I need more for Duran. I need someone seen among the best for Ryan. 

Totally agree that FV and actual scouting reports/projections are far more important than some random ranking number.

I wouldn't accept that for any of them. I think Duran and Jax should return an equal amount as they're equally dominant late inning relievers. Ryan should return a package worth between the Crochet deal and the Soto deal. Duran and Jax should return a 55 plus. Chapman has returned Torres and Ragans in separate deals while on an expiring deal. Ragans wasn't as highly thought of at that time as he is now, but was already in the bigs. With the extra control they should return an elite type prospect (whatever FV grade you want to call that) plus for the extra control. Two 55s would be awfully tempting if they're both in AA or above.

[LA Vikes Fan]

12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

But that's not how the blown save stat works in the 7th and 8th. You ignored all his holds which is the stat that balances blown saves in the 7th and 8th, not saves. You ignored his 20 holds and significantly skewed the data. He doesn't have the chance to earn a save in the 7th or 8th, only holds. By not counting his holds you gave wildly inaccurate data, not just "statistical noise."

Fair point and it does make the statistical analysis closer. If we add in holds, Jax is 80 for 101 in hold or save opportunities from 2022-2024, 100 for 124 if we include YTD in 2025 (20 holds, 0-4 in save opportunities). Roughly 80.6%. Now it is possible to get a save and a hold in the same game but it's rare so I didn't factor that out.  That 80.6% didn't sound very good to me, so I asked ChatGPT what was considered a good save percentage in MLB. The answer that came back - 88% or higher. Other websites said 85% or better. Take that for what you will.

Doing the same analysis on Duran, he's 100-109 since 2022 (his first year), for 91.7%. Significantly better than Jax IMHO. You're right I misread the stats for which I apologize to the TD faithful. Correcting them does however lead to same point, Duran has been better in late inning situations than Jax. In my view, keep them both. If you're going to trade one, trade Jax because we will miss Duran more than we will miss Jax. Why? Because Duran is a closer and Jax is not. 

[TNtwins85]

1 hour ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Sorry.  That’s not what I actually said.  I said that if I were choosing between a deal with Rushing included and one without him that I thought were roughly equal, I would definitely take Rushing (or some other similar catcher from another team).  I certainly agree that getting the best talent is the most important, but getting someone to fill a direct need in the organization is also very important.  Going into next year, our #2 catcher is ????  Good catchers are hard to find. 

I just don’t see Rushing as a catcher. Sorry. In which case I would rather have a true hitter that is much better than a guy who is a catcher by name only. Trading for Rushing doesn’t solve the catcher problem. It just leaves the Twins without a true solid catcher if Jeffers is traded or after next year when he becomes a free agent. Same with Ballesteros from the cubs. Can they play catcher? Yes. Do you want them handling a staff? Blocking balls? Framing pitches? Absolutely not. I would rather have a Christian Vazquez behind the plate than a Henry Davis. There’s a reason Martin Maldonado made a career in Houston even though he couldn’t hit a lick. D over O at catcher 10 times out of 10.

[chpettit19]

51 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

Fair point and it does make the statistical analysis closer. If we add in holds, Jax is 80 for 101 in hold or save opportunities from 2022-2024, 100 for 124 if we include YTD in 2025 (20 holds, 0-4 in save opportunities). Roughly 80.6%. Now it is possible to get a save and a hold in the same game but it's rare so I didn't factor that out.  That 80.6% didn't sound very good to me, so I asked ChatGPT what was considered a good save percentage in MLB. The answer that came back - 88% or higher. Other websites said 85% or better. Take that for what you will.

Doing the same analysis on Duran, he's 100-109 since 2022 (his first year), for 91.7%. Significantly better than Jax IMHO. You're right I misread the stats for which I apologize to the TD faithful. Correcting them does however lead to same point, Duran has been better in late inning situations than Jax. In my view, keep them both. If you're going to trade one, trade Jax because we will miss Duran more than we will miss Jax. Why? Because Duran is a closer and Jax is not. 

Fair. I'd look at trading one of them. Whichever one you can get the most for. Because I don't know how else you make this team better. I'm a prospect guy, and I watch plenty of our minor league games, but just counting on those guys to come up in 2026 and improve this lineup isn't good enough for me. This position player group isn't good enough. You have the core of your pitching for 2 more years. I don't see a way to improve the offense without making trades. Meaningful trades. One of Duran or Jax this deadline if you get a good enough deal. One of Lopez, Ryan, or Ober this offseason if you get a good enough deal. 

Without making making trades with the potential to really hurt, and thus the chance to really have an impact, I don't see how 2026 isn't just like 2024 and 2025. And then you're down to 1 year left on your 5 big arms and you're really in a tight spot.