6 Trade Packages Minnesota Twins Could Land for Jhoan Duran and Griffin Jax

[chpettit19]

35 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Would you trade 1+ year of Berrios for 2+ years of Duran?  If I think I’m playoff bound and my bullpen is weak like the Dodgers, I would think that makes Duran worth two plus change.  Berrios was a “solid” starter.  Duran is more of a game changer for a team like the Dodgers.  

No, I wouldn't even think about it unless you're adding something significant to Duran. Relievers simply aren't worth that much. A starting pitcher throws 100 more innings a season. And Berrios specifically throws 140ish more innings. That extra season of Duran still doesn't catch him up in impact because he still won't throw as many innings.

The problem with your theory is that the Dodgers will just go elsewhere. Because they don't have to buy Duran. Or Jax. I understand that your argument back will be that the other options won't be as good, and that's fine. The Dodgers won't care. They'll be good enough. Shoot, they can get Paddack for a flyer and put him in the pen.

Dennis Santana from the Pirates, Jake Bird from Colorado, Carlos Estevez from the Royals, Reid Detmers from the Angels, Pete Fairbanks from Tampa, Ryan Helsley from the Cards, David Bednar from the Pirates. None of these guys are costing nearly as much and they can all pitch in October. The Dodgers can easily just go get 3 of these guys without giving up a single top 100 prospect. And it's all good if you're good with that. I think setting the cost at 2 top 100 prospects is reasonable. But suggesting Duran is worth more than that isn't realistic, in my view.

Yes, the Dodgers are injured now, but Snell is coming back soon (actively rehabbing). Treinen is coming back (actively rehabbing). Sasaki will be back. Scott avoided the dreaded ligament injury so should be back no problem. Graterol may be back. Kopech will be back. That's 5 or 6 pretty big time arms. They're not just going to throw out a crazy trade when they can supplement their loaded roster in the mean time by giving up much lower prospects and still get really good relievers. Their FO is way smarter than that.

Again, Garrett Crochet is a legitimate ace. He had 2 months less control than Duran has. He went for 1 nothing prospect more than you're suggesting Duran is worth. Duran simply isn't worth that. And you can't find an actual deal that was done to show he is.

[Parfigliano]

5 hours ago, 1985Fan said:

No way should this FO trade either Jax or Duran, period. I don’t want Falvey to be a factor in the future of the franchise. He shouldn’t be here after new owners take over. 

Agree

[arby58]

8 hours ago, Matthew Taylor said:

The Twins got 2 top-100 prospects for Jose Berrios. They're not getting 2 top-100 prospects for Duran or Jax. A package deal of them? Yes, they could get two top-100 guys for them.

The comparison is not that relevant. The Twins only had control of Berrios for one year, as opposed to the two for either Duran or Jax. Besides, they are seen as dominant relief pitchers, given their K ratios. Berrios was a solid starting pitcher, but a 7-5 record with a 3.48 ERA when the Twins traded him doesn't scream dominance.

Absolutely bizarre to suggest the Twins give up two relief pitchers that are, league consensus, dominant late inning closer types for one top-100 prospect each. 

[Vanimal46]

3 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I am on board to deal both.

But not in the same deal!

Exactly. I prefer only trading 1 of them at this time. Trading both of them in the same deal has an extremely high risk of blowing up in our face. Jax and Duran would be the back end of any playoff contender’s bullpen and win them a WS. Hedge the bet! 

[arby58]

17 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

No, I wouldn't even think about it unless you're adding something significant to Duran. Relievers simply aren't worth that much. A starting pitcher throws 100 more innings a season. And Berrios specifically throws 140ish more innings. That extra season of Duran still doesn't catch him up in impact because he still won't throw as many innings.

The trade simulator website would beg to differ. They suggest both Jax and Duran are among the Twins top 10 most valuable trade assets. NONE of the Twins starting pitchers minus Ryan have as much value to them as Jax and Duran. Interestingly, given his salary 'anchor' Berrios currently has a negative value of -26.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, arby58 said:

The trade simulator website would beg to differ. They suggest both Jax and Duran are among the Twins top 10 most valuable trade assets. NONE of the Twins starting pitchers minus Ryan have as much value to them as Jax and Duran. Interestingly, given his salary 'anchor' Berrios currently has a negative value of -26.

Berrios didn't have that contract when he was traded so you're not comparing the right things. The math is very different now. The discussion we were having was about what the package was for Berrios when he got traded with 1+ year left on his deal. His value now has no bearing on that discussion.

Who said Jax and Duran aren't among the Twins top 10 most valuable trade assets? Certainly not me. That has nothing to do with whether or not they're worth 2 top 100 prospects. Jax and Duran are absolutely 2 of their 10 most valuable trade assets. It's why they're being discussed in trades. It's why I'd look to trade one of them. You can't make your team better by trading your bad players for good players. Despite what some people around here want to do in some of their wild trade suggestions.

Do you have a trade of a reliever in the last 5 years that shows they're worth a single consensus top 100 prospect? Tanner Scott and 4+ years of Bryan Hoeing brought back Robby Snelling who made a singular top 100 list (MLB's) last year. Scott was the best reliever on the market and the Padres got 4 more years of Hoeing and they couldn't get a singular consensus top 100 prospect in the deal. 

Garrett Crochet was just traded this offseason with 2 months less control than Jax and Duran. That's a legitimate ace starting pitcher. He's already thrown 135.1 innings this year. That's about as much as Jax and Duran will throw combined for the entire season. They're at 90.1 on the year right now. And he brought back 2 top 100 prospects and 2 dime a dozen prospects. Why should we believe Duran and Jax are worth nearly as much as him? 

Provide a single trade of a reliever in the last 5 years that shows they're worth what so many here are suggesting? I have no problem with the Twins setting the price at 2 top 100 guys. I think it's the smart play. But the suggestion that they're not only worth that but more isn't based on anything that's actually happened in major league baseball recently.

I'm not a fan of "the trade simulator." Mostly because I think fans take it far too literally. But I'd guess they have the value of these 2 guys in the 20 to 30 range. Which is far from enough to bring back 2 top 100 guys let alone more than 2 top 100 guys. If you believe in the simulator so much, have you run all these deals through it for each of these guys individually? What does it kick out? Does it say Duran and Jax are more valuable than all these deals? Or is it more along the lines of what the author says and that it'd take both of them to bring back these types of prospect packages?

[arby58]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Berrios didn't have that contract when he was traded so you're not comparing the right things. The math is very different now. The discussion we were having was about what the package was for Berrios when he got traded with 1+ year left on his deal. His value now has no bearing on that discussion.

Who said Jax and Duran aren't among the Twins top 10 most valuable trade assets? Certainly not me. That has nothing to do with whether or not they're worth 2 top 100 prospects. Jax and Duran are absolutely 2 of their 10 most valuable trade assets. It's why they're being discussed in trades. It's why I'd look to trade one of them. You can't make your team better by trading your bad players for good players. Despite what some people around here want to do in some of their wild trade suggestions.

Do you have a trade of a reliever in the last 5 years that shows they're worth a single consensus top 100 prospect? Tanner Scott and 4+ years of Bryan Hoeing brought back Robby Snelling who made a singular top 100 list (MLB's) last year. Scott was the best reliever on the market and the Padres got 4 more years of Hoeing and they couldn't get a singular consensus top 100 prospect in the deal. 

Garrett Crochet was just traded this offseason with 2 months less control than Jax and Duran. That's a legitimate ace starting pitcher. He's already thrown 135.1 innings this year. That's about as much as Jax and Duran will throw combined for the entire season. They're at 90.1 on the year right now. And he brought back 2 top 100 prospects and 2 dime a dozen prospects. Why should we believe Duran and Jax are worth nearly as much as him? 

Provide a single trade of a reliever in the last 5 years that shows they're worth what so many here are suggesting? I have no problem with the Twins setting the price at 2 top 100 guys. I think it's the smart play. But the suggestion that they're not only worth that but more isn't based on anything that's actually happened in major league baseball recently.

I'm not a fan of "the trade simulator." Mostly because I think fans take it far too literally. But I'd guess they have the value of these 2 guys in the 20 to 30 range. Which is far from enough to bring back 2 top 100 guys let alone more than 2 top 100 guys. If you believe in the simulator so much, have you run all these deals through it for each of these guys individually? What does it kick out? Does it say Duran and Jax are more valuable than all these deals? Or is it more along the lines of what the author says and that it'd take both of them to bring back these types of prospect packages?

The current value of Berrios was just an observation that starting pitching isn't the be all and end all - sometimes that doesn't work out. You made the claim that Berrios, because he pitched a lot of innings, was more valuable than a reliever who does not. Ergo, looking at the 'trade value' of the Twins starting pitchers versus these two relievers is appropriate. 

If you don't like the trade simulator, maybe TD should start their own - it seems to have a pretty good paid following, and as a private sector finance guy, I tend to think that is a pretty good indicator of value.

As for past trades: who cares? This is a specific situation with two relief pitchers with great lock-down value, controlled for multiple years. If no team will give up two top-100 prospects (and, let's face it, there is a big difference between numbers 1-10 and 90-100), I'd just keep them around.

One thing that may be different than some other years: high salaries are REALLY high, and these guys aren't it. If you are playing around with revenue sharing, you'd love to have these guys.

[TheLeviathan]

31 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Exactly. I prefer only trading 1 of them at this time. Trading both of them in the same deal has an extremely high risk of blowing up in our face. Jax and Duran would be the back end of any playoff contender’s bullpen and win them a WS. Hedge the bet! 

For me it's just asset management.  I think you get more in return when you deal your assets separately.  

[chpettit19]

Just now, arby58 said:

The current value of Berrios was just an observation that starting pitching isn't the be all and end all - sometimes that doesn't work out. You made the claim that Berrios, because he pitched a lot of innings, was more valuable than a reliever who does not. Ergo, looking at the 'trade value' of the Twins starting pitchers versus these two relievers is appropriate. 

If you don't like the trade simulator, maybe TD should start their own - it seems to have a pretty good paid following, and as a private sector finance guy, I tend to think that is a pretty good indicator of value.

As for past trades: who cares? This is a specific situation with two relief pitchers with great lock-down value, controlled for multiple years. If no team will give up two top-100 prospects (and, let's face it, there is a big difference between numbers 1-10 and 90-100), I'd just keep them around.

One thing that may be different than some other years: high salaries are REALLY high, and these guys aren't it. If you are playing around with revenue sharing, you'd love to have these guys.

No, I made the claim that Berrios at the time of the trade was more valuable because he pitched more innings. The context mattered.

Ok, what does the trade simulator say about the deals presented here? I don't subscribe so I have a limited view. I can see one article where they just updated Duran's value to 19.3. Their home page has a fan suggested trade that includes the Cubs' Ballesteros who's value is 19.5. You're the fan of the trade simulator. It's saying that not only is Duran not worth 2 of the Cubs' top 100 guys, he's almost exactly worth this one. Which is exactly what the author said and you called "absolutely bizarre."

And Duran is the guy people are saying is the more valuable reliever the Twins have. And I'd guess the simulator agrees. So, that'd mean Jax is worth less than the 19.3. Which means he's probably worth around what the #82 prospect Alcantara is worth? You subscribe to the simulator and want to confirm that?

So, at this point nobody can provide any previous trade showing relievers are worth what's being suggested and now your own suggested value source is showing that they're not worth what you're suggesting they're worth. What is the argument here? 

[harmlessharmon]

While around 80% of top 100 prospects end up playing in the majors, only around 20% of top 100 prospects EVENTUALLY become top tier players.  I would call both Jax and Duran top tier players.  Sounds like a rip-off to me.

[arby58]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

No, I made the claim that Berrios at the time of the trade was more valuable because he pitched more innings. The context mattered.

Ok, what does the trade simulator say about the deals presented here? I don't subscribe so I have a limited view. I can see one article where they just updated Duran's value to 19.3. Their home page has a fan suggested trade that includes the Cubs' Ballesteros who's value is 19.5. You're the fan of the trade simulator. It's saying that not only is Duran not worth 2 of the Cubs' top 100 guys, he's almost exactly worth this one. Which is exactly what the author said and you called "absolutely bizarre."

And Duran is the guy people are saying is the more valuable reliever the Twins have. And I'd guess the simulator agrees. So, that'd mean Jax is worth less than the 19.3. Which means he's probably worth around what the #82 prospect Alcantara is worth? You subscribe to the simulator and want to confirm that?

So, at this point nobody can provide any previous trade showing relievers are worth what's being suggested and now your own suggested value source is showing that they're not worth what you're suggesting they're worth. What is the argument here? 

I am a subscriber. Current values for both Duran and Jax are 26. Alcantara is 11. Ballesteros is 19.

That said, my schooling recollection is that leverage decreases as you approach the fulcrum. The Cubs and other teams that want something NOW are losing leverage - the Twins have these guys for two more years, and they can shop them next year or in the off-season. They have the leverage. They don't have to settle for present value.

[chpettit19]

9 minutes ago, arby58 said:

I am a subscriber. Current values for both Duran and Jax are 26. Alcantara is 11. Ballesteros is 19.

That said, my schooling recollection is that leverage decreases as you approach the fulcrum. The Cubs and other teams that want something NOW are losing leverage - the Twins have these guys for two more years, and they can shop them next year or in the off-season. They have the leverage. They don't have to settle for present value.

So, Duran and Jax alone aren't obviously worth 2 top 100 prospects according to your preferred value source either. But you're still convinced it's "absolutely bizarre" that people say that? Isn't the more bizarre thing that so many people are so convinced that they're worth so much with no actual evidence?

Sure, and the Cubs and other teams can go get Dennis Santana from the Pirates, Jake Bird from Colorado, Carlos Estevez from the Royals, Reid Detmers from the Angels, Pete Fairbanks from Tampa, Ryan Helsley from the Cards, David Bednar from the Pirates, or any number of other relievers without giving up a single top 100 prospect, let alone 2 of them. And then next year the Twins have Duran and Jax worth less value and have to find some other magical way to improve their team without meaningful money to spend or valuable players traded.

The Twins don't hold all the leverage because teams have other options. Duran and Jax aren't the only playoff caliber relievers on the market. The teams don't have to over pay for the Twins product when they could get 3 playoff caliber relievers for less than you're suggesting the Twins should clearly get for 1.

[Vanimal46]

9 minutes ago, arby58 said:

I am a subscriber. Current values for both Duran and Jax are 26. Alcantara is 11. Ballesteros is 19.

That said, my schooling recollection is that leverage decreases as you approach the fulcrum. The Cubs and other teams that want something NOW are losing leverage - the Twins have these guys for two more years, and they can shop them next year or in the off-season. They have the leverage. They don't have to settle for present value.

Nor should they settle for present value. Imagine in 2019 the Twins could have acquired two high octane late inning arms to replace guys like Rhyne Harper and Blake Parker for Brusdal Graterol and one of Kirilloff, Wander Javier (#4 org prospect at the time), or Trevor Larnach. Even without hindsight that would have been a slam dunk yes. 

[arby58]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

So, Duran and Jax alone aren't obviously worth 2 top 100 prospects according to your preferred value source either. But you're still convinced it's "absolutely bizarre" that people say that? Isn't the more bizarre thing that so many people are so convinced that they're worth so much with no actual evidence?

Excuse me? I pointed out that two of the Cubs top prospects - that you named - are basically the same value as either of them? I might as well stop here.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, arby58 said:

Excuse me? I pointed out that two of the Cubs top prospects - that you named - are basically the same value as either of them? I might as well stop here.

They're the prospects from the article, I didn't just pull them out of nowhere. And from the Cubs perspective Ballesteros is basically the same value as either of them. If you get to round up why don't the Cubs get to round down? And, shoot, if Duran's value jumped 7 points in a week the Cubs may as well wait a week and see if either of their guys jump that much, too! Another reason that site isn't so useful. Nearly 40% increase in a week? What did Duran do in the last week that changed his value that much?

[TheLeviathan]

Yahoo posted an article suggesting Jax for Justin Crawford and Keaton Anthony from the Phillies.  How do people feel about that?

[arby58]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

They're the prospects from the article, I didn't just pull them out of nowhere. And from the Cubs perspective Ballesteros is basically the same value as either of them. If you get to round up why don't the Cubs get to round down? And, shoot, if Duran's value jumped 7 points in a week the Cubs may as well wait a week and see if either of their guys jump that much, too! Another reason that site isn't so useful. Nearly 40% increase in a week? What did Duran do in the last week that changed his value that much?

You're equivocating., I gave you hard data - that you asked for - and now it's ummm.

You think other teams have leverage because there are other relief pitchers out there, fine - but the 'Twins Two' seem to get a lot of ink from commentators (you guys are commentators too, right? You don't think they have probative value?). I suspect that some team is going to give the Twins what they want for one of them. If they don't, I'm also good with them not selling low - prospects are just that.

[arby58]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Yahoo posted an article suggesting Jax for Justin Crawford and Keaton Anthony from the Phillies.  How do people feel about that?

Baseball Trade Simulator would not like it: They give Crawford a 16 surplus and Anthony a 2. Jax is a 26.

[chpettit19]

16 minutes ago, arby58 said:

You're equivocating., I gave you hard data - that you asked for - and now it's ummm.

You think other teams have leverage because there are other relief pitchers out there, fine - but the 'Twins Two' seem to get a lot of ink from commentators (you guys are commentators too, right? You don't think they have probative value?). I suspect that some team is going to give the Twins what they want for one of them. If they don't, I'm also good with them not selling low - prospects are just that.

I said from the beginning I don't like that site and I guessed they'd be in the 20-30 range which wouldn't be as much as 2 top 100 guys together and they aren't. You're choosing to round up and say they are. I'm saying the same thing can be done and rounding down can be done to say they're worth the 1. It's not "ummm." It's the same stance I've had on that site for years. Me being able to see an article from a week ago saying they had just changed Duran's value to 19.3 and now you telling me it's at 26 is just another example of why that site isn't as useful as people like you try to make it. Duran pitched twice between those "value" changes. The idea that his value changed by nearly 40% in that time period where he gave up 2 runs in 3 innings is a joke. That's not based on data, that's based on rumor and blind guessing by random people behind computer screens. So, no, it very much is not "ummm." It's the same stance I started this conversation with when you brought up the trade simulator and I said I didn't like it. You just provided another example of why I don't like it. Teams didn't change their evaluations of Jhoan Duran by 40% in the last week. That's not real.

I don't think the Twins will get 2 top 100 prospects for either of them. If they do, great. It'll be the most impressive thing Falvey has done in a long time. If they don't, I'm good with that, too. I've said many times I think setting the bar there is smart. My point has been that there is no evidence that any of you can provide that it is so blatantly clear that relievers are worth what you're claiming they're worth. You called the author's stance "absolutely bizarre" and the best evidence you have is that a massive spike in their "trade simulator value" over the last week puts them almost within reach of one of the packages the author presented. Nobody can provide a single real life trade that compares to anything they're suggesting is a realistic trade deal They just claim it's obvious it's what they're worth even though no major league team has made a similar trade. That's my point. I'm sorry I expect there to be a little precedent for claims. Not asking for a lot. Just a singular trade to point to. Because I can provide numerous trades that suggest you guys have all overvalued relievers pretty significantly, and the author is far closer in his suggestion.

[twinstalker]

11 hours ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

That Dodgers one would be REALLY fun. 

Fun for the Dodgers.

[dxpavelka]

If the PHillies add Andrew Painter to the above package, think about it.  Otherwise fuggetaboutit

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

they're not winning with this pitching

They're not winning with this hitting.

[Doctor Wu]

15 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

I don't trust this FO to pull off a significant trade,

I'm thinking the same way, Maybe "trust" is not the right word, but I'll still be quite surprised if they move one of the top relief pitchers (Duran or Jax, not Coloumbe) and get a significant return. At this point I think they really NEED to move one of those arms because it strikes me that some other team may indeed give us a good player or two in return, but with the Twins usual last-minute dithering at the trade deadline, I don't expect much to happen. 

[chpettit19]

4 hours ago, Minderbinder said:

They're not winning with this hitting.

Yes, that is what's holding them back. And nobody has been willing to throw out any suggested answer to my question on how you improve the hitting without trading some of the pitching. 

They have the pitching for 2 more years. Then they lose it for comp picks. How do you improve the hitting in the next 2 years so the team can win with no real money to spend? You have to better balance the roster or you're just going to have 2024 and 2025 happen in 2026 and 2027 and then watch Ryan, Lopez, Ober, Duran, and Jax ride off into the sunset. How do you win in 2026 and 2027 without making any trades of real talent? 

[Doctor Wu]

And no mention of Joey Gallo at all!

[In My La Z boy]

8 hours ago, arby58 said:

You're equivocating., I gave you hard data - that you asked for - and now it's ummm.

You think other teams have leverage because there are other relief pitchers out there, fine - but the 'Twins Two' seem to get a lot of ink from commentators (you guys are commentators too, right? You don't think they have probative value?). I suspect that some team is going to give the Twins what they want for one of them. If they don't, I'm also good with them not selling low - prospects are just that.

I'll never forget the Royals 2015 formula. 3 lock down studs in the bullpen was crucial in that WS run. We still have 2 more years to run with these guys. No panic selling please. 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Yes, that is what's holding them back. And nobody has been willing to throw out any suggested answer to my question on how you improve the hitting without trading some of the pitching. 

They have the pitching for 2 more years. Then they lose it for comp picks. How do you improve the hitting in the next 2 years so the team can win with no real money to spend? You have to better balance the roster or you're just going to have 2024 and 2025 happen in 2026 and 2027 and then watch Ryan, Lopez, Ober, Duran, and Jax ride off into the sunset. How do you win in 2026 and 2027 without making any trades of real talent? 

I think that the fear is that the Twins will trade one or more of these pitchers for over-hyped prospects that will amount to nothing in the long run.  The attempt to get top-100 type prospects or young MLB talent is at least an attempt to mitigate that possibility.  My point of view is that trading one of Jax/Duran is a good idea right now, but only if we can get an overpay — something that isn’t that uncommon at the trade deadline.  I would just like to be on the receiving end of that rather than a take what we can get situation.  As to the price of two top-100 types, it’s not that outrageous.  It’s steep — as one would expect it to be for a player as established and dominant as Jhoan Duran. To quote our SS, “If you want to shop at Dior. . . “

For the record, I agree that one of the starting big 3 need to be traded at some point, but I don’t think the answer is trading Joe Ryan right now.  I don’t think that his value goes down precipitously if we wait until the offseason or next year at this time.  In the meantime, we need to hope that one of the young guys can step up and pitch well enough to become part of the next big 3. 

[mickster]

18 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

I'll never forget the Royals 2015 formula. 3 lock down studs in the bullpen was crucial in that WS run. We still have 2 more years to run with these guys. No panic selling please. 

I could not agree more...........our pitching is solid for another year with Lopez, Ryan, Ober, Zebby, SWR with some backend depth in the minors (I did not include Festa here as I am advocating that he and ERod are used in the offseason to acquire a bat or future C).   Correa and Buxton are the not going anywhere, so that means we need Lewis, Larnach/Wallner (whichever one is still with us next year), Lee, Jeffers to be offensive threats.   I would love to have both Castro and Bader back, but not sure if the FO will do that.

[DJL44]

Ultimately, I want the Twins to use Jax and Duran as bait to trade Coulombe and Stewart. Brock Stewart is basically a scratch and dent version of Jax and Duran. 

You can’t afford the payment for Jax? Let me show you this beauty I’ve got out back, runs like a dream and you can drive off with it today.

[arby58]

9 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Sure, and the Cubs and other teams can go get Dennis Santana from the Pirates, Jake Bird from Colorado, Carlos Estevez from the Royals, Reid Detmers from the Angels, Pete Fairbanks from Tampa, Ryan Helsley from the Cards, David Bednar from the Pirates, or any number of other relievers without giving up a single top 100 prospect, let alone 2 of them.

Having other options doesn't mean they are optimal for a team in 'win now' mode. Here are the trade values from that 'other site' for the players you name (numbers rounded up/down):
Santana: 6
Bird: 7
Esteven: -3
Detmars: 18
Fairbanks: 6
Bednar: 7

Other than Detmars, none of these are remotely close to the value assigned to Duran (25) and Jax (26). BTW, I incorrectly rounded Duran in a previous post, but I just verified all of these.

Here is a quote from another popular site, Trade Rumors, relating to the Twins' Duran and Jax. "It's a steep ask [2 top 100 prospects for either of them] but an understandable one [emphasis added]. Both Duran and Jax have power arsenals and elite bat-missing ability that's coupled with good command. Both are affordable. Duran is earning $4.125 million in his first season of arbitration eligibility. Jax is earning $2.365 million."

Yeah, the Twins have leverage.