BREAKING: Twins Designate Simeon Woods Richardson for Assignment

[Major League Ready]

On 5/30/2026 at 6:19 PM, KirbyDome89 said:

Yeah, if we want to pretend like Berrios ceased to exist post 2022 because an extension conveniently nullifies post production then sure, things look a lot better for the Twins.

Berrios put up 2.5 WAR in 2023 and hit that number again in 2024. He threw nearly 200 innings each season as well. He threw basically 2/3 of SWR's entire career IPs with MN in one season. Berrios was/is in a different class. 

Austin Martin has .7 career WAR in nearly 200 games played. I mean....

Berrios didn’t cease to exist but the Twins contractual control ceased after the 1.33 years from the trade.  WHat he did after that control ceased has zero relevance in the context of evaluating the trade.  None.  The Twins gave up 1.33 years of control and the Blue Jays received 1.33 years of control.  The Twins gained SIM and Martin and the Jays lost whatever those players produce.

The Twins made a decision not to pay him $131M.  If you want to pretend the Twins would have or should have paid him $131M.  Then, the appropriate analysis would be what they got in trade AND what they could have produced for $131M spent on another or other free agents.  Right now, that decision to not pay him $131M is looking pretty good. 
 

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Berrios didn’t cease to exist but the Twins contractual control ceased after the 1.33 years from the trade.  WHat he did after that control ceased has zero relevance in the context of evaluating the trade.  None.  The Twins gave up 1.33 years of control and the Blue Jays received 1.33 years of control.  The Twins gained SIM and Martin and the Jays lost whatever those players produce.

The Twins made a decision not to pay him $131M.  If you want to pretend the Twins would have or should have paid him $131M.  Then, the appropriate analysis would be what they got in trade AND what they could have produced for $131M spent on another or other free agents.  Right now, that decision to not pay him $131M is looking pretty good. 
 

Agreed.

Also, Berrios has been so much better than he's gotten credit for around here. Toronto has been willing to hang him out to dry when he doesn't have his best stuff, but the Blue Jays won something like 60% of their games when Berrios was on the mound for them in those first 1.33 years. 

 

[The Great Hambino]

10 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Some Minnesota Twins starters. SWR, Dylan Bundy, Chris Archer, Randy Dobnak, Chris Paddack. 

4.89 ERA, 4.66 FIP, 4.70 xFIP
4.56 ERA, 4.49 FIP, 4.57 xFIP
4.71 ERA, 4.60 FIP, 4.82 xFIP
4.88 ERA, 4.05 FIP, 4.25 xFIP
4.86 ERA, 4.51 FIP, 4.30 xFIP

Not in order. Just random. Most were in their 20s when they pitched for the Twins.

One interesting thing I see in this pile of blah is that every single guy had an ERA worse than their FIP.   Some variation should be expected, but 5 for 5 in one direction, and not particularly close for most of them?  

It's like they play crappy defense at an organizational level or something

[bean5302]

1 minute ago, The Great Hambino said:

One interesting thing I see in this pile of blah is that every single guy had an ERA worse than their FIP.   Some variation should be expected, but 5 for 5 in one direction, and not particularly close for most of them?  

It's like they play crappy defense at an organizational level or something

They're all low K rate pitchers which makes it harder to get out of jams. I think fringe level pitchers might often own ERAs higher than FIPs, but it's purely speculative. So... tough to say correlation vs. causation.

[The Great Hambino]

2 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

They're all low K rate pitchers which makes it harder to get out of jams. I think fringe level pitchers might often own ERAs higher than FIPs, but it's purely speculative. So... tough to say correlation vs. causation.

Shouldn't a lower K rate hurt your FIP?

I'm being a little facetious as 5 is obviously too small a sample to make broad generalizations, but I think it's something worthy of further examination.  Is this just noise?  Is it skewed by looking only at a group of fringe guys?  Or is there something of a foundational blind spot within the Twins' development model that causes them to crank out worse results than expected?

This is the third season in a row where the team ERA is fairly substantially higher than team FIP (42, 46, and 38 points higher in 2024, 2025, and 2026 respectively). 

I'm not a huge fan of FIP as the bedrock of pitcher valuation since I don't think it's wise to ignore roughly two thirds of a pitcher's results, especially nowadays when there's so much data available about the quality of contact allowed on non-three-true-outcome PAs.  But it's still a tool that can tell us something.  Perhaps the Twins should be looking a little harder to see what it's telling them

[ashbury]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Berrios didn’t cease to exist but the Twins contractual control ceased after the 1.33 years from the trade.  WHat he did after that control ceased has zero relevance in the context of evaluating the trade.  None.  The Twins gave up 1.33 years of control and the Blue Jays received 1.33 years of control.  The Twins gained SIM and Martin and the Jays lost whatever those players produce.

I disagree.  You overlook the value of incumbency.

Good players frequently sign extensions with their current team.  "We like your client.  We hope he likes playing for us.  Here is a market-correct offer for X years, covering his last year of arbitration plus X-1 years.  It's possible he could squeeze out an additional $X million by going through free agency, but our offer removes all the risk involved in going that route.  Please give your client our warmest regards, and let us know what you and he decide."

Paying market rates for players is more expensive than paying for young talent.  But there is a value in "we have him, and you don't," for players like Berrios who belong, at worst, in mid-rotation for a championship-caliber club and possibly #2 or even #1 in specific cases.  No team wins awards for the most efficient use of budget space - you use the budget space you have (or are comfortable with) to amass talent.

The Twins obviously were not going to make an offer Berrios was willing to accept at that time - that was clear from every report seen in the press.  So trading him for high-value prospects made sense for them.  But the Jays were operating on a different plane and such a trade made sense for them in a different way.  They traded prospects for 1.33 years of current control plus the chance for more.

It turns out $131M was the Jays' commitment.  If seems entirely plausible the Twins found such a number way too rich for their blood.  The trade made sense from both sides, and with a chance for a time-window much longer than the nominal 1.33 years of remaining control. And I think it's entirely fair to count all of the WAR he's given the Jays.

It kills me that the Twins can't commit $131M to one of their home-grown stars.

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I disagree.  You overlook the value of incumbency.

Good players frequently sign extensions with their current team.  "We like your client.  We hope he likes playing for us.  Here is a market-correct offer for X years, covering his last year of arbitration plus X-1 years.  It's possible he could squeeze out an additional $X million by going through free agency, but our offer removes all the risk involved in going that route.  Please give your client our warmest regards, and let us know what you and he decide."

Paying market rates for players is more expensive than paying for young talent.  But there is a value in "we have him, and you don't," for players like Berrios who belong, at worst, in mid-rotation for a championship-caliber club and possibly #2 or even #1 in specific cases.  No team wins awards for the most efficient use of budget space - you use the budget space you have (or are comfortable with) to amass talent.

The Twins obviously were not going to make an offer Berrios was willing to accept at that time - that was clear from every report seen in the press.  So trading him for high-value prospects made sense for them.  But the Jays were operating on a different plane and such a trade made sense for them in a different way.

It turns out $131M was the Jays' commitment.  If seems entirely plausible the Twins found such a number way too rich for their blood.  The trade made sense from both sides, and with a chance for a time-window much longer than the nominal 1.33 years of remaining control. And I think it's entirely fair to count all of the WAR he's given the Jays.

It kills me that the Twins can't commit $131M to one of their home-grown stars.

No chance they pay him. Zero. And, I disagree..... They traded 1.5 years of him. 

His current injury is why they won't pay Ryan..... Hopefully they do better in this trade. 

[ashbury]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

No chance they pay him. Zero. And, I disagree..... They traded 1.5 years of him. 

I just explained why that is simply not true.  You have to think like a front office.

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I disagree.  You overlook the value of incumbency.

Good players frequently sign extensions with their current team.  "We like your client.  We hope he likes playing for us.  Here is a market-correct offer for X years, covering his last year of arbitration plus X-1 years.  It's possible he could squeeze out an additional $X million by going through free agency, but our offer removes all the risk involved in going that route.  Please give your client our warmest regards, and let us know what you and he decide."

Paying market rates for players is more expensive than paying for young talent.  But there is a value in "we have him, and you don't," for players like Berrios who belong, at worst, in mid-rotation for a championship-caliber club and possibly #2 or even #1 in specific cases.  No team wins awards for the most efficient use of budget space - you use the budget space you have (or are comfortable with) to amass talent.

The Twins obviously were not going to make an offer Berrios was willing to accept at that time - that was clear from every report seen in the press.  So trading him for high-value prospects made sense for them.  But the Jays were operating on a different plane and such a trade made sense for them in a different way.  They traded prospects for 1.33 years of current control plus the chance for more.

It turns out $131M was the Jays' commitment.  If seems entirely plausible the Twins found such a number way too rich for their blood.  The trade made sense from both sides, and with a chance for a time-window much longer than the nominal 1.33 years of remaining control. And I think it's entirely fair to count all of the WAR he's given the Jays.

It kills me that the Twins can't commit $131M to one of their home-grown stars.

I can except counting all the WAR Berrios provided Toronto if the comparison is all the WAR the twins got with the money they didn't spend on Berrios.  The Jays got Berrios for Martin / SWR and $131M expenditure.  The equitable comparison for the Twins is they got Martin / SWR and $131M to spend on other players.

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Berrios didn’t cease to exist but the Twins contractual control ceased after the 1.33 years from the trade.  WHat he did after that control ceased has zero relevance in the context of evaluating the trade.  None.  The Twins gave up 1.33 years of control and the Blue Jays received 1.33 years of control.  The Twins gained SIM and Martin and the Jays lost whatever those players produce.

The Twins made a decision not to pay him $131M.  If you want to pretend the Twins would have or should have paid him $131M.  Then, the appropriate analysis would be what they got in trade AND what they could have produced for $131M spent on another or other free agents.  Right now, that decision to not pay him $131M is looking pretty good. 
 

Ok, why is WAR "appropriate analysis?" You want context, ok. Would you rather have 6 WAR over 4 seasons or 5 WAR in one season? 

I'll say it again, Austin Martin hasn't cracked 1 WAR in 200 games played. SWR has 2.6 career WAR in 2+ seasons as a SP for the Twins. They've combined to top Berrios' output in that very convenient 1.33 year SS because Berrios had a down 2022. Cool. Toronto unquestionably got the better player. Berrios has been a better pitcher than SWR since that swap, and sure, you can play the injury card now that he finally got hurt, but SWR has been unplayable as evidenced by his DFA so what are we really arguing here...

[KirbyDome89]

On 5/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Trades have to be viewed through the lens at the time. They didn’t have a contract with him past a year and a half. But the opportunity to extend him was traded away as well.

overall 1.5 years plus opportunity to extend Berrios for Austin Martin and a couple decent seasons of SWR is meh

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm pushing back against cumulative WAR being the deciding factor here, not the Twins motivation at the time, although I'll happily admit I thought they should've extended Berrios and despite the TJ injury this season I very much doubt Toronto is displeased with their investment. 

[Linus]

In economics there is a theory called Opportunity Cost. It simply means what is the cost of making one choice over another. It’s usually measured in money but it’s apt for trades as well. I view both the Polanco and Berrios trades as likely sub par or inefficient in economic terms. The Opportunity cost of both trades is what could we have gotten in trade instead of what we received. Both players had value at the time of the trades. Im assuming the Twins had other offers for both players. If this is true its seems likely they didn’t pick the best option in either trade. Of course we don’t know what the other options were so I am guessing. In both cases it doesn’t matter how well Polanco or Berrios played after the trade; their value was what it was at the time of the trade. How they played after the trade is unrelated to their value on trade day. Trading either player was not a bad thing. It’s just likely the Twins didn’t get the best returns possible. 

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I can except counting all the WAR Berrios provided Toronto if the comparison is all the WAR the twins got with the money they didn't spend on Berrios.  The Jays got Berrios for Martin / SWR and $131M expenditure.  The equitable comparison for the Twins is they got Martin / SWR and $131M to spend on other players.

That is a fair "other side of the coin".  Wake me when the Twins spend that $131M through 2028 on players of higher caliber than Josh Bell and Victor Caratini that they wouldn't have otherwise had.  Seems to me 1) they won't reach $131M, and 2) they piddle away what they DO spend, $5-7M at a time on players who can not possibly be difference-makers, just place-holders due to some present exigency.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

I just explained why that is simply not true.  You have to think like a front office.

FO only count the years they have control. We disagree. Strongly. 

[ashbury]

6 minutes ago, ashbury said:

That is a fair "other side of the coin".  Wake me when the Twins spend that $131M through 2028 on players of higher caliber than Josh Bell and Victor Caratini that they wouldn't have otherwise had.  Seems to me 1) they won't reach $131M, and 2) they piddle away what they DO spend, $5-7M at a time on players who can not possibly be difference-makers, just place-holders due to some present exigency.

I started to edit the above, but feared someone would reply to the first version before I could finish.  It's not very good, and here is what my evolving opinion looks like at this moment:

That is a fair "other side of the coin".  They extended Byron Buxton during the off-season after the Berrios trade.  Does that mean it was "one or the other, not both?" for their home-grown stars?  Ugh.

Other than Buxton, it seems to me they piddle away what they DO spend, $5-7M at a time on players who can not possibly be difference-makers, just place-holders due to some present exigency.

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, ashbury said:

I started to edit the above, but feared someone would reply to the first version before I could finish.  It's not very good, and here is what my evolving opinion looks like at this moment:

That is a fair "other side of the coin".  They extended Byron Buxton during the off-season after the Berrios trade.  Does that mean it was "one or the other, not both?" for their home-grown stars?  Ugh.

Other than Buxton, it seems to me they piddle away what they DO spend, $5-7M at a time on players who can not possibly be difference-makers, just place-holders due to some present exigency.

We agree on the spending part!

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

I just explained why that is simply not true.  You have to think like a front office.

Pretty sure the headline of this article proves not all front offices think the same.

[ashbury]

Just now, nicksaviking said:

Pretty sure the headline of this article proves not all front offices think the same.

An interesting thought-experiment would be to consider how the Blue Jays front office would think if they were in the TC market and the owners were named Pohlad.

[nicksaviking]

11 minutes ago, ashbury said:

An interesting thought-experiment would be to consider how the Blue Jays front office would think if they were in the TC market and the owners were named Pohlad.

This honestly feels like a BIG market club move. A team that doesn't sweat paying big money to big relievers. 

It's just so weird that the same franchise that turned the similarly strikeout challenged Griffin Jax into a swing-and-miss artist by making him a single inning reliever, never even bothered to try it again. This looks like Terry Ryan's blunder with Liam Hendricks.

Also interesting that SWR right this minute is still younger than Jax was when he debuted.

I also fear we're going to see more of this if someone in the front office doesn't speak up and point out exactly how it was that they ended up with Taylor Rogers, Jhoan Duran, Griffin Jax and Louis Varland in the first place. If they knew poor performance as a starter could lead to a DFA before June, SWR should have never, ever, ever been given the ball in the 1st inning at any time this year, because his peripherals said a poor performance as a starter was always a high possibility.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'm pushing back against cumulative WAR being the deciding factor here, not the Twins motivation at the time, although I'll happily admit I thought they should've extended Berrios and despite the TJ injury this season I very much doubt Toronto is displeased with their investment. 

100% agreed, WAR should not be THE deciding factor.

[ashbury]

11 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

This honestly feels like a BIG market club move. A team that doesn't sweat paying big money to big relievers. 

It's just so weird that the same franchise that turned the similarly strikeout challenged Griffin Jax into a swing-and-miss artist by making him a single inning reliever, never even bothered to try it again. This looks like Terry Ryan's blunder with Liam Hendricks.

Also interesting that SWR right this minute is still younger than Jax was when he debuted.

I also fear we're going to see more of this if someone in the front office doesn't speak up and point out exactly how it was that they ended up with Taylor Rogers, Jhoan Duran, Griffin Jax and Louis Varland in the first place. If they knew poor performance as a starter could lead to a DFA before June, SWR should have never, ever, ever been given the ball in the 1st inning at any time this year, because his peripherals said a poor performance as a starter was always a high possibility.

I'm glad we're back to the main point, instead of reassessing the 2021 trade for the umpteenth time.  The DFA on Saturday remains baffling to me, and the lack of a trade announcement today takes away one of the primary excuses that I could come up with.  They are cutting ties with a 25-year old who has a two-year track record of enough success to count as value by most metrics - until this clunker of a year.  We are missing important information.

[nicksaviking]

7 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I'm glad we're back to the main point, instead of reassessing the 2021 trade for the umpteenth time.  The DFA on Saturday remains baffling to me, and the lack of a trade announcement today takes away one of the primary excuses that I could come up with.  They are cutting ties with a 25-year old who has a two-year track record of enough success to count as value by most metrics - until this clunker of a year.  We are missing important information.

Yeah, definitely don't care about the trade angle any longer.

If you want a different excuse, I'd offer the Kevin Slowey; perhaps SWR dug his heels in and said he'd stay in the bullpen when hell freezes over.

I'd think there'd have been at least SOME hint of that dissent though.

[ashbury]

5 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Yeah, definitely don't care about the trade angle any longer.

If you want a different excuse, I'd offer the Kevin Slowey. SWR dug his heels in and said he'd stay in the bullpen when hell freezes over.

I'd think there'd have been at least SOME hint of that dissent though.

I've tried to avoid speculating about personality issues but this is the thought that's crossed my mind too: that he's resisted the suggestion to accept a 15-day IL stint, and he's resisted accepting a full-time bullpen role for a long enough time to find out if that suits him.  That's not something the team is likely to come right out and tell us, likewise the pitcher, so I hate putting much stock in mere speculation.  But if he's snapped up on waivers in a week or so, we won't have much to go on besides that.  The manager and the pitching coach couldn't change his mind?  That wouldn't be a positive mark for them.  Like I said, speculation leads down rabbit holes I don't wanna go, because I lack accurate information.

[LyleCole]

On 5/31/2026 at 7:38 AM, karcherd said:

The problem is there will be no market for Bell at the trade deadline just like last year.  The Nationals could not find any takers for him at last year's deadline and as you noted his performance has declined even more this year.  So if they aren't willing to eat those dollars we will be stuck with him for the whole season.  And he is absolutely unplayable at 1B and doesn't hit well enough to be a full time DH.

Maybe.   But we don't really know everything about what the Nationals were offered.  The Twins are willing to take just about anything in return to dump contracts, and if you read my entire point was contingent on Bell getting back on track as the season progresses. 

But even if they can't dump him, the Twins are also a team that saves every dollar.  His 2026 money is guaranteed so if they cannot dump him, they will probably just keep him to save money on his replacement.  

 

 

[karcherd]

6 minutes ago, LyleCole said:

Maybe.   But we don't really know everything about what the Nationals were offered.  The Twins are willing to take just about anything in return to dump contracts, and if you read my entire point was contingent on Bell getting back on track as the season progresses. 

But even if they can't dump him, the Twins are also a team that saves every dollar.  His 2026 money is guaranteed so if they cannot dump him, they will probably just keep him to save money on his replacement.  

 

 

Reports were the Nationals were trying to give him away.  He has no pathway to playing for anybody other than the Twins in the major leagues.  No one else will play him at 1B, which is a smart move.  And he hasn't hit well enough the last few years consistently to be a full time DH.