Tom Pohlad Said "Go Big or Go Home." Now He Needs to Actually Choose.

[amjgt]

2 hours ago, Dman said:

I'd say the reason the Twins wouldn't QO Jeffers is the risk involved both ways.  

First let's say you QO him and he opts out.  Are you sure he is going to get an Offer over 50M?  If he gets a three year 15 or 16M AAV he falls short of first round compensation and falls to a late second round pick.  While that's still decent compensation the Twins don't have a great history of those picks working out all that well.  If they trade him at the deadline they likely get a proven player who has worked their way through the system with better odds of making it.

Second let's say he accepts the QO now you have over 30M tied up in catchers about 25% of your entire payroll to a position most small market teams can't afford.  And you are adding him to what purpose? To let him leave the next year or to negotiate an extension? He has said he wants to go to market so nothing but an overpay would likely accomplish an extension.  If you did get him to sign, it would likely have to be for top catcher money so around 20M AAV.  Is that something the Twins can afford?  Is that the best use of their finite budgeted assets?

Part two of this is if they plan to keep Jeffers they can't keep all three catchers someone has to go.  Right now Caratini is coming off a 1.050 OPS month which is equal to what Jeffers was doing before being injured and he only costs 7M next year.  Do you want to pay 13M more for Jeffers next year? If you trade Caratini and Jeffers walks after the QO what are doing at catcher next year?

Bottom line for a team that is as money conscious as the Twins I don't see them wading into the uncertainty of what Jeffers might decide at the end of the year and what that might cost them. I'd think the preference for them would be that they control the situation and IMO that means trading Jeffers.

The part of this that I disagree with is basing anything off of Caratini's awesome last 5-6 weeks. I do think it has reset expectations back to baseline, from where is was in Mid May, which was quite low. 

I also believe that if Jeffers did accept the QO, there could be a trade market for him.

This is all something that doesn't really need to be worked out until the end of the season, other than, if the Twins think it might be a possibility, they may bake that into what they would accept in trade for him at the deadline. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

By the way, I'm bored at work so I'm using Claude AI look at trade scenarios. According to Claude, Jeffers should fetch a top five system prospect on the acquiring team, or two mid tier prospects. Claude specifically mentioned RHP Ben Hess, the Yankees number 5 prospect plus some younger, lower tier prospects, or SS Kaeden Kent (Yankees #13) and LHP Kyle Carr (Yankees #11), two mid tier prospects as a package. I would be more interested in getting a better prospect like Hess or, even better, adding in someone like Taylor Rogers and getting Carlos Lagrange and a mid-tier guy still down in A+. What I would really like to do is trade Jeffers for a solid MLB reliever plus a lower tier or younger prospect. I think that's going to be hard since any team trading for Jeffers must consider themselves a contender, or why trade for a rental, and probably won't want to trade somebody any good from their bullpen. I guess the one possibility is to find a team surplus bullpen arms but I don't think that's the Yankees and I don't know who it would be. My guess is the best likely deal is for someone like Ben Hess or Carlos Lagrange. That's likely the best we're going to be able to do, if we can do that well.

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, amjgt said:

The part of this that I disagree with is basing anything off of Caratini's awesome last 5-6 weeks. I do think it has reset expectations back to baseline, from where is was in Mid May, which was quite low. 

I also believe that if Jeffers did accept the QO, there could be a trade market for him.

This is all something that doesn't really need to be worked out until the end of the season, other than, if the Twins think it might be a possibility, they may bake that into what they would accept in trade for him at the deadline. 

I think basing giving Jeffers the QO off his awesome start to this season would be a mistake. His OPS the last 2 years were .732 and .752. His career OPS is .755. He's not a great defensive catcher by any means. He's a slightly better than average MLB hitter and bad or ok defensive catcher. None of that suggests he's worth a QO. 

Who would trade for a significantly overpriced catcher? The Twins would have to pay to get rid of him if they were paying him more than any other catcher in baseball. 

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

By the way, I'm bored at work so I'm using Claude AI look at trade scenarios. According to Claude, Jeffers should fetch a top five system prospect on the acquiring team, or two mid tier prospects. Claude specifically mentioned RHP Ben Hess, the Yankees number 5 prospect plus some younger, lower tier prospects, or SS Kaeden Kent (Yankees #13) and LHP Kyle Carr (Yankees #11), two mid tier prospects as a package. I would be more interested in getting a better prospect like Hess or, even better, adding in someone like Taylor Rogers and getting Carlos Lagrange and a mid-tier guy still down in A+. What I would really like to do is trade Jeffers for a solid MLB reliever plus a lower tier or younger prospect. I think that's going to be hard since any team trading for Jeffers must consider themselves a contender, or why trade for a rental, and probably won't want to trade somebody any good from their bullpen. I guess the one possibility is to find a team surplus bullpen arms but I don't think that's the Yankees and I don't know who it would be. My guess is the best likely deal is for someone like Ben Hess or Carlos Lagrange. That's likely the best we're going to be able to do, if we can do that well.

I'm not sure Claude is providing you great results here. What comp does it use to suggest a Ryan Jeffers rental would return not only a top 5 system prospect (not all systems are created equal, remember) plus more? The 2 mid-tier guys is far more likely. 

[Mike Sixel]

41 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

The trade talk is interesting and made me curious about 2 things. First, what would it take to get Chapman? I put that inquiry into Claude and the AI response was a top seven prospect. For the Twins, that means someone like Tait (3), Houston (7), Hill (5), GG (6)or Soto (8). That seems like a lot for a 38-year-old two month rental. I like Chapman as a player and I can see how he would be a great get and a real addition to this bullpen but I just am not certain I'm willing to pay that price for this team.

Second, has anyone heard or seen anything that suggests Sonny Gray would waive his no trade clause to come to Twins? What I've seen is that he wants to go to Atlanta because he's from the area and wants to play for team that has a real World Series chance. Maybe his buddy Joe Ryan can convince him to consider the Twins but even then, Claude says it would take a top three prospect (not Jenkins, but someone like Culpepper or Tait), plus a pitching arm in the upper minors as a secondary piece (CJ Culpepper? Sam Armstrong? Mike Peredes?), and maybe a third piece if the market gets very competitive. That prospect cost is also really high but I think the real hurdle is that Gray can choose where he wants to go and he has publicly said he wants to go to Atlanta.

I guess I would be tempted to trade someone like GG for Chapman given how many OF prospects we have, particularly if we can be assured of re-signing him for next season at something in the neighborhood of $13.3 million deal he has for 2026. Otherwise, I think the cost for these two it's just too high because I don't think either one of them gets us beyond a one (or maybe two) and done playoff appearance at best.

stop using AI, it is idiotic. 

[Dman]

4 minutes ago, amjgt said:

The part of this that I disagree with is basing anything off of Caratini's awesome last 5-6 weeks. I do think it has reset expectations back to baseline, from where is was in Mid May, which was quite low. 

I also believe that if Jeffers did accept the QO, there could be a trade market for him.

This is all something that doesn't really need to be worked out until the end of the season, other than, if the Twins think it might be a possibility, they may bake that into what they would accept in trade for him at the deadline. 

I don't disagree on Caratini.  After those first two horrible months and just his history of production I don't see him as the better or even equal hitter to Jeffers.  I have him as .750 OPS bat at best and I think Jeffers can be an .800 OPS bat if he can stay healthy.

I'd say they do kind of need to work this out before the deadline not the end of the season.  They can't keep 3 catchers on the 26 man for long.  Jackson is a good defensive player with years of control that appears to be coming around offensively. I don't think they want put him on waivers.  Caratini is signed to a 7M contract next year and depending on what Jeffers decides you don't know if he will be back or not. So don't really want to get rid of Caratini who has been OK behind the dish if Jeffers decides to leave.

I just think that if the Twins viewed Jeffers as worthy of the 23M QO they would extend him for the 20M or so it would take per year.  It's crickets on the extension.  If he accepts the QO then you get him for the likely shortened 2027 season and then he leaves for nothing.

You don't have to deal with any of that uncertainty if you trade Jeffers for a player that can likely help you in the near future(this year or next) versus even in the best case scenario where Jeffers turns down the QO and you get the Supplemental 1st you are likely waiting 3 to 4 years at best before that pick can help a team that needs some pitching help right now.

If they can get a solid deal in trade and they have no plans to extend him which it appears they do not. It seems the best play is to trade for a close to ready asset. That seems like the least risk and fastest reward IMO.

[KirbyDome89]

11 hours ago, amjgt said:

People have many different opinions on last year's trade deadline, but I don't think anyone would call it a half measure. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Twins front office act MORE boldly (for better or worse).

Some people have a very binary view on what constitutes a successful season. If they aren't a legitimate contender for the title, then all moves should be made to make some future team more likely to be a contender for the title. Those people are viewing having a team hanging around .500 as a bad thing because they think it might result in not maximizing every possible 2026 resource for a theoretic 2027 or 2028 run. 

I just don't view it that way. Competing for titles is about more than accumulation of the maximum amount of future assets. And I view a season like 2026, that might end up with us battling for a playoff spot as a part of the process. In my view, punting on that opportunity for growth and partial success does more harm than good, on and off the field. 

It isn't just the deadline last season. What did they do after turning their bullpen into the worst group in the league? Did they reinvest? Nope, they scoured the waiver wire and they've spent the entire season running mostly washed up cast offs through a pen that has been pretty much the worst group in the league while ownership claims to be intent on competing. That's definition half measure bull****.  

This team has missed the playoffs 4 of the last 5 seasons. The call to finish what the deadline tear down started isn't some knee-jerk reaction. Yeah, letting assets crash to chase .500 actually is a bad thing. I'm surprised that needs to be said. 

[amjgt]

45 minutes ago, Dman said:

I just think that if the Twins viewed Jeffers as worthy of the 23M QO they would extend him for the 20M or so it would take per year.  It's crickets on the extension.  If he accepts the QO then you get him for the likely shortened 2027 season and then he leaves for nothing.

 

Not that I think there is an extension in the works, but what makes us think we'd be hearing anything about it ahead of time?

 

[LA Vikes Fan]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not sure Claude is providing you great results here. What comp does it use to suggest a Ryan Jeffers rental would return not only a top 5 system prospect (not all systems are created equal, remember) plus more? The 2 mid-tier guys is far more likely. 

You're probably right. Still, I'd even be willing to throw in a mid-tier prospect with Jeffers to get a better pitcher like Hess or Lagrange. Trading him for two 10-15 guys doesn't really excite me. Having said that, we have to trade him so if that's the best we can get  . . .

Here's the thing I wonder about. If Chapman is worth a top 7 prospect why wouldn't Jeffers be worth at least that? It seems like a top 5 everyday catcher has to have the same or better value than a reliever, even a closer, particularly if that reliever is 38 with a bit of an injury history. 

[amjgt]

58 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

It isn't just the deadline last season. What did they do after turning their bullpen into the worst group in the league? Did they reinvest? Nope, they scoured the waiver wire and they've spent the entire season running mostly washed up cast offs through a pen that has been pretty much the worst group in the league while ownership claims to be intent on competing. That's definition half measure bull****.  

This team has missed the playoffs 4 of the last 5 seasons. The call to finish what the deadline tear down started isn't some knee-jerk reaction. Yeah, letting assets crash to chase .500 actually is a bad thing. I'm surprised that needs to be said. 

I'm an engineer, so I love to be able to put numbers to things. I love analytics and the have no problem with cold hard soulless decisions that sometimes come out of looking at data in an unbiased way.

BUT...

I also think it's important to acknowledge that cold hard soulless decisions have secondary impacts. And while we often have a difficult time putting numbers to those secondary impacts, that doesn't mean they don't exist. The perceived benefits of those decisions need to be weighed against the potential negative impacts those decisions create. 

Player morale. Fan morale. 2026 attendance. Future attendance. Franchise value. All of those things are in play and need to at least be considered.

The difficult thing for us here on this discussion board is that we have ZERO idea what's being offered. We can't make informed pro-con opinion on moves that are or aren't made, because we often don't know what the "pro" might have been. 

I'm not going to say something as condescending as "I'm surprised that needs to be said," but.... well.... you get it.

[amjgt]

3 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

You're probably right. Still, I'd even be willing to throw in a mid-tier prospect with Jeffers to get a better pitcher like Hess or Lagrange. Trading him for two 10-15 guys doesn't really excite me. Having said that, we have to trade him so if that's the best we can get  . . .

Here's the thing I wonder about. If Chapman is worth a top 7 prospect why wouldn't Jeffers be worth at least that? It seems like a top 5 everyday catcher has to have the same or better value than a reliever, even a closer, particularly if that reliever is 38 with a bit of an injury history. 

I'd love to see some examples of teams adding a prospect to a trade in order to get a better prospect back. I'm not remembering any good examples in recent Twins history, but that could just be my memory fading. Also it could be that it's more common MLB-wide than just my Twins-centric view of things

[Dman]

34 minutes ago, amjgt said:

Not that I think there is an extension in the works, but what makes us think we'd be hearing anything about it ahead of time?

 

Usually something drops in the news.  Like on Trade Rumors or other sites they'd say something like Jeffers may be on the trade market if the Twins don't work out an extension etc.  and this late in the game if we haven't heard anything I'd say the odds are pretty low.  Jeffers is on the Athletics' trade board at number 14 with nothing noting the Twins likely extending him or offering him a QO.  They have him labeled green as a likely trade candidate.  You'd think the FO would get out ahead of something like that if they planned to extend him.

It doesn't mean they can't change their mind and try to extend, but given their past history and no news to the contrary I don't see an extension in the cards.  They had the last three years to try and do something and never did and when players get this close to free Agency they usually want to test the market.  I believe Jeffers has stated that he wants to do that in the past.  They could try and sign him in the offseason, but the Twins don't win many bidding wars in the offseason. If they can't extend they should trade.

 

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, Twinsrtheworst said:

Can’t all the same things you said about ownership be applied to the fan base? Tentative sheep for example. With so many fans following the herd of not supporting a fun team this year. All offseason it was let’s boycott the Twins, And as far as reactionary instead of being proactive. You like many vowed to not watch them or support the Twins untill they put a winner on the field or fire this guy or that guy. Then when a segment herd of fans get what they want, they find another excuse or reason to not support the team. I mean you are a moderator for a supposed Twins fan sight, and don’t seem to like anything the Twins do? Doesn’t make sence to me.Let’s be PROACTIVE and support theses kids, enjoy it, and you will be surprised. Or I guess continue as you are and be REACTIVE to everything you don’t like about the Twins and let me know how that works out for ya.

In this case wouldn't the 'sheep' be the fans that bought into the hallow and clearly false narrative that the Pohlad's were serious about making an effort this year while at the same time slashing payroll by 30M?

I am a huge fan and always will be, and at the same time I don't like what the Twins are doing. I also love my kids and when they make bad or selfish choices, I let them hear about it too.

And I 100% support playing the kids. From DAY ONE they should have said this is a rebuild year as they're not in a position to truly compete. But we can still get enjoyment from watching the next generation of young players develop and bond. But nope, had to try to put fans in the seats instead by selling them on a fabrication about 2026 championships so instead of Culpepper, E-Rod and Jenkins, we got Gray, Outman and Bell. And as it turns out, nobody bought it and nobody showed up to the stadium. AND now with each young player that gets called up, more and more fans have already tuned out for the season. So no, no rose colored glasses here, the team is reaping what they sowed.

[ewen21]

We should be nothing but sellers in 2026 (if anything at all).  We do not have a very talented team and the fact that we have a medium chance to sneak in as a wild card does nothing for me. This isn't 1999 when we could cry about payroll, so we have as much money as so many other teams--midmarket now.  I think we have been below average assessing and developing talent.  I also think we have done a dreadful job drafting, assessing and raising starting pitchers and that is a HUGE problem.   Wouldn't it be nice to have a young pitcher come through the system with a little spark of excitement to them?  Why does that seem nearly impossible??

 

 

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't want Josh Bell types, but I'd rather have multiple options than overpaying for Jeffers. I'd rather have a combination of 5 Josh Bell, Harrison Bader, Willi Castro, Kyle Farmer types or 5 pen arms or any number of things than overspending on Jeffers "because they have to spend it anyways."

How does the team improve by spending an extra 10 million on Jeffers and 20% of their budget on catchers? Your original stance was "if the new CBA is going to force the Twins to spend 50M+, I'd rather overpay Jeffers than sign three more Josh Bells." Why are those the only options?

I'll start the highlighted The team isn't improving, at least not to championship level and long term, with more middling free agents. For years I've been advocating spending the money on one or two free agents, not this mish mash of low level vets who are just as likely to be bad as the cheap young guys in the system. If they want to go all out on a free agent like they did with Correa or Donaldson, perfect! But MLBTRs #8 free agent of 2027 is currently Luis Arraez. This just doesn't seem like a realistic avenue to go big and blow a wad of cash. At least not this year, and maybe never again. The number of good players aren't available like they used to be.

But as to Castro and Farmer, I think they support my position because those were league-minimum controllable players they got for nothing. They were way better than most of the terrible free agents the Twins had to pay 7-12M for. Zero salary equals zero commitment. Don't commit the roster to questionable vets that cost real money when there are questionable cheap players all over the league, many of whom are in your own system and almost all of which have higher ceilings.

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

No one is giving up a top fifty prospect for Jeffers. That's an insane ask. A comp pick isn't even likely to be top 100...

Sadsox

2:26

What would be the equivalent prospect to a Comp pick? a T200 guy?

 

Brendan Gawlowski

2:26

You're in the ballpark.

 

 

Maybe a little below that, just due to lack of proximity?

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

You're probably right. Still, I'd even be willing to throw in a mid-tier prospect with Jeffers to get a better pitcher like Hess or Lagrange. Trading him for two 10-15 guys doesn't really excite me. Having said that, we have to trade him so if that's the best we can get  . . .

Here's the thing I wonder about. If Chapman is worth a top 7 prospect why wouldn't Jeffers be worth at least that? It seems like a top 5 everyday catcher has to have the same or better value than a reliever, even a closer, particularly if that reliever is 38 with a bit of an injury history. 

I don't think Chapman is worth a top 7 prospect. Especially not in a good system. But I also wouldn't call Jeffers a top 5 everyday catcher. For 1, he's never been an everyday catcher. 2, this season was an extreme outlier in his offensive performance.

He'll be the best catcher available at the deadline (most likely), but he's more of a top 10 to 15 split-duty catcher.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't think Chapman is worth a top 7 prospect. Especially not in a good system. But I also wouldn't call Jeffers a top 5 everyday catcher. For 1, he's never been an everyday catcher. 2, this season was an extreme outlier in his offensive performance.

He'll be the best catcher available at the deadline (most likely), but he's more of a top 10 to 15 split-duty catcher.

Another team might DH him, or use him at first, when he's not catching. But the Yankees wouldn't when everyone is healthy. 

[chpettit19]

32 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'll start the highlighted The team isn't improving, at least not to championship level and long term, with more middling free agents. For years I've been advocating spending the money on one or two free agents, not this mish mash of low level vets who are just as likely to be bad as the cheap young guys in the system. If they want to go all out on a free agent like they did with Correa or Donaldson, perfect! But MLBTRs #8 free agent of 2027 is currently Luis Arraez. This just doesn't seem like a realistic avenue to go big and blow a wad of cash. At least not this year, and maybe never again. The number of good players aren't available like they used to be.

But as to Castro and Farmer, I think they support my position because those were league-minimum controllable players they got for nothing. They were way better than most of the terrible free agents the Twins had to pay 7-12M for. Zero salary equals zero commitment. Don't commit the roster to questionable vets that cost real money when there are questionable cheap players all over the league, many of whom are in your own system and almost all of which have higher ceilings.

Isn't advocating for spending an extra 10 mil on Jeffers doing the worst of both worlds? He's not a star. Unless you think this season is his new norm and he's a 160 OPS+ guy instead of a 105 OPS+ guy. So, you're going after a worse signing than Luis Arraez and overpaying for him by 10 million.

If Jeffers wasn't a Twin and was just on the free agent market and people around here were suggesting paying him $23 million next year, I don't think they'd be getting a lot of support for that idea. Overpaying for him just because he's familiar isn't good.

I would take a crazy overpay for Skubal or Burnes or Michael King or Seiya Suzuki 100 times out of 100 over a crazy overpay for Jeffers.

If they aren't even going to try to improve the team when they have to spend 150 million (free agents aren't the only way to spend more money, by the way) then I have no interest in any change to the CBA in regards to a floor and cap. If it's a cap situation, there will be more players available than the list you're currently looking at because teams will have to get below the cap by cutting guys. I do not believe that there is no better way to spend 150 million in player salary than to drop 30 million on catchers. 

 

[MGX]

So if I'm understanding the sentiment in the comments here. People are saying it's a huge mistake not to trade Jeffers & yet we're not going to get anything valuable for him. That doesn't seem logical to me. If we're not going to get any real value for him, maybe the Twins should just let him play out his contract.

Can't wait for the responses to the above. Of course I'd trade Jeffers if we can get some real value in return. On the other hand if the Yankees or any other team aren't willing to pay a premium price then move on. It's understandable people don't want to feel like we get nothing (which may not be the way it plays out) for Jeffers if he leaves. To me it's even worse to accept low ball offers on players of value just to say "at least we got something". 

I see people making comparisons to the Rays & the Brewers. Moving players when they have value has worked in some situations for both teams. The reason it's worked is because they've gotten real value in return.

If the Yankees or any other team wants Jeffers then they need to meet the Twins price not the other way around.

[chpettit19]

9 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Another team might DH him, or use him at first, when he's not catching. But the Yankees wouldn't when everyone is healthy. 

He could certainly be a short side platoon at one of those other positions. But teams trying to win the World Series don't generally want 1B and DHs with a career 109 OPS+. If teams are sold that he's going to come back from an injury pretty famous for sapping a player's power for well after they return from it and continue on his extreme outlier of an offensive performance, they may want him at those offense first positions. But having your DH be a guy with a 105ish OPS+ is not ideal for real contenders.

[TheLeviathan]

8 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Isn't advocating for spending an extra 10 mil on Jeffers doing the worst of both worlds? He's not a star. Unless you think this season is his new norm and he's a 160 OPS+ guy instead of a 105 OPS+ guy. So, you're going after a worse signing than Luis Arraez and overpaying for him by 10 million.

If Jeffers wasn't a Twin and was just on the free agent market and people around here were suggesting paying him $23 million next year, I don't think they'd be getting a lot of support for that idea. Overpaying for him just because he's familiar isn't good.

I would take a crazy overpay for Skubal or Burnes or Michael King or Seiya Suzuki 100 times out of 100 over a crazy overpay for Jeffers.

If they aren't even going to try to improve the team when they have to spend 150 million (free agents aren't the only way to spend more money, by the way) then I have no interest in any change to the CBA in regards to a floor and cap. If it's a cap situation, there will be more players available than the list you're currently looking at because teams will have to get below the cap by cutting guys. I do not believe that there is no better way to spend 150 million in player salary than to drop 30 million on catchers. 

 

I think you and @nicksaviking are both making great arguments but fellas.....

We all know they'll do neither of your well-reasoned positions and instead you're going to be watching Cedric Mullins and Mitch Garver occupy roster spots.

Be at peace, it is foretold.

[Mike Sixel]

21 minutes ago, MGX said:

So if I'm understanding the sentiment in the comments here. People are saying it's a huge mistake not to trade Jeffers & yet we're not going to get anything valuable for him. That doesn't seem logical to me. If we're not going to get any real value for him, maybe the Twins should just let him play out his contract.

Can't wait for the responses to the above. Of course I'd trade Jeffers if we can get some real value in return. On the other hand if the Yankees or any other team aren't willing to pay a premium price then move on. It's understandable people don't want to feel like we get nothing (which may not be the way it plays out) for Jeffers if he leaves. To me it's even worse to accept low ball offers on players of value just to say "at least we got something". 

I see people making comparisons to the Rays & the Brewers. Moving players when they have value has worked in some situations for both teams. The reason it's worked is because they've gotten real value in return.

If the Yankees or any other team wants Jeffers then they need to meet the Twins price not the other way around.

Who is saying they aren't getting value?

[nicksaviking]

47 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Isn't advocating for spending an extra 10 mil on Jeffers doing the worst of both worlds? He's not a star. Unless you think this season is his new norm and he's a 160 OPS+ guy instead of a 105 OPS+ guy. So, you're going after a worse signing than Luis Arraez and overpaying for him by 10 million.

If Jeffers wasn't a Twin and was just on the free agent market and people around here were suggesting paying him $23 million next year, I don't think they'd be getting a lot of support for that idea. Overpaying for him just because he's familiar isn't good.

I would take a crazy overpay for Skubal or Burnes or Michael King or Seiya Suzuki 100 times out of 100 over a crazy overpay for Jeffers.

If they aren't even going to try to improve the team when they have to spend 150 million (free agents aren't the only way to spend more money, by the way) then I have no interest in any change to the CBA in regards to a floor and cap. If it's a cap situation, there will be more players available than the list you're currently looking at because teams will have to get below the cap by cutting guys. I do not believe that there is no better way to spend 150 million in player salary than to drop 30 million on catchers. 

 

But you know we aren't getting Skubal or Burnes. I'll happily take and spend money on any player better than Jeffers. But I don't see free agency working out that way. The Twins don't have it in them and this ownership situation has got to look really bad from a player looking in. If the team can guarantee they can and will sign a top five free agent or so, then go for it. If we're instead talking a handful of guys in the 20-40 range, stay away, just give the money to the better player who can only say no and give you a draft pick.

And yes, I'd take Jeffers over Arraez in a heartbeat.

[nicksaviking]

42 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I think you and @nicksaviking are both making great arguments but fellas.....

We all know they'll do neither of your well-reasoned positions and instead you're going to be watching Cedric Mullins and Mitch Garver occupy roster spots.

Be at peace, it is foretold.

Oh, yes, totally agree.

But if the Twins sit around an wait all winter and the CBA forces them to spend money, then they'll have to give Mullins and Garver 20M each because they're the only guys left to pay.

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

But you know we aren't getting Skubal or Burnes. I'll happily take and spend money on any player better than Jeffers. But I don't see free agency working out that way. The Twins don't have it in them and this ownership situation has got to look really bad from a player looking in. If the team can guarantee they can and will sign a top five free agent or so, then go for it. If we're instead talking a handful of guys in the 20-40 range, stay away, just give the money to the better player who can only say no and give you a draft pick.

And yes, I'd take Jeffers over Arraez in a heartbeat.

Free agency isn't the only way to spend money. Like the Astros getting Correa because they'd spend money on him. The entire premise of this discussion is that the Twins will be forced by CBA rules to spend 150 million. If that rule is in place, there will be other rules with it that cause teams to cut players. The owners aren't agreeing to a forced floor without a cap. The pool of players available to spend money on with go up significantly. I think you overrate the player's opinions of ownership situations. Especially if there's a floor and cap in place. The Angels and Rockies sign high priced players regularly despite being absolute disasters in terms of ownership.

23 million for Jeffers instead of 9 million for Caratini and Jackson and 10 million for Arraez and 4 million for a pen arm? Yeah, going to have to agree to disagree there.

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Oh, yes, totally agree.

But if the Twins sit around an wait all winter and the CBA forces them to spend money, then they'll have to give Mullins and Garver 20M each because they're the only guys left to pay.

The timing of a lockout or strike will be interesting. But, if the CBA forces them to spend money, it is also going to force teams to cut guys to get under a cap. If the CBA doesn't force them to spend money, they won't be rolling out a payroll at 150 mil and it's all moot.