Twins Can Still Get Value From Ryan Jeffers This Winter

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Jordan Johnson-Imagn Images

The MLB Trade Deadline has come and gone, and Ryan Jeffers is still wearing a Minnesota Twins uniform. That wasn't necessarily the expected outcome a few weeks ago.

Jeffers generated plenty of interest leading up to the deadline, with several contenders reportedly looking for help behind the plate. The Twins had an opportunity to turn their veteran catcher into pitching or another piece that could help the organization now or in the future.

Instead, Minnesota ultimately decided to buy at the deadline. Jeffers stayed put. That decision doesn't have to mean the Twins will lose one of their most productive offensive players for nothing, though. There is still a path for Minnesota to get something in return for Jeffers, even if he isn't traded during the regular season. That path is the qualifying offer.

The Qualifying Offer Gives the Twins Another Option

Free agency isn't usually something teams are thinking about immediately after the trade deadline. There are still two months of baseball to play, and plenty can happen between now and November. But some of the decisions made at the deadline (including the decisions that weren't made) can have consequences well into the offseason.

Jeffers is one of those situations. The Twins can extend him a qualifying offer after the season, giving the catcher a one-year contract worth the average salary of MLB's 125 highest-paid players. The value of that offer changes annually, and it was $22.025 million last offseason. This year's figure will be determined later in the year, but will likely be near $24 million. 

That would be a significant one-year commitment for Minnesota. It would also give the Twins some protection against losing Jeffers for absolutely nothing. If Jeffers accepts the offer, the team gets him back for another season without having to make a long-term commitment. If he declines and signs with another team, the Twins would receive draft-pick compensation.

For a player who has established himself as one of baseball's better offensive catchers, that is a pretty appealing safety net. There are some important rules attached to the qualifying offer. A player can only receive one during his career, and he must have spent the entire preceding season with the same organization. Because Jeffers has remained with Minnesota throughout 2026, he would be eligible for the offer.

The expiring Collective Bargaining Agreement shouldn't create an issue here, either. The current qualifying-offer rules are already established under the 2022-26 CBA.

Jeffers Is Exactly the Type of Player Who Could Receive One

The biggest question isn't whether Jeffers is eligible. It's whether the Twins are willing to risk roughly $24 million (or whatever the eventual qualifying-offer value becomes) on one season. There is certainly some risk involved.

A qualifying offer is not a small financial commitment. Minnesota would be betting that Jeffers can continue to provide enough offensive production and defensive value to justify a salary that would put him among the more expensive catchers in baseball. For reference, FanGraphs says that Jeffers has been worth over $18 million this season despite missing time on the IL. 

 

But the Twins wouldn't necessarily be signing Jeffers because they expect him to be their catcher for the next five years. They'd be buying another year. That's an important distinction. Jeffers has been one of baseball's better-hitting catchers over the past four seasons. His offensive production has made him a valuable player at a position where offense can be difficult to find. If the Twins believe that production is sustainable, bringing him back for one more season could make sense.

And if they don't want to pay that price? It isn’t a guarantee. Jeffers can reject the qualifying offer and test free agency. If another team signs him, Minnesota would receive draft compensation in return. There have been multiple reports over the last month that say Jeffers would reject the qualifying offer. 

Suddenly, the decision to hold onto Jeffers at the trade deadline doesn't look quite as costly.

The Twins Still Have Time to Make This Work

Minnesota's decision to keep Jeffers could ultimately look different depending on what happens over the final two months of the season.

If Jeffers continues producing offensively, his free-agent market could become even stronger. That would make a qualifying offer more likely to be rejected, which is exactly what the Twins would want if they are confident they can collect draft compensation. If his production declines, Minnesota could still make the offer and potentially get him back on a one-year deal. That's what makes the qualifying offer so interesting. The Twins essentially get two paths that can work in their favor.

Jeffers accepts: Minnesota gets an established offensive catcher for another season without making a long-term commitment. Jeffers declines: Minnesota gets draft compensation if he signs elsewhere.

There is obviously a third possibility where Jeffers accepts the offer and the contract becomes a poor investment. That's the risk the Twins would have to weigh. Still, paying a premium for one season can be preferable to handing out a much longer contract to a player entering his next stage of free agency.

The Twins have already seen Jeffers' value on the trade market. Contenders were interested in him before the deadline, but Minnesota couldn't find a deal it liked enough to make. That doesn't mean the value disappeared when the deadline passed. It simply changed forms.

The qualifying offer is essentially Minnesota's final opportunity to make sure that doesn't turn into an offseason where the Twins get absolutely nothing in return. After holding onto Jeffers at the Trade Deadline, the qualifying offer should be an easy decision. Minnesota has already determined that Jeffers is valuable enough to keep around for the stretch run.

The next step should be making sure that value doesn't simply walk out the door this winter.

---

Should the Twins make Jeffers the qualifying offer? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

View full article

[DJL44]

This article looks like it was posted two months early 

[PuckettPond]

I thought Twins would have gotten more value trading him than with the qualifying offer. If one of our current catchers go on the IL who replaces them? Jackson will be missed.

[thelanges5]

Not my money, but if it was, I’d offer him the QO. 

[Glorybound]

I think they have painted themselves into a corner in this one. I guess we will have to see how it plays out. Going all in has consequences as they are about to find out.

[Hrbeks Divot]

It’s another opportunity for Tom Pohlad to make good on his higher payroll statement. It seems unlikely that Jeffers would accept the QO if he finishes the season strong. However, if he does, it shouldn’t hamstring the front office from making other financial commitments in the offseason.

[terrydactyls]

They should have been sellers.  At the trade deadline, they had a lot of holes to fill, but were tied for the final wildcard spot and people got excited.  Since August 3rd, four teams have passed them and one has moved up to tie them.  Next up are one game with Philadelphia, three with Atlanta, three with San Diego, and then three against their 2026 Achilles Heal - the Athletics.  The Twins will probably lose even more ground.  Their last 38 games include 18 with teams that are ahead of them in the standings (plus the 10 games mentioned above).  I always thought that buying this year was a fool's errand and , IMHO, I believe that I am right.  I hope I'm wrong (but I really don't think I am).

[bean5302]

First, we don't know how Jeffers finishes the season. If he drops off in the last month and a half, making him the QO is probably reckless to begin with. It's a big overpay for his value based on historical career performance. Jeffers is probably a $15MM / AAV guy so you're almost giving him 2 years of pay for 1 year of play, and there's a high likelihood he accepts the massive overpay if he slumps down the stretch to more career-like performance.

Second, the QO probably doesn't exist on 12/1/2026 or later, and whatever compensation the Twins would receive in terms of draft picks may not exist in 2027. Right now, MLB is proposing grandfathering the 2026 CBA, but I don't know as that will stand. The MLBPA absolutely hates the QO compensation system. I mean hate hates it, and the owners need to use every bit of their leverage to try and get a salary cap/floor. The QO transfer of picks compensation will 100% go away if the cap/floor is implemented.

I think there's a good chance MLB removes grandfathering and teams making a QO this year should assume no draft pick compensation will be attached.

[LastOnePicked]

There is no way that this organization will extend a QO to Jeffers. I think Gleeman even reported that he's hearing internally that that's probably a no-go. 

They simply will not risk spending that kind of money, especially with the prospect of a shortened or lost season. Jeffers will walk for nothing.

[bean5302]

21 minutes ago, LastOnePicked said:

There is no way that this organization will extend a QO to Jeffers. I think Gleeman even reported that he's hearing internally that that's probably a no-go. 

They simply will not risk spending that kind of money, especially with the prospect of a shortened or lost season. Jeffers will walk for nothing.

Yeah, typically contracts slide forward one year. So if a player was under a 1 year contract for 2027, they'd be under a 1 year contract for 2028.

[TheLeviathan]

54 minutes ago, LastOnePicked said:

There is no way that this organization will extend a QO to Jeffers. I think Gleeman even reported that he's hearing internally that that's probably a no-go. 

They simply will not risk spending that kind of money, especially with the prospect of a shortened or lost season. Jeffers will walk for nothing.

This is my fear as well.

[umterp23]

They should have traded him for potentially top 100 guy maybe, but at,least a potential 1-2  guys from a team in need  out of their top 10 to top 30 prospects. QO “lottery” pick will take about 4-5 years to possibly make bigs, prospects in trade may shorten that time considerably for a better return. Ship,has sailed and mgmt will tell anyone who wants to listen, we bought at deadline. August schedule should have told them we need to capitalize on expiring assets

[Bodie]

You make the qualifying offer, no question. 

1) He accepts and we have a starting catcher next season. Or, he can be traded. And then we need a catcher, at least short-term. 

2) He rejects the QO and we get a prospect, just one a development step or two behind the prospect forgone at this years deadline. And we need a stop-gap catcher, at least, until the catching talent makes it to Minneapolis. 

Even if the QO changes significantly in structure during negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, it will be grandfathered in over at least one season to allow a degree of continuity from the present agreement to the next.

[olerud]

It's a no brainer!

[IndianaTwin]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

First, we don't know how Jeffers finishes the season. If he drops off in the last month and a half, making him the QO is probably reckless to begin with. It's a big overpay for his value based on historical career performance. Jeffers is probably a $15MM / AAV guy so you're almost giving him 2 years of pay for 1 year of play, and there's a high likelihood he accepts the massive overpay if he slumps down the stretch to more career-like performance.

Second, the QO probably doesn't exist on 12/1/2026 or later, and whatever compensation the Twins would receive in terms of draft picks may not exist in 2027. Right now, MLB is proposing grandfathering the 2026 CBA, but I don't know as that will stand. The MLBPA absolutely hates the QO compensation system. I mean hate hates it, and the owners need to use every bit of their leverage to try and get a salary cap/floor. The QO transfer of picks compensation will 100% go away if the cap/floor is implemented.

I think there's a good chance MLB removes grandfathering and teams making a QO this year should assume no draft pick compensation will be attached.

I think there's a reasonable chance the QO goes away going forward. 

But realistically, I don't think it can change this year. Salient dates are: 

• Latest possible day for World Series: October 31
• QO decisions due from teams: Nov. 5
• Decision deadline by player: Nov. 15
• Conclusion of CBA: December 1

If it's like last time, there will be a flurry of activity between Nov. 15 and Dec. 1. At least some free agent decisions will have been made by the time the lockout begins. The likelihood of changing those retroactively is very slim. 

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, IndianaTwin said:

I think there's a reasonable chance the QO goes away going forward. 

But realistically, I don't think it can change this year. Salient dates are: 

• Latest possible day for World Series: October 31
• QO decisions due from teams: Nov. 5
• Decision deadline by player: Nov. 15
• Conclusion of CBA: December 1

If it's like last time, there will be a flurry of activity between Nov. 15 and Dec. 1. At least some free agent decisions will have been made by the time the lockout begins. The likelihood of changing those retroactively is very slim. 

The CBA wouldn't invalidate "contracts" it would invalidate the draft pick compensation. The draft pick compensation has nothing to do with the uniform player contract, which is future dated. It's an agreement between owners vs. owners, not players vs. owners.

[Dan Engebretson]

If Jackson makes it through waivers and Jeffers accepts a QO (if made), the Twins could trade Caratini and roll with Jeffers/Jackson in 2027.  This would effectively reduce Jeffers’ contract by $7M (I think this is what Caratini is owed next year).  That may be more palatable.

[IndianaTwin]

43 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The CBA wouldn't invalidate "contracts" it would invalidate the draft pick compensation. The draft pick compensation has nothing to do with the uniform player contract, which is future dated. It's an agreement between owners vs. owners, not players vs. owners.

But contracts are offered or not offered and signed or not signed with draft compensation picks as part of the consideration.

Can you think of examples where they have voided something like draft picks that were already “earned” by a team?

 

[DocBauer]

1 hour ago, Dan Engebretson said:

If Jackson makes it through waivers and Jeffers accepts a QO (if made), the Twins could trade Caratini and roll with Jeffers/Jackson in 2027.  This would effectively reduce Jeffers’ contract by $7M (I think this is what Caratini is owed next year).  That may be more palatable.

Caratini is actually owed about $10M for 2027 due to some back loading of his contract.

[LastOnePicked]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Yeah, typically contracts slide forward one year. So if a player was under a 1 year contract for 2027, they'd be under a 1 year contract for 2028.

I think the bigger concern for a Pohlad is that the season is cut short by 30+ games but the MLBPA successfully negotiates for full salary payouts for the season.

[terrydactyls]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

The CBA wouldn't invalidate "contracts" it would invalidate the draft pick compensation. The draft pick compensation has nothing to do with the uniform player contract, which is future dated. It's an agreement between owners vs. owners, not players vs. owners.

Why would the owners eliminate the draft pick compensation in 2027 if the QO has already been offered and signed with a draft pick as part of the agreement?   The players aren't involved.  After all, "It's an agreement between owners vs. owners, not players vs. owners".  The CBA should not impact this scenario.

[shimrod]

I think it was a comment from another sport, but if I recall correctly an executive once said "There is no such thing as a bad one year contract."

I was in favor of trading Jeffers at the deadline, but having missed that opportunity the QO is an absolute must. Ideally Jeffers declines it but if accepted what's the downside? The Twins have to actually pay a player what he's worth? After decades of acquiring scratch and dent players at scratch and dent prices it won't kill the team to just this once pay market rate for a productive player. 

[Mike Sixel]

If they don't QO him, and get nothing, I want the GM fired, and the owners banned from involvement by their new partners. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, shimrod said:

I think it was a comment from another sport, but if I recall correctly an executive once said "There is no such thing as a bad one year contract."

I was in favor of trading Jeffers at the deadline, but having missed that opportunity the QO is an absolute must. Ideally Jeffers declines it but if accepted what's the downside? The Twins have to actually pay a player what he's worth? After decades of acquiring scratch and dent players at scratch and dent prices it won't kill the team to just this once pay market rate for a productive player. 

He's not worth close to 23 million. Maybe two catchers are. Maybe. 

[bjorks]

Part of collective bargaining is negotiating in "good faith". You can't make a QO under the pretense if Player A rejects it, you get a pick and then because of a new CBA it goes away. 

 

[Historyking88]

Who gives a crap about a draft pick that might help 3-4 years from now!? They could have gotten a ready now bullpen arm and another top pitching prospect for Jeffers. And now he walks for nothing. This team just continues to show how stupid they are with asset management. And you continue to waste our time with pointless articles like this one. 

[Whitey333]

Jeffers is not north anything near the QO.  Hes a good catcher playing extra well in his contract year.  That doesnt make him a haĺl of fame.  The Twins have only won 5 of their past 15 games.  The buying was in part a mistake.  IMO they should have done both.  They continue to male some foolish and curious roster decisions.  They are paying Lopez 21.5 million this year and next.  No way they should offer Jeffers even more.  The compensation pick is not enough for Jeffers.  He should have been traded.

[shimrod]

13 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

He's not worth close to 23 million. Maybe two catchers are. Maybe. 

This is where the Twins get it wrong. You're better off overpaying for an actually productive player than fielding an entire team of low cost players who cannot produce. Sure, you can't stock the entire team with overpriced players (unless you're the dodgers) but a couple don't hurt that much. No where near as much as the regular demoralizing losses. 

We're still paying Houston $10M/yr for relieving us of our last scratch and dent acquisition. Compared to that contract Jeffers for a year looks pretty good. 

EDIT: And let me add, my strong preference was to trade Jeffers at the deadline. Offering him the QO is a bad second option. I say it's better than letting him walk for nothing at all. 

 

[bean5302]

15 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

Why would the owners eliminate the draft pick compensation in 2027 if the QO has already been offered and signed with a draft pick as part of the agreement?   The players aren't involved.  After all, "It's an agreement between owners vs. owners, not players vs. owners".  The CBA should not impact this scenario.

Because the MLBPA may demand that concession to to sign the CBA.

[terrydactyls]

8 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Because the MLBPA may demand that concession to to sign the CBA.

If the draft compensation is an agreement between the owners (as you stated), then what say in the matter is it for the MLBPA?