Could Minnesota Twins Jump Trade Market By Selling High on Chris Paddack?

He's pitching great and as many people have said, you want to ride that as long as it lasts. For me, the depth and IP he provides (even if the quality dips a little) is just as valuable.

Last year was a prime example of what can happen to an entire pitching staff when the injury bug hits, even just a little.

We lost Disclifani before the season started which dinged our depth, then we lost Joe Ryan in August and then we were counting on guys in a pennant race that probably weren't ready. Not only did this mean the starting rotation was in rough shape but it quickly destroyed the bullpen due to overuse. At that point the entire pitching staff was compromised and when the offense also went in the tank, well, that's how you go 12-28 the last 40 (or whatever it was).

Keep the depth and the hot hand. And don't worry about chasing "peak value"

Either way, before he's gone, we need him to deputize another member of the pitching staff. 

Top 5 Candidates:

Varland

Pablo

Zebby

Duran

SWR

As one who wanted to trade Paddack at the start of the season... I say keep him and ride it out. Trading players at peak value is more of an offseason thing in my opinion, unless the season is going off the rails. Keep him in the rotation so we only have to see one of Matthews/Festa/SWR starting and not two of them. At the end of the day he'd be a rental, so the price of trade wouldn't be as high as you'd like.

26 minutes ago, amjgt said:

I'd much rather keep him and wish on a 2025 performance strong enough to warrant a Qualifying Offer. I can't imagine anything we would get back would be comparable in value to a comp pick and then we don't shatter team chemistry by coldly trading away a key member of the pitching staff because he's "at peak value"

Bader is probably at peak value too. Should we trade him?

I agree with this and would add one other possibility - We might want to see if this is real and if it is, try to sign Paddack for another 2-3 years. One of the underlying premises of the article is that when his contract runs out, he will be too expensive and will simply go to another team or, at best, we will give him a QO so we get a draft pick. That is probably a safe assumption with the current ownership. However, the team is for sale. It's a least possible that a new owner would spend more on payroll to try to keep the team together, particularly if we make the postseason and go on a good run. The team is also more valuable to a potential new owner if it's winning, drawing fans (the two go hand in hand), and actually has a chance in the postseason. Paddack could be an important part of that formula.

Bottom line, I would not trade him unless the return was an established quality major league bat that could play 1B next year and had at least one or two more controllable years. Paddack alone won't generate that kind of return, so would have to be Paddack and a minor-league player outside of the top 10. Unless that return is available, and I seriously doubt that it is, I would hold onto him for this year and seriously consider trying to re-sign him for two or three more years. Maybe a three year, 45 – $50 million deal would be enough? I think that's the smarter play.

2 hours ago, FlyingFinn said:

We had an article that the clubhouse is really down because the Twins send guys to the minors one day early (I don't believe it's affecting the clubhouse). I think trading Paddack would actually affect the clubhouse as they see him as one of the keys to our season. 

The article you are referring to was a work of fiction. Authors musings on how they would be so offended by a standard procedure that did not site a single bit of evidence for any actual player discontent. 

This is why editorial standards matter.  

2 minutes ago, Patzky said:

Also we have got that potential lockout looming. He may not be the 7 million man in 2026 but with that upcoming he could be a nine million dollar guy for one year

If he pitches, largely every 5th day, and has an ERA in the 4.00 range, he's going to get at least 3/50M from someone.

If he pitches poor enough to only warrant 1/9M, then I'm not sure anyone on this website will be clamoring to have him back.

If the FO office made him an offer today of, say.... 2/35 would he bite at that? Yeah, I bet he would. I also don't see that happening and given the likelihood of a realistic mid-market payroll going forward beyond 2025, I'm not sure that makes good financial sense, with the much less expensive options waiting in the wings.

43 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

I agree with this and would add one other possibility - We might want to see if this is real and if it is, try to sign Paddack for another 2-3 years. One of the underlying premises of the article is that when his contract runs out, he will be too expensive and will simply go to another team or, at best, we will give him a QO so we get a draft pick. That is probably a safe assumption with the current ownership.

The article never actually mentions the idea of a QO, which I think was a miss by the author

1 hour ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

Last year Detroit did that with Jack Flaherty. They also made the postseason. 

Thanks. That's helpful. 

I do see some significant differences from the Twins current situation. That trade happened in late July as opposed to early June. At the time of the trade, the Tigers were four games under .500 after losing six of their last nine. They were five games out of the last wild card and had to pass five teams to get to the playoffs. I don't know how much stock to put in the "playoff expectancy" calculations, but I'd have to assume theirs was pretty low at the time. I was going to say that at best, the Tigers probably saw themselves as marginal contenders, but given that they traded Andrew Chafin and Mark Canha that day as well, it seems they were pretty clearly in seller mode. 

However, one of the one of the teams ahead of them, ahem, collapsed, so they ended up sneaking in to the playoffs with the last spot. Hindsight's 20/20, but I have to wonder if come October, they were kicking themselves for having made the trade. 

If the Twins reach the point the Tigers were at when they traded Flaherty, I'm fine with trading Paddack then. But they aren't there yet.

Separately, that trade may also be an example of what the Twins could expect to get for Paddack. Flaherty had more track record and was having a better season than Paddack and all the Tigers got were the Dodgers No. 8 and 22 prospects at the time. The former was in High A at the time and the latter was a No. 1 pick, but currently has a 77 career OPS+ in the majors. They certainly weren't needle-movers as it related to 2024. 

3 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

Thanks. That's helpful. 

I do see some significant differences from the Twins current situation. That trade happened in late July as opposed to early June. At the time of the trade, the Tigers were four games under .500 after losing six of their last nine. They were five games out of the last wild card and had to pass five teams to get to the playoffs. I don't know how much stock to put in the "playoff expectancy" calculations, but I'd have to assume theirs was pretty low at the time. I was going to say that at best, the Tigers probably saw themselves as marginal contenders, but given that they traded Andrew Chafin and Mark Canha that day as well, it seems they were pretty clearly in seller mode. 

However, one of the one of the teams ahead of them, ahem, collapsed, so they ended up sneaking in to the playoffs with the last spot. Hindsight's 20/20, but I have to wonder if come October, they were kicking themselves for having made the trade. 

If the Twins reach the point the Tigers were at when they traded Flaherty, I'm fine with trading Paddack then. But they aren't there yet.

 

Separately, that trade may also be an example of what the Twins could expect to get for Paddack. Flaherty had more track record and was having a better season than Paddack and all the Tigers got were the Dodgers No. 8 and 22 prospects at the time. The former was in High A at the time and the latter was a No. 1 pick, but currently has a 77 career OPS+ in the majors. They certainly weren't needle-movers as it related to 2024. 

Flaherty was more dominant in 2024 than Paddack has been in 2025 so far, but if he continues I do think it's reasonable to compare the deals. I guess we'll see. Lots of factors at play, and I'm definitely not of the mind that they trade Paddack now. I just meant I can see a scenario where the Twins do sell some of their free agents to be (Castro, Paddack) but ALSO be open to buy.

Is it to early for a getting Royce Lewis fixed is just like making a trade article?

This was the Paddack I was hoping for when I was pushing for not trading him in the offseason when his value was lowest.  The deadline will be the correct time but it requires the trio of SWR/Festa/Matthews to be performing well.  

It's a good option to have but its hard to see an angle that improves the team more than the value he's currently providing.  If he keeps this up, Matthews or Festa to the pen and go for the qualifying offer.  

The middle of the order thumpers many want are already on the roster. 

5 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Either we have a pitching pipeline or we don’t… After 9 years I’d like to figure out if the pitching pipeline ™️ is real… Adams and Festa are 25, Cory Lewis turns 25 later this year, and Morris turns 24 later this year. These prospects aren’t spring chickens anymore. Let’s see what they can do. 

They may have a bullpen pipeline, given how Jax and Sands went from middle of the road starter prospects to capable relievers, several of these arms will probably have similar trajectories. But a pipeline of starting pitchers... I'll believe it when I see it.