Why Didn't the Twins Go Full Sell-Off?

23 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

 

Trading Ryan to the Giants for Eldridge now makes Bell at 7M almost unnecessary. 

. 

 

The Giants ARE NOT trading away Eldridge for Ryan or ANYBODY ELSE.

I too don't understand why the Twins haven't already traded Ryan, Lopez, Buxton, and Jeffers.  With an anticipated payroll of now $108 million, too much of it is tied up into too few players.  Attendance was lousy all year even when those players were on the team.  And all these great can't miss prospects haven't proven anything yet.  A lot of wishful thinking for 2026.  I hope they do well but I just don't see it.  Im expecting another record low attendance year this year.  Trading this year at the deadline could be interesting if progress is not made on a new CBA. Why trade then when it's possible there won't be much of a season. Innings 2027.  Trade those players now whole you can maybe get a decent return.

The Brewers traded Peralta and Myers. Myers has 5 years of control with a 3.15 ERA in 188 major league innings. It wasn’t just Peralta for two FV50 prospects. 

14 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

IDK about Lopez because there might be some questions about his health, but don't you think the Mets would have given a little more for two years or Ryan over 1 year of Peralta?

You also have to remember the Mets got back a good (not great) arm in return. Not too different in profile from Sproat himself. It's more of a Jett Williams for Freddy Peralta trade than people would like to admit. 

3 hours ago, NYCTK said:

You also have to remember the Mets got back a good (not great) arm in return. Not too different in profile from Sproat himself. It's more of a Jett Williams for Freddy Peralta trade than people would like to admit. 

 

The question is how much more would the Mets have paid for 2 years vs 1 year.  Do you think they could have gotten Tong?  I see he did not fare well in his first exposure.  What are your thoughts in terms of what they could have done with the Mets.  Williams and Tong or Reimer possible or am I being a homer?  Maybe there was a deal to be made with us adding Ober to Ryan or similar to get the position players we need going forward. 

Who knows what the rest of the offseason will bring but at this point, the bullpen only needs 2 guys to break out n a huge way.  Yup, it’s a big ask, but it’s certainly possible when you throw enough guys at the issue.  By August, we might actually win some games in the late innings. 

10 hours ago, DannySD said:

I think the July 'roster teardown' is overblown. They really only traded Duran, Jax, Varland. Everyone else was either a FA or had negative value. 

No reason for a near-elite bullpen without any leads to hold. I'd rather have some high-end prospects and #3 pick. 

Interesting take.  It might work out in 3-4 years but its a big IF, if the prospects all become mlb regulars. 

20 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

What’s the point of trading a Joe Ryan to hope to trade for someone that might evolve into a Joe Ryan in 3 years? Or even trading for somebody else’s 1st round pick (great “prospect”) that turns out to be Matt Wallner.

There is no point if your goal is to get from 72 wins to 75 wins or whatever the realistic outcome of this team would project to achieve.  The REALISTIC outcome is definitely not a contender   If you are trying to build a contender, the point is adding players like the prospects Milwaukee received can elevate a team for 6-7 years.  They do so in a very cost-controlled way which given the revenue disparity in the league is absolutely critical to below average teams. 

The point becomes very obvious if you look at the practices of the most successful modest revenue teams.  Last year 7 of Milwaukee's top 14 players by WAR were acquired as prospects.  One (Yelich) was acquired as an established player.  None were acquired as free agents.  The 24 Guardians had 9 players that produced greater than 1.5 WAR.  Five of them were acquired as prospects.  The Rays 100-win team in 2021 had 14 players that produced over 1.5 WAR.  3 were drafted, 1 International, 2 free agents, and 8 acquired as Prospects

The answer is obvious if you take a look at how other low revenue teams have built their rosters.

BTW ... Peralta was acquired as a prospect.  They got 6 years of service from him and now they have acquired a player(s) that could reasonably be expected to give them 6-7 years.  If that happens, their net result is 12-13 years of productive service by giving up 1 year of service.  It should not be a mystery why the standard practice for Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Tampa.   

10 hours ago, Fatbat said:

Who knows what the rest of the offseason will bring but at this point, the bullpen only needs 2 guys to break out n a huge way.  Yup, it’s a big ask, but it’s certainly possible when you throw enough guys at the issue.  By August, we might actually win some games in the late innings. 

Only if the two relievers are prime Mariano Rivera and Joe Nathan. 

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

There is no point if your goal is to get from 72 wins to 75 wins or whatever the realistic outcome of this team would project to achieve.  The REALISTIC outcome is definitely not a contender   If you are trying to build a contender, the point is adding players like the prospects Milwaukee received can elevate a team for 6-7 years.  They do so in a very cost-controlled way which given the revenue disparity in the league is absolutely critical to below average teams. 

The point becomes very obvious if you look at the practices of the most successful modest revenue teams.  Last year 7 of Milwaukee's top 14 players by WAR were acquired as prospects.  One (Yelich) was acquired as an established player.  None were acquired as free agents.  The 24 Guardians had 9 players that produced greater than 1.5 WAR.  Five of them were acquired as prospects.  The Rays 100-win team in 2021 had 14 players that produced over 1.5 WAR.  3 were drafted, 1 International, 2 free agents, and 8 acquired as Prospects

The answer is obvious if you take a look at how other low revenue teams have built their rosters.

BTW ... Peralta was acquired as a prospect.  They got 6 years of service from him and now they have acquired a player(s) that could reasonably be expected to give them 6-7 years.  If that happens, their net result is 12-13 years of productive service by giving up 1 year of service.   Kluber was acquired as a prospect.  Cleveland got 8 years of service via an extension and flipped him for Clause.  It should not be a mystery why the standard practice for Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Tampa.   

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

There is no point if your goal is to get from 72 wins to 75 wins or whatever the realistic outcome of this team would project to achieve.  The REALISTIC outcome is definitely not a contender   If you are trying to build a contender, the point is adding players like the prospects Milwaukee received can elevate a team for 6-7 years.  They do so in a very cost-controlled way which given the revenue disparity in the league is absolutely critical to below average teams. 

The point becomes very obvious if you look at the practices of the most successful modest revenue teams.  Last year 7 of Milwaukee's top 14 players by WAR were acquired as prospects.  One (Yelich) was acquired as an established player.  None were acquired as free agents.  The 24 Guardians had 9 players that produced greater than 1.5 WAR.  Five of them were acquired as prospects.  The Rays 100-win team in 2021 had 14 players that produced over 1.5 WAR.  3 were drafted, 1 International, 2 free agents, and 8 acquired as Prospects

The answer is obvious if you take a look at how other low revenue teams have built their rosters.

BTW ... Peralta was acquired as a prospect.  They got 6 years of service from him and now they have acquired a player(s) that could reasonably be expected to give them 6-7 years.  If that happens, their net result is 12-13 years of productive service by giving up 1 year of service.  It should not be a mystery why the standard practice for Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Tampa.   

The simple truth is that we just don't know what the front office is attempting to do with the Twins. This is the third year in a row (three peat) where few notable transactions have taken place. The goals are unclear but the effect of the last two offseasons shows a strategy of waiting for whatever is left over and hoping the guys needing jobs outperform. Along with that is a belief that the current rostered players can all produce All Star results. Thus we cannot know the goals the front office has for the team except a hodge podge of hopes, which are unclear.

When you state the goal seems to wish for 72-75 wins, this is extremely fair. A number of folks on Twins Daily are being (in an admirable way) positive. Those comments go through the roster suggesting outcomes which reside near 100% outcomes for each player. Even so, these fantastic hopes result in a near .500 record. 

Why didn't the Twins trade Ryan? Lopez? Buxton? Jeffers? Those questions may be similar to why the Twins traded Duran, Jax, Varland, and Stewart. Given the state of the current roster, it is fair to wonder what happened.

In sum, it sure looks like the Pohlads and Falvey feel like a 72-75 win team can be sold as competitive and open to explaining the lack of better results on bad luck and/or unforeseen circumstances when August rolls around. Perhaps this strategy works for many people/Twins fans.

I'm happy for those who can accept this current roster because it allows them to see a path forward. While i generally see myself as ridiculously positive, a slow, defensively challenged roster that can't really hit for much and lacks a bullpen fails to excite me for the coming season. My sole hope will be with the rookies and players with only one year of experience. 

A wholesale move this coming July will only serve to highlight the current failures to act. I don't know if this front office understands how Milwaukee or Cleveland operate and no it doesn't make any difference if one once worked in those organizations.

Go Rookies.

21 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The question is how much more would the Mets have paid for 2 years vs 1 year.  Do you think they could have gotten Tong?  I see he did not fare well in his first exposure.  What are your thoughts in terms of what they could have done with the Mets.  Williams and Tong or Reimer possible or am I being a homer?  Maybe there was a deal to be made with us adding Ober to Ryan or similar to get the position players we need going forward. 

Almost missed this comment! We're dealing with a big ole winter storm like everyone else, and let me tell you I can't stand ice. I ****ing hate ice. I look forward to a day in the future when ice no longer exists in our communities. 

Twins couldn't have gotten Tong AND Williams. It's pretty clear they view them both as highly coveted. And regardless of it being two years, I don't think they could have gotten Sproat without something else sent back like the Brewers did.

It could have been someone like Wenniger and Williams perhaps? Or Tong and Suero? 

11 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Bullpens are not 2 relievers deep.

Well, good ones anyway.

Of course not but Sands and Topa are serviceable and an average Rogers and Funderburk is a 4 player start to an average bullpen. 2 additional breakout guys or a FA closer signing that is wildly successful goes along way to having a serviceable bullpen. There will be some home grown rookie types that will be a chance along with the few minor league signings.  Out of all of them, if 2 guys breakout and become high leverage stoppers/closers, we will be able to win games instead of rolling over after our starters are pulled out after pitching a strong 6 2/3 of 2 run ball. 

On 1/22/2026 at 1:46 PM, bunsen82 said:

.......  But that you have a pretty decent 1st baseman option if we choose to move Clemens to second,  Keaschall to outfield,  or a DH in Bell,  that Caratini is an excellent secondary option for this year and next year.   

Wait...whatttt?????  OK, please explain why moving Keaschall to the OF is a better plan than bring up either Jenkins or Rodriguez?  These guys have to get their feet into the deep end of the pool sooner or later...and Keaschall has to master at lease one defensive position...so why not?  As long as we can hold on with Larnach, Buxton, Wallner and Martin, fine...but if one of them goes down (or gets traded), bring on Jenkins!  I'd actually watch a Twins game just to see Jenkins.  Otherwise,  not so much.  

8 hours ago, JADBP said:

Wait...whatttt?????  OK, please explain why moving Keaschall to the OF is a better plan than bring up either Jenkins or Rodriguez?  These guys have to get their feet into the deep end of the pool sooner or later...and Keaschall has to master at lease one defensive position...so why not?  As long as we can hold on with Larnach, Buxton, Wallner and Martin, fine...but if one of them goes down (or gets traded), bring on Jenkins!  I'd actually watch a Twins game just to see Jenkins.  Otherwise,  not so much.  

Twins officials have already stated,  outfield may be a better position for him longterm.  Remember he was in the infield to limit the strain on the arm due tommy john.