Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Why Minnesota Twins Might Not Extend Qualifying Offer to Ryan Jeffers

    For most Twins fans, letting catcher Ryan Jeffers leave via free agency without receiving anything in return is unthinkable. The Twins might see things differently, though, for a few reasons.

    Matthew Trueblood
    Image courtesy of Jesse Johnson-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

    The MLB offseason is here, and teams have until 4 PM Central time on Monday to extend qualifying offers to eligible free agents. That's also when the exclusive negotiating window between players and their previous teams expires, opening free agency in full. For the Twins, that means that they need to decide whether to issue that offer to catcher Ryan Jeffers. If he were to accept it, he would receive $23.15 million on a one-year deal. If he declined, the Twins would receive a 2027 draft pick if and when he signs with another team. 

    Jeffers, 29, batted .256/.353/.461 in his walk year, with 14 home runs, 46 walks and 66 strikeouts in 369 plate appearances. It was the second-best offensive season of his career, trailing only 2023, and most fans expect the Twins to make at least a nominal effort to retain him by extending the QO on the back of that strong performance.

    That might well happen. However, there are a few things pushing against the simple logic of his good performance, as the team weighs its options with regard to what would be a major investment.

    Jeffers's Doubtful Durability and the Twins' Payroll Utility

    As the offseason begins, one still-unanswered question is how much the team is willing to back up owner Tom Pohlad's big talk about spending more on payroll than they have over the last two seasons. Based on their end-of-season press conference, the team wants fans to expect significant outlays and a boost to somewhere north of $135 million in spending in 2027. A pessimist might point out, though, that they have every reason to raise expectations that way in October and November. Many ticket sales for the following season (especially season-ticket and group sales, which are teams' major revenue drivers) happen during that early phase of the offseason, so setting high expectations can be helpful even if you're unable (or unwilling) to deliver on them.

    Presumably, the team has at least some good-faith intention to spend this winter, but they also have plenty of money spoken for already, and that needs to inform their decisions this winter. Pablo López is due $21.5 million in 2027, and while there's optimism (at the moment) that he'll be ready for Opening Day, the reality of recent cases in which pitchers underwent second Tommy John surgeries is that most aren't back on the mound and up to speed until 16 or 17 months after their operation. Justin Steele had surgery in April 2025 and didn't pitch at all in the majors in 2026. Jordan Montgomery had it shortly before Steele and only made it back to the bigs the following August. López had his operation in February, so barring a significant setback, he should be on the mound before the end of June, but that's different than giving the team a full complement of front-of-the-rotation innings.

    López's case is similar to that of Byron Buxton, who faces a long recovery from surgery on the labrum in his hip. The team hopes he'll be back for Opening Day; the smart money says he won't be. Buxton's base salary for 2027, as with the other years of his contract, is $15 million. The club is also sending $10 million to the Astros again next year, to defray the costs of the Carlos Correa contract they dumped at the 2025 trade deadline. That's nearly $50 million that the team will spend next year on players who either won't play for them or can't be counted upon for a full season's work. A good over/under for batters faced by López is 600. A good one for Buxton's plate appearances is 400. That's not much volume in return for what looks likely to be a third of their payroll.

    Paying Jeffers another $23 million and change would risk exacerbating that problem. Though he did cobble together 465 plate appearances in 2024 and 464 in 2025, he's never been a durable, high-volume player. Over the last five seasons, there have been 79 player-seasons in which a catcher caught at least 800 innings for their team. Jeffers has never reached that milestone. It's possible that changes next year. Carson Kelly, for instance, had never gotten to 800 innings in a season before joining the Cubs two years ago, and caught more than 860 in each of the last two years, in his early 30s. It's never wise to bet on a catcher becoming suddenly more durable as they cross into their 30s.

    Can the Twins afford to pay QO-level money for a player who is unlikely to qualify for the batting title? When he's on the field, Jeffers is generally good, but he's not a plus defensive catcher, and if were a semi-regular designated hitter, he wouldn't be an especially impressive one. It might be that the money they're already spending on players who can't stay on the field makes it impossible to justify doing more of the same.

    The Twins' Approach to Keeping Catchers Fresh

    Of course, one thing that held down Jeffers's playing time totals during his Twins tenure was outside his control. In the last two seasons of Rocco Baldelli's tenure, the team used the most careful alternating pattern of catcher starts in the history of the sport. Jeffers would start one day; Christian Vázquez would start the next. That worked nicely, too. It exposed the weakness of Vázquez's bat, but it also protected each backstop from overuse and reduced their risk of injury. Neither has otherwise ever been as healthy or as consistent as they were under that playing-time arrangement. That setup allowed Jeffers to get the playing time he did at DH, too. It was part of why the team spent a significant amount on their second catcher again last winter, replacing Vázquez with Victor Caratini. They believe in playing-time parity at catcher, as much as the roster allows, so they try to have a stronger-than-average second option at the position.

    The natural extension of that mindset, though, is that you don't pay market rates for your first catcher, because other teams will price that player in a way very different from you. They're thinking of using them for 25 more games behind the plate than you are. They're planning on giving them at least 50 more plate appearances than you are. In this case, that means (simply) that paying $23 million for a first catcher is incompatible with the team's approach to the position.

    That approach isn't set in stone. Derek Shelton, unlike Baldelli, is a former catcher, and he was much more willing to let his backstops play several days in a row in 2026. Then again, that got them into some trouble, in multiple ways, so the organization might try to nudge him back toward their preferred style in 2027.

    One argument here would be to extend the QO, knowing other teams might see Jeffers as a more important and high-volume piece than the Twins do, and then let him walk away. The risk that Jeffers might accept the offer is not minimal, though. Even fellow Scott Boras client Nick Martinez accepted one for 2025. The Twins can't give a QO unless they're willing to actually pony up that money for Jeffers. Besides, the rest of the league might like to play Jeffers more, but they're unlikely to be keen on giving up a draft pick to do it.

    Players with durability or role-size questions are exactly the types who often get stranded on the market if they have a QO attached to them. That's why similar hitters to Jeffers, like Trent Grisham and Gleyber Torres, each took the QO last fall. Kelly, the aforementioned comp to Jeffers as a late-blooming catcher, signed with the Cubs for just $11 million over two years, and had no draft compensation encumbrance. The market might dry up as soon as Jeffers is tagged with that offer, so again, the Twins have to anticipate that he might accept it, and plan their choice about whether to give it accordingly.

    Losing Jeffers for nothing would hurt. It's why he was viewed as a trade candidate right up to the deadline in August, despite the Twins assuming a buying posture. However, the Twins can't extend the QO just because the alternative is painful. They have to view the offer as the right choice, weighing the upside and risks of each option. That might lead them to what would be a very unpopular choice. They can't worry about that. They have to make the right one.

    Want more Twins in your Google results? Add us as a preferred source.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Yasser Mercedes

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, OF
    On Thursday in the Fall League, Mercedes went 2-for-4 with his first double and his first homer run of the AFL season.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    31 minutes ago, killercarewoliva said:

    attitude is everything and yours is not good. it's abrasive. it's not becoming of this site to talk like that and it's very typical of the New York Yankees fans who are by far the worst in the league.

    I'm a Mets fan. And therefore we agree that Yankees fans are the worst in the league. 

    And there's no denying New Yorkers are abrasive. Proudly so. We deal with way more people than the average American on a daily basis, and we don't entertain nonsense. New Yorkers can be incredibly helpful and friendly if you know what you're doing. But rude and nasty if you're wasting our time. 

    OP - "Besides, the rest of the league might like to play Jeffers more, but they're unlikely to be keen on giving up a draft pick to do it."

     

    Nitpic: Teams don't "give up a draft pick" by signing FAs with a QO attached. They keep their own picks.

    The team losing such a FA gets a extra pick inserted either after the 1st round, before the 3rd round, or before the 4th round.

     

    Stupid rule, IYAM because EVERY team gets their regular picks pushed back, equally. 

     

    But signing teams don't forfeit a pick.

    https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-qualifying-offer-contract-predictions-2026-27-offseason/

    On 10/30/2026 at 9:14 AM, rdehring said:

    Is Jackson still on the Saints roster and under Twins control in 2027?  If so, should they sign Jeffers to an extension or he stays via the QO, there is a real chance they trade Caratini.  Don't know what they could get or how much of his salary they would have to keep to get anything back.  But should they keep Jeffers and Caratini departs, their overall spending at catcher may not be all that much more than this past year.

    I said at the deadline that they should trade Caratini rather than Jeffers and nearly got jeered off this site. 

    Making the offer to Jeffers is a no brainer.  The worst possible outcome is that he declines and we get a draft pick.  If he accepts we pay him.  Shouldn't be a big deal.  If it IS a big deal than we have problems.  Sorry but that's the truth.  If we consider Culpepper, Jenkins & Rodriguez to be big league players and no longer prospects, four of our top seven (maybe ten depending on which rating you use) prospects are catchers.  However, NONE of them will be ready to contribute at the big league level this year.  $23 Million for one of the best catchers around to be a bridge to the young fellas would be a wise investment.

    16 hours ago, SE23 said:

    Use the $$$ to build value. Starting with the value that was lost when Jeffers wasn't traded earlier.

    But you can't spend free agent $$$ in a way that compensates for lost prospect value. Free agents by definition are market rate players. It's rare to get a bargain. But teams can often get a bargain from the first few years of an MLB-ready player.

    If the idea is that the Twins can compensate for the prospects they lost out on by keeping Jeffers, they'll have to spend well beyond their previous record high payroll.

    2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

    the Twins have money, he clearly improves the team over the alternative, and just letting him walk does nothing but make the team worse. 

    All of this is correct, but making the team worse is a Pohlad speciality. It's what happens when you don't understand what you own because you were given it instead of purchasing it yourself.

    On 10/30/2026 at 10:14 AM, rdehring said:

    Is Jackson still on the Saints roster and under Twins control in 2027?  If so, should they sign Jeffers to an extension or he stays via the QO, there is a real chance they trade Caratini.  Don't know what they could get or how much of his salary they would have to keep to get anything back.  But should they keep Jeffers and Caratini departs, their overall spending at catcher may not be all that much more than this past year.

    Exactly - don’t need to read any other comments.

    Trade Caratini and eat half of the $10M owed inclusive of his buyout for ‘28.

    Take the $5M saved on Vic and add it to Jeffers $6M already being paid in ‘26. …… so he gets a $12M bump above Catcher spending in ‘26.

    Other option is to offer a lucrative 2 year deal to Jeffers (2 for $18.5M/year, as an example) as a firm bridge to Lackey & the other 2-3 young Catchers in the organization.

    Gotta do something positive to be “competitive”. ……….Can’t have Caratini as “lead Catcher” going into’27!

    Having Lee & Lewis & Keaschall all in the proper defensive spots to start the season would be a big boost over start of ‘26.

    Lopez out all season - Sands out 3/4 of season - Festa out all season - Banda out 1/2 season - Abel out 80% of season………etc. ……… Staff will start the year MUCG stronger in ‘27 even if Lopez isn’t ready & Banda is gone ………… assuming ”someone” will probably injured as well.

    17 hours ago, bjorks said:

    I think one of the labor issues they're trying to address is you can be rinky-dink and screw the fans over, but at the end of the day ALL professional sport team ownership is about the $ and whether you win the WS or you're the Oakland/Sacramento/LasVegas/Bend/Waco/.Blackduck/International Falls Athletics, the profit is there. 

    Maybe nobody in the media or with the org will say this publicly, but i believe the Twins were pulled off the table (temporarily) last year because the Pohlads would've been fools to sell before the the CBA and media deal gets figured out. Just by operating at the status quo when the sell at a minimum will net them $300-$500 MILLION more just by waiting 12-18 months. 

    image.png.c7887dff423965b307a0c1bbcf554a26.png

    Yeah.  Normally I am all for ownership and profits.   That is how innovations and high paying jobs are created.   Without the incentives for capital formation our lifestyles would not be much greater than that of Medieval times, hand to mouth subsistence living.

    But high level professional sports ownership is different because the franchise is limited.  There are only 30 major league baseball teams.  These corporations trade at multiples to cash flow that are very high because not every billionaire gets to own one no matter how much they want to.

    So there should be an obligation to the fans/customers of these special types of business, which are also, btw, heavily subsidized by local governments, to create a product that maximizes the fans value.  

    The Pohlads have never done this.  Nor did the Griffiths.  The fact is, Minnesota is not a sports friendly environment.   Our local revenues are minimal (see all of the problems getting the local sports broadcasting done for the region).   And although the market size is not small, it is the 15th largest television market in the United States, the value is just not there.  And I think our local ownership of all of the sports franchises reflects this.  

    It even carries into college level athletics.  One of the pieces of evidence I present in support of this thesis is look at the states in the US that have only one D1 FBS basketball and football teams.   Minnesota is by far the largest.  Minnesota has 80% more population than Iowa, yet Iowa fields 2 D1 football teams.  Minnesota has 700k more people than Alabama, yet that state has 6 D1 FBS football teams.   

     

    Napkin roster construction and payroll approximates:

    1] TWO solid FA RP...1 RH, 1 LH...$20-22M. We'll go high. 

    2] Bauers at 1B $12-13M. Again, we'll go high.

    Post FA departures and moving on from Larnach, Ober, and Lewis, payroll sits approximately $100M.

    $100M ÷ $22M + $13M = $135M.

    3] Add a versatile INF to replace Lewis, or keep Lewis and hope he accepts the role of utility (unless he proves worthy of more) $3-5M.

    4] Jackson as #2 catcher or similar FA option, or possible trade for someone like Henry Davis from Pittsburgh (examples like this have been offered previously) $2-3M.

    $135M + $5M + $3M = $140M

    Twins 2023 payroll FOUR YEARS ago: $157M

    Expected AVERAGE ML payroll for 2027, approximately $180M plus. 

    So we're talking $17M LESS than payroll FOUR YEARS ago, and $40M less than the expected AVERAGE ML payroll for 2027. 

    If Jeffers really loved Minnesota and being a Twin...and his family felt the same...he could approach the Twins on a deal of 3yrs and $45M and see what they say. By all reasonable expectations and projections, he's going to get an offer of at least 3 for $45. The QO is $22M. MLB contracts are guaranteed. So unless he is thinking about retiring after 2027, or really, really wants to stay a Twin for at least one more season, why on earth would he take $23M instead of $45M plus? Or even 3.and $36-39M?

    You offer the QO, get a draft pick, and you end up with...I believe...5 of the top 100 selections. (3 team selections and 2 comp picks, IIRC). 

    What are the actual odds of Jeffers taking the QO and saying NO to a larger, guaranteed payday? 

    But let's say for some reason he does. $140M plus $20M (factoring in $3M already accounted for) equals $160M. That's only $3M more than 2023, and STILL a good $20M less than the expected ML average for 2027. And come 2028, you've got $33M coming OFF the payroll.

    There really should be no "risk" factor in offering Jeffers the QO. 

    16 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

    So Elon Musk, among many others, goes down to $1M per year? Ok. Sounds good. Deficit is conquered.

    gosh, musk is not playing a ball game. you can't compare that. when I started talking about this money the players get. I really didn't think anybody anywhere would agree. somebody making super millions of dollars playing a game. I am very price conscious with everything but when it comes to sports it's crazy money out there. ridiculous absurd and we have to pay the price okay?

    Just now, killercarewoliva said:

    gosh, musk is not playing a ball game. you can't compare that. when I started talking about this money the players get. I really didn't think anybody anywhere would agree. somebody making super millions of dollars playing a game. I am very price conscious with everything but when it comes to sports it's crazy money out there. ridiculous absurd and we have to pay the price okay?

    They aren't playing a game either. They are professional employees. I 1000000 percent disagree they shouldn't be paid what they are. 

    48 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

    They aren't playing a game either. They are professional employees. I 1000000 percent disagree they shouldn't be paid what they are. 

    Professional and Collegiate athletes are underpaid when you measure it directly to "jock tax" and other revenue generators linked to sports (hotels, travel, food, etc). I've been a consultant in the sports industry for 15 years and nobody can make an argument against professional sports salaries as it relates to tourism revenue for pro sports. MN has the 2nd highest jock tax in the country after California. Events like the gymnastics olympic trials or junior hockey championships bring in $5+ million to the state. You need to think of them not as employees, but entertainers. Does anyone complain when ScarJo or Brad Pitt make $50 million for a movie? No because it's based on the numbers and sports are the same. 

    I'm not justifying it, but professional sports team ownership is the ultra, ultra exclusive and a very small group of individuals who benefit. WE (all of us) created the market through fandom and watching games. If there wasn't a demand, the salaries and TV deals wouldn't be what they are. All you need to look at are expansion markets across the Core 4 + MLS/NWSL to see States/Cities will do anything to get an invite the party. 

    MLS/NWSL is pure speculation from an ownership standpoint. Teams lose money, but NWSL expansion fees will eclipse $250MM in 2028 for the next round of expansion, yet many of the teams barely can draw 5-figure attendance. BUT, because of perceived value of professional sports team ownership, ownership in MLS/NWSL can place almost any valuation on teams they want because of the way the rev share model works in both leagues. 

    Ohtani and Yamamoto (and I suppose Roki) have been worth over $1B in direct economic impact from the Japanese markets alone since their signings. If anything, Ohtani and Yamamoto are underpaid versus their value. 

    The really crazy thing is how NBA/NFL have really sold their souls and I'm not even talking about sports gambling. The Euro/Asian market for TV, merch, overseas games, etc. is literally finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (regardless if the leprechaun is in a tree). If you think salaries and stadiums are out of control now, just wait until they figure out expansion to non-US markets. 

    The only solution (a lot due to revenue) is split, true global leagues with true "World Champions". If the NBA expands like they want to in the Asian markets (esp. China), you would see a nearly uncapped league or the "stars" like Ant, easily making $150+ million annually. 

    20 hours ago, Linus said:

    If I have to choose between Jeffers and one of Bauers, Lowe or Chisholm, I take any of those three over Jeffers seven days a week. 

    And if those three have the opportunity to choose between the Twins and anyone else do you think we sign them? The QO offer may be an overpay but the Twins have put themselves in a position where they will have to overpay to get any desirable free agent. 

    17 minutes ago, shimrod said:

    And if those three have the opportunity to choose between the Twins and anyone else do you think we sign them? The QO offer may be an overpay but the Twins have put themselves in a position where they will have to overpay to get any desirable free agent. 

    We will if we offer them the most money. 

    5 hours ago, USAFChief said:

    OP - "Besides, the rest of the league might like to play Jeffers more, but they're unlikely to be keen on giving up a draft pick to do it."

     

    Nitpic: Teams don't "give up a draft pick" by signing FAs with a QO attached. They keep their own picks.

    The team losing such a FA gets a extra pick inserted either after the 1st round, before the 3rd round, or before the 4th round.

     

    Stupid rule, IYAM because EVERY team gets their regular picks pushed back, equally. 

     

    But signing teams don't forfeit a pick.

    https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-qualifying-offer-contract-predictions-2026-27-offseason/

    Actually, if you read further in the article, teams DO forfeit a pick if they sign a free agent who had received (and declined) a QO.

    IMG_0409.jpeg

    On 10/30/2026 at 3:26 PM, killercarewoliva said:

    maybe some of you have read my financial commentary. this is about huge money for a qualifying offer for a dude playing a ball game. my son was not good enough to be drafted but he did play on a travel team after high School up and down the East Coast. he was there shortstop but he realized he had to give that up and get a job. you see he's doing it for fun. he loves to play baseball. he's was very intelligent about what's going on on the ball field with every pitch. is that worth any money? doesn't matter if it is or not. point is he's doing it for fun. so let's say you're a $10 million or $30 million a year player. would you do it for fun instead of make all those millions? if those millions were not available I dare say some guys would if they could. very few people make over a million dollars a year to earn their living. most people come home happy with in today's terms. 150k or more a year. you can take care of your family pretty well with that. so we get on here and we talk in terms of of he's worth $15 million or he's worth $30 million and let's go ahead and give him that much money. The entertainment of sports. all sports is way out of focus. crazy money and we talk about it like this is just normal. this is good. let all of us either go to the ball game or watch it on television and pay all this money so these ball players can make crazy money with whichever team pays them the most. does that sound like they are community-minded where they're playing when they get traded or become a free agent and they go somewhere else? they're going to be all excited as they're seen on the ball field for where they're playing at right now and forget how much excitement they showed the year before for their previous team. now they're trying to beat the previous team. this is professional sport. it's not high School where they do have a feeling of loyalty. I am not happy with all this money. these guys get nobody deserves money like that to play a ball game. I don't care how good they are. The ball teams have cheap seats and then they have the ridiculously high seats. price wise. I know New York has when they open their new stadium $1,600 to see a ball game behind the dugout of the Yankees. okay enough said and you younger people will write back like there's nothing wrong with this. well there is wrong with this.

    thank you. the bad pronunciation comes from Google 




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...