Whammy

Display name changed. That was surprisingly easy. That was a remnant of the old BYTO days. I decided it was time for a pronounceable user name.

That homestand wasn’t the most impressive 4-2 homestand I’ve ever seen, but I’ll say this. Over the last couple of years, when they’ve played like that, we’ve seen losing streaks. There’s something to be said for gutting out a few victories when you’re not firing on all cylinders, even if it’s against crappy teams.

There's a non-zero chance that if the service time stuff changes with the new CBA that rookie eligibility could determine whether early-career players are grandfathered in or not. Unlikely... but possible

It's one thing to be pessimistic about the CBA and 2027, but it's another thing to allow that pessimism to flow downhill to other decisions that might negatively affect 2026. Also... Calling up those players now could just as easily get the Twins MORE team control. Maybe if they get called up this year they get grandfathered in to the current 6+ year system. We have no idea. We shouldn't be making worse case assumptions built on pessimistic views. It'll lead to at the very least, complacency, but potentially something worse like kicking the can down the road until we are "positioned to compete with the Dodgers."

Is the friend a cop?

[reviews Yordan's contract status] 2 more years at 26M each. I'd say yes. I think it's possible both teams would say no. Twins because of money and Astros because they could get a bit more for him.

Don't forget about the biggest bats available such as Yordan Alvarez or Lars Nootbaar

I think they view Adams as able to give them multiple innings if needed (unlike Funderburk), which I think is generally what's keeping him around. Also, other than Sunday against the A's, Adams has pitched pretty well recently.

My assumption is Fundy since Minter is a lefty. Not that that HAS to matter, but in this case it feels like it does.

Trade came through at like midnight eastern time, which is where the Mets were, so he probably flew out late this morning. I imagine he'll get to Seattle early afternoon today and the Twins wont activate him until tomorrow. He didn't pitch yesterday, so he's probably available in that sense, but I just think they'll give him a day (and probably burn through some innings with the guy they end up sending down to AAA)

This you?

I actually think that unless the Twins get what is perceived as a huge overpay for Jeffers, the front office just won’t do it. So, I’ll be sad if he’s traded, but I’m also prepared to be like “well… for that, I guess I understand”

Ok fess up… who taught mrmpls how to change font size

You’re not wrong, but I think that’s just the nature of relievers and a reason why the Twins never seemingly mind trading them away for prospects.

I wasn’t sure that the Sano HR in Cleveland could ever be topped in terms of immaculate vibes, but damn if Kody didn’t try.

So Tom… what kind of payroll flexibility do we have? - Jeremy Zoll

Who? Who has been a Jeffers hater?

The Tristan Gray callup and a brief discussion in yesterday's game thread got me thinking about prospect callups again, the motivation behind them, and how the CBA expiring might be adding a wrinkle or two that we don't normally worry about. Normally this time of year we aren't talking too much about service time suppression. By the end of July, those dates have long since passed. In a baseball season there are 3 prospect callup dates that matter (or actually "windows of dates" because the actual dates always vary a little bit): Mid April - Another year of service time. Teams get 6 years of service time from players before they become free agents, but if teams call up a player and start the service time clock after mid-April, then those new players don't accumulate enough service time that year to have it count as a full year, so you end up getting 6+ years. In some cases, almost 7 full years. Mid June - The Super 2 date. It feels like we talk about this one less than we used to. If a player is called up after mid April, but before the Super 2 cutoff, then they get pushed into the arbitration process a year earlier than their service time clock might indicate. Normally teams get a player for 3 years at a pre-arbitration salaries (less than $1M) and then 3 years of arbitration begins and their salaries escalate. If a player is "Super 2" (Like Luke Keaschall is on track to be) then what would normally be their last year of pre-arbitration salaries converts to an arbitration year. In that case, that player has 4 years of arbitration rather than the usual 3. This date doesn't affect years of team control, but rather how much a player will earn over those years. Mid August - Maintaining rookie eligibility. I won't get into all of the thresholds of plate appearances or inning pitched, but usually if a player is called up after mid-August, there's a good chance they will maintain their true rookie status for the following year. This matters for offseason prospect lists. Mick Abel barely crossed one of the rookie thresholds last year. Most people use rookie eligibility to decide whether they can appear on a prospect list. If Abel was still rookie eligible last offseason he probably would've appeared on some top 100 lists and been in the 4-5 range on the Twins top 20 list. Does this REALLY matter? No. But how this has historically mattered more is for Rookie of the Year voting the following year. And these days with the Prospect Promotion Incentive (PPI) tied to RotY voting, there's maybe a little more motivation for a team to maintain rookie status for their players than there always has been. Those are the normal dates and motivations, but does the impending CBA expiration, potential lockout, and lost 2027 games provide a couple more things to think about? One of those considerations has been talked about a decent amount. If a player is called up, then they must be on the 40 man roster and if there is a lockout, players that are on the 40 man roster cannot participate in team activities. But if a prospect is NOT on the 40 man roster then they are still eligible to participate in minor league activities. Emmanuel Rodriguez is on the 40-man roster already and if there's a lockout, he'll be part of that lockout. But Kaelen Culpepper and Walker Jenkins are not yet on the 40 man roster. If they are not called up this season, they will remain off the 40-man roster over the offseason and thus will be eligible for minor league activity. I don't personally believe that's a good reason to keep them at AAA the next couple months, but it's certainly something the Twins are discussing. The second thing to think about is more speculative. One of the likely negotiating items for the new CBA is team control of a rookie player. Currently, as was laid out above, that's 6 years of service time. But in practice, it ends up being closer to 7 years. Almost certainly the players will be looking to shrink that. The sooner they hit free agency the better. Let's say the players are successful. What happens to players already in the "pre-arbitration" process? They've started their service time clocks. Do they get to switch to the new rules? Or because they've started the clock, are they forced to live by the rules that were in place when they got called up? Not sure. And who might get grandfathered in? It seems like there are 4 possibilities: No grandfathering in. Pretty straightforward. Old rules don't apply any more. Everyone lives under the new rules Players on 40 man rosters get grandfathered in, regardless of whether their service time clocks have started. Players who have started their service time clocks at all (even 1 day) are grandfathered in. Players who are not longer rookie eligible get grandfathered in. I have no idea if this is a consideration, but it seems like it might be. Teams obviously have more knowledge about what's being talked about, but given how early we are in the negotiations, they might need to do some speculating here as well. Normally, all things being equal, you're rather a prospect maintain rookie eligibility than not, but might there be different motivations from teams this August and September related to keeping their young players under control as long as possible. Sorry... that went way longer than I intended when I clicked "Create New Topic." If I messed anything up, please let me know.

I agree with this. With a little better defense, that could have easily been a 1 or 2 run outing for Joe. The Perez triple, with a healthy Buxton that could've been an out, but at the very least should've only been a double. The weird Brooks Lee play on the attempted bunt could've easily been a double play if he played it differently. Royce could have been given an error on that 4th run. Just gotta make that play.

No. The super-2 thing passed in June.

Year of control has nothing to do with it. That wouldn’t matter again until next year

I somewhat agree. They don’t seem to be acting with as much urgency as I would like. It’s equal parts annoying and strange. It caused me to look up Rookie eligibility rules (not that that should matter). We’d have to keep our un-debuted players at AAA until around mid August to maintain their rookie status for 2027.

Listen, I’m not happy with how this game is going but Jesus you folks are some of the most mopey, woe is me, m-fers I’ve ever seen.

Probably true, but if I have like 25 career major league games and I’m trying to make an impression I might just exert an above average amount of effort.

How much money does someone need before they say no to low 6 figures of dollars for a day of work?