Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Whammy

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,621

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Whammy

  1. Whammy
    Sure, but this is a "discussion board", not a "concise conclusion board"
  2. Whammy
    Who knows what the QO looks like after the new CBA, or if it exists at all, but one thing I’ve been thinking about is the idea that you’d almost never give a QO to a catcher or a relief pitcher, because it’s so much higher that the AAV those positions typically get in free agency. What if they changed it to be more like the NFL and the franchise tag. The mechanics of baseball’s Qualifying Offer could work the same as it does now, but the one year contract value could vary based on position. I believe in the NFL the franchise tag contract value is equal to the average of the top 5 salaries at that position. I don’t think top 5 is the right answer for MLB. Maybe it’s top 3 or maybe top 5 + 30%. And I don’t think you need to get TOO specific on the position. Maybe it’s 5 categories of IF, OF, C/DH, SP, RP
  3. Whammy
    I gave MLB too much credit. The Twins play the A’s twice pretty early and don’t play the White Sox at all until the middle of June
  4. Whammy
    I wonder if they set it up so that you get at least 2 series against all division opponents and 1 series against all AL opponents in, say, the last 100 games that are scheduled. That would be smart for eventual tiebreaker possibilities and strength of schedule balancing if they miss a big chunk of games.
  5. Whammy
    Pretty ideal from an attendance perspective, other than Milwaukee coming to town just after Labor Day Hosting each of the Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Cubs over a 5 week stretch starting in late June is pretty sweet
  6. Whammy
    My (perhaps flawed) assumption has been that velocity declines with age because it’s largely strength-based, although I think more recently perhaps we’ve seen that mechanics play a bigger role than previously though. But when it comes to spin, I’ve always thought of that as more technique driven, or at the very least driven by much less powerful muscles/tendons, so not nearly as affected by age deterioration. That could be 100% be a flawed way to think about it though.
  7. Whammy
    I've never really thought of "spin" as something that declines with age. Maybe it does. No idea. I'd love to see some data on that.
  8. Whammy
    OK. I'll mark you down as "not open to feedback" Your hall pass is revoked. Get back to class or I'll report you to the office.
  9. Whammy
    I'll admit, I was being a little extreme by throwing out 5 years. but there's never been a situation where teams are potentially this far out of compliance from what the new baseline might be. I think there's very little chance there wont be some sort of phase-in. I also think the players will fight as much as possible to prevent a cap and as part of what might be their eventual concession on that item, they will likely negotiate as long of a phase in as possible for the cap and as short of a phase in as possible for a floor.
  10. Whammy
    I just don't believe that no matter what salary cap/floor changes are put in place with a new CBA that the compliance deadline will be short enough to trigger this whirlwind you describe I could see the cap having a 5 year phase in to compliance and the floor having something shorter like a 2 year phase in. That's just one of the major changes being talked about that will need some sort of phasing in or grandfathering in (arbitration length and existing contracts being the most prominent)
  11. Whammy
    Terrifying
  12. Whammy
    Very tough to pull off, but something like this three act play could be interesting: 1. Trade Joe Ryan 2. Trade for Sonny Gray 3. Extend Pablo The timing of #3 isn’t super important other than to soothe the minds of fans Sorry… I’m off topic from the thread. 84-80 - 3rd wild card - Culpepper is called up around Aug 1 and has an 830 OPS - Two good RP added at trade deadline - Joe Ryan not traded and 4th in Cy Young voting - Buxton 6th in MVP voting.
  13. Whammy
    The $10M buyout just feels like part of the negotiation with the Red Sox. The Twins eating all of that would mean much less prospect capital being given up because $20M (what he’s owed this year + the 10M buyout) probably slides him into negative value territory.
  14. Whammy
    In the early days of the QO (I’m not even sure it was called that), the signing team literally had to give their pick to the team losing the player. At this point I feel like we are on about the 4th iteration of what the signing team gives up and losing team receives, to the point where it feels like the only thing left to do is to completely do away with the penalty for the signing team. Maybe you could do something like the signing team drops 10 spots or something, depending on their tax status (but will “tax status” even be a thing in the next CBA?) And maybe you create a tier above the $50M level…. $150M or more get you to the 20th pick instead of 30th or so? But all of that sounds more complicated than “let’s just get rid of the draft pick penalty”
  15. Whammy
    A team can be given a compensatory pick without another team losing one.
  16. Whammy
    Maybe he's been brought up in this thread and it was just a post I skimmed over, but an extension for Pablo seems way more likely that Joe. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have them both beyond 2027, anchoring the rotation, with some combination of Taj, Abel, Prielipp, and Zebby filling it out. You pair that with a lineup that is good now (with a little smoke and mirrors) but looks to be building towards a young, fun 2027/28 and you've got a team that you don't have to squint to see having good sustainable success. But I just don't see both Pablo and Joe both being around past 2027. And based on the AAV and years that it might take, I view Pablo as a more likely, lower cost, lower risk extension candidate.
  17. Whammy
    And to add a little flavor to this... Any QO decisions from teams have to be made by about November 5th (depends on what day the Worlds Series ends) and then the decision from the player needs to be made within 10 days of that. So those things would happen prior to a lockout. I know that doesn't affect the MAIN topic of this thread (Joe Ryan) but it does affect someone who's been brought up several times here (Ryan Jeffers)
  18. Whammy
    We could also DFA him. Seems as likely as an extension. 😜
  19. Whammy
    I actually think everything about the QO process works pretty damn well.... other than the part where the signing team has to give up a draft pick. If they got rid of that provision, I'm not sure how the players would view the QO process as a bad thing.
  20. Whammy
    Jeffers' incentive to accept a QO is likely muted by the fact that if there's a shortened 2027 season (let's say 100 games), the $23M he would "lock in" would turn into $14.2M. It's true that any free agent deal he signs would also have the 2027 salary pro-rated down, but the whole reason you'd accept the QO is because you think the $23M you're going to earn is so much higher than the AAV of the contract you'd be forgoing (and risking) for a year. But at this hypothetical $14M value for a pro-rated QO, that's actually right in line with where people expect his AAV to be for a free agent contract. So.... lower incentive to accept the QO
  21. Whammy
    Hey coach can I move back to 110? Whoa whoa whoa there, buddy. The trainer said 105 and that what we're doing
  22. Whammy
    "105 feet" is oddly specific.
  23. Whammy
    I want all of these guys to develop to their highest potential, but I hope the Twins do not allow existing catching prospects in the organization to, in any way, affect Lackey's developmental path. If the Twins think that Lackey should start at high-A, but we've already got two prospects there, then send one of them to Fort Myers. If that's Tait because it means both of them get more time at catcher to develop, then so be it.
  24. Whammy
    My view on Boras is that he has longer term goals/objectives. He's willing to take a couple Ls with the long term goal of increasing all free agent contract values. That strategy sometimes ignores (or hurts) individual players' earning opportunity and from a small/mid market fan perspective it sometimes feels like we're at the whims of Scott. Overall, is that a bad thing? Nope. And he has a large and successful enough client list that even if there are some bad results along the way, he can point to the Juan Sotos and Corbin Burneses of the world as contract success stories.
  25. Whammy
    I'm not going to get into my own speculation about a qualifying offer to Jeffers, but all of this really comes down to what the front office thinks they are going to do. If they think there's a strong possibility that they make Jeffers a QO, then they should be willing (trying?) to trade Caratini. Potentially paying Jeffers 23M hurts a bit less if you're not also paying Caratini 7M. Rather than Caratini being your 2027 bridge, it's Jeffers. I'm not saying Caratini has some big positive value with his contract, but for a team that's in a bad way at the catcher spot in 2026, his 2027 salary (and 2028 buyout) isn't going to sink things. If they don't think they are going to make Jeffers a QO, then they should be willing to trade him. You want to come away from the deadline with: a) two catchers on your 26 man roster b) a clear idea of what your catchers might look like in 2027.
×
×
  • Create New...