Whammy

I know. But it's my personal belief that he was still below Falvey on the decision tree and that a Falvey philosophy would win out over a Zoll philosophy (if there were differences)

I like Ryan Kreidler's defense. It's good. It's really good (not to mention his defensive flexibility) But I feel like because of the defense we've been subjected to at Shortstop over the last two seasons, we're overrating it a bit. "Off the charts".... "Poetry in motion".... feel a bit hyperbolic

I believe this is the main reason why there is so much disagreement about what to do with Jeffers at the deadline. I don't want to trade him because I view Jeffers being on the Twins in 2027 via the QO process as a very possible scenario. I want that to happen because I want players on this team that are in the top quartile of their position in MLB. I don't care if it's a 1 year overpay. I want those players on my team because those are one of the key types of players that create playoff teams. You both view Jeffers on a QO in 2027 as a complete fairy tale. Maybe you're right. But maybe I am. If you forced yourselves to believe that we could have Jeffers in 2027 at $23M, would you still want to trade him this week?

I think it's a little silly to assume Zoll is philosophically just like Falvey, just because he hired him a few years back. For a variety of reasons I find it unlikely that the duo of Tom P and Zoll will act like the previous duo of Joe P and Falvey, but who knows. We've learned almost nothing about how Zoll will operate, in the last 6 months, since he took over. Not only will we learn about Tom Pohlad this deadline, but also Jeremy Zoll.

I’m not going to judge Tom Pohlad solely on if we buy, if we sell, or if we do both. It’s also important to judge HOW he does any of those things. I’ll use the Kevin Gausman example, but the same thing could apply to other targets. He’s owed $7M (I’ll trust the author’s numbers). Some fans fear buying in a year like 2026, where the team is competitive-ish, but nobody’s idea of a title contender. Those fears are probably well-founded, but when you’re trading for a guy like Gausman there’s usually a spectrum of prospects you need to give up depending on how much of the contract you are taking on. You might be able to trade them your 10th best prospect if you take on the full contract, but maybe Toronto wants a better prospect and will take on the majority of the owed money. The same works in reverse when trading away players. Depending on who you are trading, say, Josh Bell to, the 2.5M he is owed might be meaningful. Can the Twins take on the money and receive a moderate prospect, or are we salary dumping and receiving a silly lottery ticket? For trades, as a fan, I don’t care about the money. I care about the prospects. So this is how I’ll be judging the front office and Tom Pohlad. He might have a chance to almost literally put his money where his mouth is.

I can’t imagine getting this mad at something a “hack writer” wrote.

I'm not saying the Twins should be huge buyers (nobody really is saying that). But I do feel obligated to say that the Twins are 3.5 games out of a 1st round bye and have the 6th easiest remaining SOS. For me, because of that fact, it feels incredibly silly to trade away any pieces that makes the 2026 team worse. Are we a great team? Nope. But we ARE in an incredibly weak league and a very weak division. And like I said, we are 3.5 games out of getting a first round bye.

Not with a signing bonus, which is why I structured it that way.

Risk. Certainly he's aware of how badly Raleigh has fallen off a cliff this year. Injuries. Aging. Poor Performance. Those are all reasons why he might not be as valuable in a year. His choices might be a) 1 year 23M QO contract and hope that his value remains high for the 2028 season or b) Decline the QO and lock in a 4 year 60M contract (I intentionally used a number that I think is on the low end of what he will get). If we look at those two options straight up, it's a classic "betting on yourself" choice. Option 1 probably allows you to have the highest possible career earnings. Option 2 carries far less risk. BUT... the CBA/Lockout throws a little wrench into this classic "bet on himself." The guaranteed $23M isn't really $23M guaranteed. It's a guaranteed contract with a $23M value. That might seem like some fancy meaningless wordsmithing, but in this case it matters. Any games missed due to a lockout would eat into that $23M guarantee. I'm not going to predict lost games because of the CBA, but what if that $23M contract actually only pays him $16M because of missed games? The whole reason to go with option 1 above was to lock in an overpay for a year. You've taken on the 1 year risk for the reasons discussed, but now your actual 2027 payday looks a lot like the AAV of the long term contract you could have signed, so what was even the point? If I'm in the Jeffers camp I'm turning down the QO and negotiating something like 4/70M with a $12M signing bonus and a 2027 salary of $5M. That might actually earn more in 2027 than a prorated QO.

Currently the White Sox have a 1st round bye. So I guess technically we’re only 3.5 games back of a 1st round bye. We only need to jump the Gaurdians and White Sox to pull that off.

Maybe they should just switch their user name instead, like you did.

This feels like the equivalent of Twitter engagement bait. We’ve been talking about this in the forums all week.

Interesting analysis from a random dude on Twitter. 14% “hit rate” is way higher than I would have expected

Does that mean you're trading Joe Ryan or not trading Joe Ryan?

It feels like the word "modest" is covering a pretty wide spectrum of prospects here.

I agree. His value at the deadline will be more than a comp pick. But I’m not advocating for the QO because I want the comp pick (though that’s a possible outcome). I’m advocating for it because I want an elite catcher on my team in 2027.

He was part of an extremely durable 50/50 time share for three years before 2026. The last two years he played in about 75% of the games. He was catching 2/3 of the games this year, thriving, and then he broke his wrist. Injuries happen. But he’s been very durable.

Volpe wouldn’t be the first guy to have a bit of a renaissance after leaving NY, but it’s a no for me. If I’m the Twins FO I’m looking to solve problems and I just don’t see him as solving anything for us.

My hot take is that I hope Jeffers accepts a QO. Is 24M more than I’d like to pay him? Sure. But he can be an integral part of a good team and if I can pencil him in for 2/3 of the games for us in 2027, I feel like that position group is solved and I can look at filling other holes. We’ve got enough cheap guys at other positions that we can handle a little overpay for one year at catcher. Side benefit is that it’s a perfect opportunity to test out Tom Pohlads go big or go home mantra.

I feel like Sands has had a couple times where he seemed on the brink of coming back only to have a set back. Him not being on the team yet is probably a combination of: a) wanting to be sure he’s past the setbacks b) letting him pitch in St Paul until we return from this road trip.

What happens to the negative WPA generated by putting the Manfred Man on 2nd base? The elegance of WPA is that at the end of the game, everyone’s WPA adds up to 1.00, but that’s not the case for extra innings games.

There was a similar discussion yesterday and I almost started a thread about it, but one more thing to consider… With one of the new CBA discussion points being talked about being a shorter time in arbitration (5 years instead of what usually ends of being 7), might there actually be an advantage to starting their service clock this year and potentially getting them grandfathered in to the new system.

Normally I'd be all for walking the first guy to create a force out, but that raises the possibility of facing Ramirez, so that's scary.

I'm not watching on TV are these challenges the guardians keep winning as annoying on TV as they are on gamecast?

I respect the joke... but he did 🙂