ashbury

Haha, I just asked ChatGPT whether one should trade Taj Bradley for Griffin Jax. After first sorting out that I didn't mean in a Fantasy league, Chat was unambiguous that the Rays should not make this trade. Paraphrasing, perhaps unfairly, "no front office would [give up Bradley for Jax] straight up." Similar for the Louis Varland deal - unambiguously against it from the Jays' standpoint. Falvey IS ChatGPT, it seems. He is confident we got a pair of steals. 😀 (In other news: ChatGPT is prepared to talk trades. I didn't know that.)

Keep him, DFA him - either way same difference. He's not pitching in the playoffs this season.

What you want are quality starting pitchers who can be workhorses. Not merely "good, twice through the batting order," but guys who might be good enough that, if they breeze through the first and second time through, are still good enough that on the third time through they are still on a par with the fresh arms you might bring from the bullpen. (Especially since, in the 6th inning, you aren't bringing any of your best arms in.) While I understand the desire to win any individual game by playing the analytic odds, I'd also like to see these 5-inning pitchers, which is mainly what the article is about, be given a little more opportunity to demonstrate their ability to go longer if they are doing well though 5 or so. Woods-Richardson on July 8 versus the Cubs would be an example. Only 61 pitches to get through 5 very solid innings - give it a whirl and send him out for another go at it. On one hand you are saving stress on his arm in a 2-0 game (that the hitters managed to break open late) - on the other, let him learn. Zebby on July 25. Six innings, only 81 pitches. Again a tight game. The season is lost (though it took a few more days for them to admit it). Another chance for a learning experience for the young pitcher, and conversely a chance for the staff to learn what he's made of. Festa, June 27. 5.2 innings, 75 pitches. Did he really need rescuing from himself? The downside is maybe he loses a game. The upside, by contrast, is immense, if the young man gains confidence in himself, and the braintrust gains confidence in him. The message I fear that is coming through is, "yes, your results were okay, but your fundamentals were dropping and you were lucky you got as far as you did." That does not build your players into what they might become. I would truly love to know Rocco's and Pete Maki's take on all three of these specific games, plus others. (Well, not enough to invest the time to go back through Rocco's post-game press conference and see what he said at the time. 😀)

The lot probably has a yard. Not feet.

He's an analytics kind of guy? Maybe he has access to the same defensive stats we do, or better, and sees slippage, so he brought it up proactively?

The headline led me to expect bombshell quotes that didn't materialize. Instead we see a businesslike interaction between boss and (well-paid) employee. Speaks well that there was a preference to play 3B yet it never reached our ears until now. I would work for Falvey if he wanted me, and I like Correa's attitude on the job (plus I'll always thank him for those two games in October 2023).

Regular readers here will recall that I enjoy the computer game Out Of The Park. Since it's a game and I'm not hurting anyone, I abuse some of its features without remorse. In particular, there is often no sense of there being 24 hours in a day. So, as GM in the game, my typical style is to do a top-to-bottom assessment of every level of my franchise's farm system and 40-man on the first day of the off-season, then I use the trading interface to sell off every questionable asset that has trade value, in exchange for players who fit my preferences better. All this in one day of game-time. Normally I feel as though a dozen trades in one day is a serious betrayal of reality. Now I feel fine. Even if yesterday was the trade deadline, not the first day after the World Series, I have confirmation that it can be done. What REALLY gave me the OOTP vibe, though, was the Correa deal. Sometimes I do everything I can to move an untradeable contract. Falvey didn't pull out all the stops, such as packaging Carlos with Jhoan for instance, but applying $30M of money this year to free up space for the coming years is a very OOTP kind of thing to do. It happens now and then in real life - Falvey didn't invent anything here - but it still reflects the same mindset as the game. I can't help chuckling. Sometimes we say a player is putting up video-game numbers. Thursday was a video-game day for our GM.

Whatever your asking price, I will undercut it by 10%. It's important to save our betters their money.

Regular readers here will recall that I enjoy the computer game Out Of The Park. Since it's a game and I'm not hurting anyone, I abuse some of its features terribly. In particular, there is often no sense of there being 24 hours in a day. So, as GM in the game, my typical style is to do a top-to-bottom assessment of every level of my franchise's farm system and 40-man on the first day of the off-season, then I use the trading interface to sell off every questionable asset that has trade value, in exchange for players who fit my preferences better. All this in one day of game-time. Normally I feel as though a dozen trades in one day is a serious betrayal of reality. Now I feel fine. Even if yesterday was the trade deadline, not the first day after the World Series, I have confirmation that it can be done. I can't help chuckling. Sometimes we say a player is putting up video-game numbers. Yesterday was a video-game day for our GM.

If there's a plan, you should be able to state it. They should be able to state it. The trade of Varland, under control through 2030 I believe, is out of keeping with simply "sellers at the deadline." The trades of Duran, Jax, and Stewart are collectively out of keeping with retooling for the coming two years. I don't know when the next window of contention is targeted. 2031? Do we just keep developing and trading away?

Not straight up. Too similar to what we have in RF now. Ryan plus Wallner for Anthony plus P?? + P?? + ??? and maybe there's scope for a conversation, but I don't know the Boston system enough to suggest a pitcher a little lesser than Ryan plus another pitcher/prospect plus another lottery pick, to be any more specific than that. But, only a conversation at this point - do we really need an upgrade from Wallner that much, and is that the position on the field where the team would benefit the most? Moving Wallner to 1B is a hypothetical that needs at least some empirical evidence. Otherwise he's a DH and the performance bar is set really high to be full-time DH - can he approach Nelson Cruz levels? So yeah, I say no, but perhaps it's a conversation starter.

You can always find trading partners who will give you a top-100 bat as the headliner for your good pitching. You certainly can make a greater number of trades if you are willing to go that route, but IMO it's lazy. Me, i want arms in return for my arms, and that is much harder to line up. Two of the three proposals listed here are mainly for bats; maybe I listen to the Cubs depending on how my scouts like those two pitchers. As said above, some national writers like to pick the carcass of teams out of favor, and they don't give serious thought to what would actually be good for the team. No, I keep Ryan unless some team is willing to deal value for equivalent value. The trades I like are in the other direction - Arraez for Lopez, Cruz for Ryan, those are the ones I give great credit to the FO for. If the Twins can line up another one like that, then maybe I'd consider dealing Ryan for bats to compensate. Maybe.

This isn't an especially young team. Brooks Lee, Royce Lewis, and Matt Wallner are the only position players on the major league roster 27 years of age or under. Weighted by plate appearances this season, the Twins are the 8th oldest team in the majors (something that may start to change after the trade deadline). Maybe some guys are inexperienced at the major league level, but that might be more a matter of questioning their preparation, by that age.

I don't know the specific scouting report, but #9 hitters aren't necessarily that because they can't hit fastballs, even good ones. Often, it's the only pitch they can hit.

Where's the young catcher coming back to the Twins? I'm all for the part of the trade involving saying goodbye to Vazquez, but we have to have someone competent to replace him.

That, plus the possibility there's no new owner at all, factors into the nearly fifty percent I suggested. Anyway, congrats, we've converted a thread on two specific deadline deals into yet another plebiscite on Falvey's tenure. My work today is complete. 😀

Fair point, but inaction on account of this can be just as deadly. I prefer to use 2025 as Falvey's audition for the unknown new owners (who he might have a very good idea the identity of). As long as he doesn't sell the family cow for some magic beans, if a new FO is brought in, they can do a course correction on anything done the rest of this season. Moreover, I'd put odds nearly fifty - fifty that Falvey's in charge a year from now, so why tie his hands?

I would like to gear up for 2026, and not a lengthy rebuild. I would not be trading any established talent under team control for next year, and barring any revolting developments the rest of 2025 I'd be aggressive on acquiring more during the offseason. So if either Jax or Duran is traded for anything at all this month, I would like to know what the FO's vision actually is. Especially if only one is traded - if it's not a teardown then what are we actually doing? Trading one is treading water. Trade one, then trade both - and a whole lot more too. But the fanbase is paltry enough as it is. Not my preference.

The sleeper move I've been hoping for.

Late to the party? I used Brock's Trade Deadline Blueprint tool (did you?) and made a post titled Sell, Retool last week which answers the questions others posted here, and pretty much everything else I've posted lately has been on a similar tangent. Before that, I've posted hardly anything for weeks, for various reasons. This one-word post with a one-word title was intended as a joke playing off on all the verbiage that has been expended of late by myself and others (looks like Brock caught it with his response). Late to the party? Has any team made big trades yet? I may have missed one or more, but MLBTR seems to be still concentrating on "9 under-the-radar bullpen trade candidates" and the like. Buyers simply don't seem to decide until they find out which teams are sellers, the better to exploit an eventual oversupply when teams finally wave the white flag. Until that happens, every plan to sell or buy is provisional, whether the GM's plan or my own. Late to the party? I'm gonna invoke Satchel Paige and say I was right on time. 😀

Sell

I came on here this morning to apologize for my part in the threadjack, so while I'm curious to see the different reasoning you use to get to approximately the same place, let's don't do it here. Message me, or start a different thread, or point me to an existing thread where you laid out your version already and I missed it. As for the points made by the OP here, I think they're clear enough and correct so that they maybe won't even raise much debate. Trades proposed in the comments section here can seem reasonable but if they put additional pressure on 40-man decisions then they might not be realistic. A "haul" of prospects could do more harm than good. I've repeatedly said that I'd prefer to go the other direction - package a valuable expiring contract with a middling prospect in exchange for a top-end prospect. Funny thing, though, other GMs probably want to do much the same thing - package up several bodies in return for one of our best prospects - so the trade discussion along my lines could dry up quickly. Every team wants to dispose of their so-so Rule 5 candidates, same as us. Being GM isn't as easy as armchair analysts think.

This morning there were 5 AL teams with 46 losses or fewer. The current 6th place team and holder of the last Wild Card spot, the Red Sox, has 47 losses. Below them, 4 other teams have fewer than the 51 losses our Twins have. It's not enough to do as well as these 5 teams, counting Boston - we have to do BETTER than ALL of them. If we were all currently tied with those five, our random chances would be 1-in-6 - but we have unfortunately spotted each of those other teams between 1 and 4 losses for this closing sprint. If we squeak through and land that final spot in place of Boston and all the others, what are our realistic chances in the post-season? As good as what we had in 2023, even? Bear in mind we just got done losing important games to the Pirates and Rockies, and in the post-season we'll face teams a tad bit tougher when it's win-or-go-home. It's not a Fair Weather fan to see the writing on the wall that this just isn't our year. I'm not in favor of trading away the players with team-control beyond this year - I'm reluctant-but-willing to flush the rest of 2025 but not 2026 - but what value do players like Coulombe and the others with expiring contracts bring the Twins for the rest of 2025 alone? (They won't be open to a contract extension this close to free-agency, unless we overpay their agent's fondest hope.) "We're losing 89 with you. We can lose 92 without you." The FO put together the roster, the players tried their best, but at this point the remainder of the season is worth very little, and the return from some teams who will value the collection of our departing players' contributions could be something nicely above zero. And with luck, we pull a turnaround a la the 2024 Tigers and do well after the sell-off anyway. That's hardly more implausible than the luck necessary to make the post-season with the current crew.

I'm old and retired. Sell.

Sorry, didn't invest the time to watch a video, but I'll offer the quick opinion that at his present pace he'll come in somewhere around 5th all-time among Twins seasons (not Senators). Kirby had a monster year in '88, Mauer in '09, Knoblauch in '96, and of course Carew twice '75/'77. This factors in defense which is a great portion of Byron's value - so Killebrew suffers by the modern view of value. Just by offense alone (OPS+) he could continue at his present pace and be top-20, and Harmon earns his place far above (along with Joe and Sir Rodney). But that's not enough to define Byron's "Best".