Major League Ready
-
Posts
7,751 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
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 Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Major League Ready
-
Josh Naylor back to Seattle, 5 years
Major League Ready replied to Cory Engelhardt's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
They need someone if they try to contend. I really don't know what path they will take. If they continue to rebuild, they have all year to work on transitioning Mendez / Gonzalez / Wallner or anyone else they think can make the transition. Of course, a rebuild could include trading for someone this winter. If that does not work, they can sign or trade someone next winter. If they proceed as if they can contend this year, they definitely need to do something. -
And you're still pretending there is even remotely enough data points to draw a conclusion from only the twins while ignoring 97% of the data. Ashbury also pointed this out but of course you ignore anything and everything outside the fact the Twins have not had multiple successes with trades they have not made. Go ahead and retain a position of righteous ignorance. As I said, you can do this as a fan but that kind of gross incompetence gets you fired as a baseball executive or any other industry. Try telling the board of directors you avoid proven practices because your organization had rarely engaged in these practices in the past. How about engaging these proven practices? That's how an organization gets better.
-
I am sure that this argument makes sense in your mind. When you ignore 97% of the data in the real world you get fired.
-
Because the teams that do it a lot like Cleveland and Milwaukee have traded front of the rotation guys when they still expected to contend. Burnes for example. Chicago traded a better pitcher (Crochet) with 2 years of control because they did not expect to contend. I think they also traded sale with 2 years remaining. We can talk about lots of examples, but you are ducking the question posed. Could it be because nobody would choose 1 year of control over 2? I would not suggest front of the rotation pitchers get traded regularly with 2 or more years of control, but two things can be true at the same time. They don't often get traded and their value in trade is greater with two years of control.
-
A comp would require that the same player be traded with 2 years remaining and then flipped the next year. That same player would also have to project the same. In other words, his performance would have to remain very similar over the year between trades and the years before the trade. I am not aware of any such comp so we will have to use a hypothetical trade. Would you give the same in trade for 1 year of service vs 2 years of service? How about if it was reported that the team was in negotiation for two ace SPs that from every vantage point were exactly equal and they were asking for the exact same players in return. Would you prefer Falvey chose the player with one year of control? Do you think most people here would be calling for his head?
-
Expanding on Asbury's point. The Twins are 3.3% of the league and their transactions of this type are probably less than 3.3% given they have rarely made such a trade. Would you evaluate a player based who played in 150 games based on 5 games or how he hit in a particular stadium and ignore the other 145 games? If the Twins brought up a player that played well in 30 games, was traded and played well below average in 900 (96.66%) games for 9 teams, would you ignore how he played in the 900 games and sign him as a free agent. Of course not, it would be ridiculous to ignore the vast majority of available information. History is clear. This type of trade is the best course of action for teams in the bottom half of revenue, especially when they are not in contention. You should focus on arguing this team is a contender. You could argue that they can build a great BP from the rubble they have. It’s conceivable Lewis and Lee both go from well below average to well above average hitters and they find an above average 1B. It’s possible that Martin steps up and Jenkins is ROY. Jeffers and the pitching staff all have a good year and of course they would all also need to say healthy. This is all highly unlikely but it’s not as ridiculous as refusing to consider how other teams have been successful. As a fan, it is your prerogative to ignore the 96.66% of the data that does not support your desired conclusion. When a baseball executive ignores 96.66% of the data they are removed from their position for gross incompetence. Therefore, I guess you can take whatever ridiculous position you like. Just don’t be surprised when the team arrives at a different decision.
-
Star players don't get traded often and I am not going to go back 20 years but off the top of my head … Miami got Zach Gallan and Sandy Alcantara for Marcell Azuna Washington got Crawford CJ Abrahams, James Wood and Mackenzie Gore, Tatis Jr. was acquired as a prospect for James Shields. Danby Swanson was acquired as a prospect for Shelby Miller Willy Adames was acquired as a prospect in trade for David Price. Bryan Reynolds was acquired as a prospect for Andrew McCutchen Ketel Marte was relatively unproven when acquired in trade for Mitch Hanigar and Jean Segura. The As acquired Marcus Semien and Chris Basset, for Jeff Samardzija. They also acquired Frankie Montas and Mark Canha as prospects. The A’s have others that escape me at the moment. Probably a while ago. Cleveland, Tampa, and Milwaukee have many examples. Cleveland got Emmanuel Clase for 1 year of Corey Kluber. Kluber was also acquired as a prospect in trade for Jake Westbrook. They also got Josh Naylor for Mike Clevinger. Clevinger was also acquired as a prospect. Carlos Santana as a prospect by trading Casey Blake. They got Carlos Carrasco by trading Cliff Lee. Tampa and Milwaukee have quite a few but I am not going to go through the same exercise with them. These teams I mentioned also acquired many good (not star) players by trading for prospects. Those players contributed significantly as well. Obviously, we want to trade for stars but an above average player is a decent outcome for a player controlled for 1-2 years, especially when the team is not expected to contend.
-
This one has been a modest return so far in my view but could become quite good. I am with you in terms of measuring what we gave up. The year he was traded we were bad so trading him did not matter and Berrios only produced .9 WAR so in the context of who "won" we did not need to get much. It makes absolutely no sense to consider what he did after he was signed to a new contract. The fact we lost very little is probably not the best lens to look at it either. Teams trading a player the caliber of Berrios need to get a return. It does not become a good trade just because Berrios was bad that last year of team control. If SWR is a 2 WAR player for the next 4 years that will be a decent return. If Martin is also a 2 WAR player for the next 5 years it will be a very good return. Anything more than that would be great.
-
You continue to use ridiculous measures and ignore the most pertinent data. Only one team in the bottom half of revenue has won the WS in the past 20 years so it's a ridiculous measure but I will play along. That would be the KC Royals. Lets see... Did trading a top of the rotation pitcher contribute to their WS win. What do you know their best player and their starting SS came from trading Greinke. The only team to win the WS followed the exact strategy you are arguing against. Of course, using a WS win given the rarity is a ridiculous metric I guess you have to resort to the ridiculous when reasonable metrics with meaningful sample sizes disprove your position. Which teams in the bottom half of revenue have had the most 90-win seasons or playoff appearances. That would be the Guardians, Rays, and Brewers and those three teams have been the most inclined to trade established players they won't be able to retain for prospects. You simply chose to ignore history if it does not support your thinking.
-
I guess you are going to stick with the logic that they have not executed this sort of trade in the past. Many other teams have used this type of trade to great benefit, but we should avoid because we didn't get anything from trading Johan Santana. If that's what Falvey is thinking, he is in fact incompetent. I guess we should not try to draft an ace either because we have failed at that for the past decade. What do you get when you have Ryan and Lopez, no BP, and several below average position players. Answer: mediocrity at best. The Guardians, Rays, and Brewers have many examples among them if you are willing to look at what has worked. Apparently, you are not interested in what has worked for other teams. We have very different ways of approaching this so let's just agree to disagree.
-
He is not even arbitration eligible yet. He will be a free agent in 2030. My guess is he will be here for a while. A guy that can hit league average and play decent defense at 1B/2B and outfield is a good bench player. If he can hit a little above average, he is basically Willie Castro.
-
Your logic is that this particular team has never done this specific thing well so they should not do it now? Really? They have not given weight to athleticism and defense in the past. Should they continue to draft slow guys that can't play defense or run the bases? How can they be more successful than they have in the past if they don't improve their execution? The question should be ... has this strategy benefited MLB teams. If the Twins have not been successful in a given strategy or practice it's an opportunity to improve. Avoiding it would eliminate that opportunity to improve. That would be a very good illustration of incompetence. Shouldn't we be all for them improving the practices that have been responsible for their mediocrity?
-
I was about to make the same point as NYCTK and then I saw his post. They need impact players and the odds of getting an impact player for 2 years of Ryan is considerably higher than 1 year of Ryan.
-
Without looking it up, I think Houston got down about $30M in payroll and they really sucked. Fans will be back if they put a quality product on the field. It also won't hurt that the next generation looks like they will be more exciting players capable of a more well-rounded game. Keaschall / Jenkins / Culpepper / Rodriguez / Roden / Martin are all much more athletic and more capable defenders than most of the players they have been rostering.
- 100 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- byron buxton
- matt wallner
- (and 2 more)
-
He hit even better in 2024. I think you both have a point. Hopefully, there is a team that believes the 2026 version of Larnach will be like the well above average 2024 Larnach. That should yield an A baller with a shot at someday contributing. Seems reasonable.
- 100 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- byron buxton
- matt wallner
- (and 2 more)
-
Actually, I did address Rayn / Lopez when I stated that there is a significant future cost of keeping Ryan / Lopez. Here is the difference in how we see this situation. You like to say the team does not get better when your best players play for other teams which IMO only looks at the part of the equation you want to see. Obviously, the team would not be better in 2026-27 by trading Ryan / Lopez. KC traded Greinke before the 2011 season and actually improve from 67 to 71 wins. The players they received (Escobar & Cane) made the team in 2011. Escobar contributed 1.9 WAR and Cane had just 23 PAs. In 2012 they contributed 4 WAR so it was probably a wash in terms of if they got better. Here is the part you are not considering, the Royals had their best teams in a very long time from 2012-2015 and Greinke would have been gone for free agency. The Royals were slightly worse for a couple years when their win totals would have been in the mid 70s and they would arguably have never got to the WS without the players they got from the Greinke trade. They definitely got better for 3 years by trading Greinke. Of course, there are no guarantees the Twins will have similar success but there is definitely an opportunity cost in NOT trading Ryan / Lopez. The Twins are in a very similar spot. Keep Ryan/Lopez with a likely outcome of mediocrity or invest in the future. Ask yourself this question, if the twins had a real good team and could add a key piece by trading a prospect, would you do it? The two scenarios follow the same Logic, just a reversal of when the benefit is realized.
- 146 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- gio urshela
- pablo lopez
- (and 2 more)
-
Absolutely not. Making changes in any business should be a product of critically evaluating the current state and developing a well-reasoned projection for the future state. The current state of the Minnesota Twins is that they are below average in the corner OF positions, 1B/3B and SS. They also have an exceptionally poor BP. So the question is can that be fixed in free agency. The answer is that they could not come close to fixing their problems through free agents. How about trades. There has not been a team in the bottom half of revenue that has ever solved this scenario through trades or a combination of trades and free agency. The next question is how well positioned for a rebuild while understanding prospects don’t work out. Here is how I see the Twins position. They can keep Ober and they have Bradley / Matthews / SWR / Abel at the major league level with several prospects likely to be ready over the next two seasons. They have several OF prospects with a much higher ceiling than their current corner OFers. They need to transition the corner spots. It’s a matter of how aggressively they do it. We are very weak at SS and have a very good prospect near ready. The best way for the Twins to build a BP is from BP is from numerous starting pitching candidates being transitioned. That’s much easier to do in rebuild mode. They have a deep farm system and two very good trade assets that would add potential impact players. They also have the #4 pick in the 2026 draft. Building this way would leave payroll open for a significant FA addition. The Twins are in an ideal position for a rebuild. They already have several promising young players here and several more that are close. That’s generally not the case with a rebuilding team. Perhaps most importantly, the realistic evaluation of 2026 is that they are not contending, not even close. They might have a shot at being in the mix in 2027 if things go really well with young players in which case they will be pretty good even if they are in rebuild mode. There is also the question of the 2027 season being severally shortened. Then, there is a significant future cost of keeping Ryan / Lopez to consider. A half-hearted rebuild diminishes the impact of rebuilding as does giving up future assets for a poor shot in 2026-27. That would be short-sighted and most likely to result in continued mediocrity.
-
There has been a lot of angst over a rebuild because most people just assume it will take 5 years. The Twins rebuild will either sink or swim by 2028. I am not saying they will be WS contenders but the relative strength and potential of the team will be evident by the start of 2028. They have an unusual number of players either ready or close. Some of the SPs (Bradley/Matthews/SWR/Abel) are already here and there are others that are close. Their top position player prospects (Jenkins/Culpepper/Rodriguez and Gonzalez should be ready during 2026 or 2027 at the latest. Tait enters 2028. The whole thing could yield nothing or they could have a good team for several years but that will likely take shape in a couple years.
-
You're right. They have always opted to put a quasi-contender on the field that if everything breaks right has a shot at winning a series or even two but very little chance of making it to the WS. It's a model of sustained mediocrity and there most recent statements make me think they may follow the same path.
-
Could not agree more. Nothing would be more incompetent than pivoting 180 degrees in the middle of a rebuild. If that happens, I suspect it would be ownership driven. Rebuilds are part of the landscape for teams outside the top 10 in revenue or perhaps even the top 4-5. They are good for the team outside the obvious short-term implications and rebuilding teams cash in assets that can contribute to a rebuilt team. IE Grienke for Cane and Escobar. Cleveland and Tampa do it as a matter of standard practice. Do we want to be "better" maybe even get close to 500 or do we want to build a contender? There is a cost and it's the chances of contending in 28 and beyond. Those chances will be diminished by whatever productivity would have come from selling off assets now. It's possible that's a complete bust but it's equally probable we get a pitcher better than Ryan for Ryan and have that player for 6-7 years. Granted, Ryan's production is much more likely as are the chances we won't be good over the next two years. Do we want to manage to mediocrity?
-
Nobody can say you have not thought this through! BTW ... I like the whole plan. The only thing I would do differently is remove Larnach. I would look to fill the OF spots between Jenkins / Rodriguez / Martin / Gonzalez / Rodon / Outman / Fedko and Rosario in roughly that order in terms of potential.
- 57 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- trevor larnach
- luke keaschall
- (and 3 more)
-
I agree we are deep in starting pitching. We have very little else. Zip in the BP. No 1B. Well below average at SS/3B. Great CF but the corners are very incomplete players with the exception of Martin who is still unproven and has a modest ceiling due to lack of power. This is not a team anywhere near serious contention and holding onto players that are not part of the solution diminishes the effectiveness of the rebuild. Invest 1 year into on boarding new corner OFers, a new SS, and rebuilding a decimated BP and auditioning young SPs. We can rebuild very quickly because of the SPing you highlight but if they are going to be legit, they will have to field better players than Larnach. I would like them to commit to a rebuild or not rebuild at all. We are about to see if the FO is committed or puts a just good enough product on the field to keep people in the seats.
-
I don't disagree with what you are saying, we just have different goals. Your approach maximizes the present. It makes perfect sense to make a young player "prove it" when a team is in contention. There is no doubt, they won't have 8 better hitters but the goal during a rebuild is not maximizing the present. I prefer an approach focused on building a contender and holding onto Larnach next year is counterproductive to that goal. Of course, that's an opinion not a fact but if we look at successful rebuilds, those teams gave priority to players who could be long-term solutions. Houston didn't keep anyone around because they didn't have 8 better hitters.
-
I can't speak for others but they are probably thinking the same thing I am. Larnach is an adequate hitter but there is a good chance we can get that level of hitting out of someone else that will provide better defense and base running. Wallner is in a slightly different boat and probably worth another look because he has at times been quite potent, and he has 4 years of control remaining. What's the point of keeping Larnach around if the team realistically is looking at 2028 to contend? We are more likely to get to a point of contention if his roster spot is utilized to develop a contributor.
-
Why would they use Gasper over Clemmons who is a better hitter and defender. If Gasper makes the team it's as a back-up catcher but I hope they find a better alternative.
