IndianaTwin

You missed what I think is the primary reason they don't trade him.... If you think you are a contender, you don't trade your Opening Day starter!

A) How many people who think they should have traded those two also believe that they would have spent the saved money on two legit players? B) Considering that it takes time to make trades, what legit players would have still been available for signing after the trades?

So you’re saying you don’t think folks on TD would have received well the idea of an $85M payroll? 🤣

I’ve been predicting 4/$80M. MLBTradeRumors seems to agree. They have their annual prediction article of who will receive QOs. After considering Arozerena and Suzuki as locks, they list Jeffers and Brandon Lowe as guys who would “probably be locks if they played for a traditional big spender.” They also say Jeffers “could take aim at a four- or five-year deal” in the $17-$20M AAV range in their discussion of why he is likely to decline the QO. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/09/which-hitters-will-receive-the-qualifying-offer.html So, 4/$80M or 5/$90M is my guess.

Yes I am suggesting their record is better. They are on pace for 76.6 wins. Let's use 76 in recognition that they haven't played as well lately. How many do you think they would have won without the moves Zoll made -- the tinkering early, the trades at the deadline and the positional moves for Lewis, Lee and Keaschall? How many would they have won with the Opening Day bullpen? People are saying, "They are target for 76-77 wins. That's what the projections said." That may be what Vegas projected, but that's not what the collective wisdom of TD was saying. There were lots of folks on TD more or less guaranteeing 90, 95 or even 100 losses, often accompanied by suggesting they would finish last. Where were you on the prediction scale? Yes, they've played worse after the trade deadline than before. I'd argue that has more to do with having a mostly ineffective/absent Buxton and Ryan more than it has to do with carrying Alex Jackson as a third catcher.

Are you suggesting Zoll hasn’t improved the bullpen?

I didn’t go back and look, but I suspect there was a “Should the Twins Extend Royce Lewis?” article after the 2023 season. Many would have been in favor. And Wallner could have been a candidate for a Kepler-level contract. Just a hunch, but I suspect TD would have even more comments about Royce if he was guaranteed, say, $8-$10M for several more years. Or about Wallner if he was guaranteed money in coming years.

Someone notes Contreras above as a comparable who got a five-year deal. The Twins gave Vazquez a three-year deal for his age 32-34 seasons, coming off much weaker seasons than what Jeffers has had. They gave Castro a three-year deal for his age 30-32 seasons, again coming off much weaker seasons Jeffers. Jeffers will get longer and a higher AAV (even inflation adjusted) than either Castro or Vazquez. I think it’s very unlikely there won’t be at least one team offering four years.

Agreed. I think 4/$80M is much closer than a lot of numbers that people have been tossing out. People reference Raleigh's AAV of $17.5M as reason Jeffers won't get paid, but you have to consider that contract includes buying out two years of arbitration. He is going to get paid $24.7M for his age 31-33 seasons, and is well on his way to having his age 34 season vested at $20M. Assuming it vests, Raleigh will get 4/$94M for his age 31-34 seasons. Jeffers is entering his age 30 season and has two years of salary inflation to add to the conversation. And to add, Raleigh's experience is an example of why I don't think Jeffers would accept an overpay of just several million for one year to take the QO. Raleigh would be getting significantly less if he was negotiating this offseason compared to when he did. This is Jeffers' best opportunity for guaranteed long-term money.

An understanding that he wants to test free agency is an argument FOR offering the QO.

Had they traded Caratini and Jeffers signs elsewhere, they are left with Jackson and, um,... they are left with Jackson. Now if Jeffers were to accept the QO (which he’s reported to have said he won’t do) or otherwise sign, then sure, get some money back with a trade.

There once was a guy called a potcher…

A) Pohlad B) Zoll C) Shelton D) The Players E) Buxton’s health (I’m not sure how, but he’s usually on the list somehow. 😀)

😀 I just think using the language of "analyzing" rather than "blame" ratchets down the emotions and contributes to better comment threads. I think "analysis" rather than "blame" allows for more nuance when part of the answer is sometimes that "life happens." (I think your comment is in response to mine. If not, my apologies.) EDIT to add: As in, I appreciate your analysis above noting that this hasn't really been a collapse, but rather an extension of a team that has generally played a few games below .500. That's much more helpful to the conversation than another diatribe.

@Craig Arko can correct me if I'm misinterpreting his comments, but I read what he's saying as: "Never saw much value in the blame game when I'm not in a position to make a genuine difference in the situation. [Blaming] doesn't actually solve anything." Mrs. IT would tell you that I do much better at this some times than I do at others, but as a general rule of thumb, I find it much easier to walk when my shorts aren't in a wad blaming people for things I can't control. I think there's also a significant difference between "blaming" and "figuring out what went wrong," though "blame" does likely generate more clicks on the interweb. Certainly a business that isn't meeting its goals is needs to figure out what is going wrong. We don't know the conversations going on behind the scene (and we shouldn't, I would say), but when you look at the amount of roster turnover between, say, July 1 and what's now on the 26/28 man roster, I think they are trying a lot of new things.

Speaking as someone who just came home to a fresh batch of banana chocolate chip muffins made by Mrs. IT, I concur.

Depends on your definition of what it means to be "under an innings limit." I've never heard the Twins say he's "on an innings limit," but they've been pretty consistent in saying things about "managing his workload." And they've subtly done it... His first start was in Game 24. He last pitched (as a bulk pitcher) in Game 139. Were he to have pitched every five games, he'd have 24 starts in that time period. He had a brief IL stint which cost two starts, but he's only had 20. They gave him extra days on several occasions, twice going on 7 days rest, once on 8 and once on 9. By comparison, Bradley has never gone on more than five days rest, save his own two-start stint on the IL. He's never pitched more than 98 pitches. (Aside: An impressive stat about his season is that he's never gotten shelled badly enough to get pulled before 72 pitches or before 4 innings.) By comparison, Bradley has gone 99 or more pitches 14 times and has averaged 97 pitches. As we get to the end of the season, they used him as a bulk guy on Tuesday to lessen the likelihood of facing the more stressful top of the order three times (and strategically pulled him after 76 pitches when the game was broken open). They've announced Matthews, Bradley, Ober for the weekend, meaning he's going to get at least one extra day before a start on Monday. They kept Ryan to 3 innings on Tuesday night and have said he could come back on the road trip. If they were to use Ryan Monday on five days rest, Prielipp would go Tuesday on six days. And I suspect if they reach of the point of self-determining that they are out of the wild card chase, they will shut Prielipp down for the year.

But can probably already say names better than Gladden. 😀 It's September. It's still not "Carantini," Mr. Dazzle. Last night I heard him say Dingler threw the ball into right field when it happened and he was doing play-by-play and then into center field when summarizing it in the postgame show. Urgh.

I see all the angst about Keaschall’s defense. People forget that Tony Gwynn was a pretty crappy defender when he came up and eventually became a Gold Glover. Keaschall seems like the kind of guy who will do the work to improve on that side of the ball.

Am I correct in thinking that with Wallner not having been called up, he is not going to be arbitration-eligible as expected this winter? From what I can find, he entered the season with 2.043 years of service time and gained somewhere in the neighborhood of 48 days this year. If they don't bring him up, it seems he'll be well short of the 2.130-ish it typically takes to be arbitration eligible as a Super-Two. If that is the case, I think it changes the calculus on him. It only costs a 40-man roster spot (which granted, can be valuable) to carry him to spring training to see if he can rake and/or see if he can be traded for a lottery ticket. If, for example, Buxton has surgery and there is question about his opening the season on the active roster, Wallner becomes another DH option if the outfield is some combination of Keaschall, Walker, Larnach, Rodriguez, Gonzalez. Even with Wallner's suckiness this year with the Twins, his career OPS+ remains above that of Larnach, for example. I like Larnach, but at his best he has been nowhere close to Wallner at Wallner's best.

This is not an argument for or against Bell coming back, but to clarify on his contract that it's a mutual option. So first the Twins will have to either offer Bell the $10M or pay him the $1.25M buyout. If the Twins decline, Bell becomes a free agent. If the Twins offer the $10M, Bell then has to choose whether to take it or walk away and pursue free agency. That's why the last mutual option exercised (according to AI) was Aramis Ramirez and Milwaukee in 2014. Typically either the player plays poorly and the team walks away or the player plays well enough to want to test free agency. In most cases, either the terms or the player's performance makes declining the option a complete no-brainer on one side or the other. With how Bell has done, the perceived excellent clubhouse fit (on both sides) and with the possibility of a lockout, I think there's at least somewhat of a chance it would be picked up on both sides, but I also see the logic in either side declining.

I don’t know if this is more meaningful, but here’s what bothers me — couldn’t the makers of avocados put a new toy inside once in a while? I’m kinda tired of the little wooden balls they keep including.

I'm pretty confident we'll be past 8,725 before long...

I’m not arguing for piggybacking Prielipp, but the math does in change in September. The argument against piggybacking in the regular season is that it leaves a team with a seven-man bullpen. In September, with the extra pitcher, it still leaves an eight-man pen. In addition, the Twins have three off days left in the remaining 30 days, with only one streak of playing more than six consecutive days. In reality, his next start comes on Tuesday, the day the roster expands. Given that Ryan is being targeted for a rehab start “early next week,” I’d just give Prielipp his “normal” start on Tuesday, but with a shorter leash, and then either send him down or move him to the pen if Ryan returns the next time that spot comes around. If Ryan looks like only one rehab is needed, they could actually send Prielipp down after Tuesday and effectively have a 10-man bullpen for a few days until Ryan returns.

I'm not sure the difference between "Notes, Tidbits & Rumors" and "News." They are pretty much the same to me.