IndianaTwin

Fair responses all. I don't know that I'd argue they mismanaged him (at least not substantially) in the past, even when they had Vazquez as the other. I would have liked to see them tilt a bit more to Jeffers. Rather than essentially 80/80 between the two catchers, I'd have preferred something more like 90/70 or even 100/60. For example, I would have liked them to use the off day as a boost to tilt the games toward Jeffers. In other words, by playing him every other calendar day rather than than every other game, that would probably gotten them closer to the 90/70. Going into this season, I was actually hoping for something like a 108/54 split, with Jeffers playing two of every three. Also to note, Jeffers hasn't tailed off that much in the second half. His career OPS numbers are .762 and .742 before and after the break, so a modest decline, but I don't know how much difference makes it statistically significant. Last year helped in bringing those numbers together. He hit better in the second half -- .769 to .742. In 2023, he hit MUCH better after the break (.778 to .928). In 2024, the decline was so large I have to wonder if there was injury or something at play, but in two of the three last three years he's actually hit better in the second half. I thought I read that his not wearing down last year was a factor in them planning to move away from the 80/80 to something that seems like it was at least intended to something like 110-120 starts.

@chpettit19, this comment may actually be better for another post, since it's not really Jeffers-specific, but it sorta is, so I'll put it here. I've been smackdab with you on a lot of your posts, but you've had several where you've named a preference for trading both Jeffers and Ryan under the premise that 2027 doesn't seem promising. I'm curious on your thought process on that. (And to show my bias, I lean toward keeping Jeffers for reasons that are mostly beyond this post, but am really interested in keeping Ryan, believing that 2027 actually does shape up well.) I start from the premise of saying the Twins were 26-28 through the first third. They will be either 28-26 or 27-27 for the second third after Tuesday's game. I'd love to see them go on a run, but if they only match those, they will be essentially an 81-win team. I'm not sure your definition of "competitive," but in one of the strands, people (I don't remember if it was you) were using something like 90 wins. Is that a fair number for this exercise? So as I think about whether the Twins can be nine games better next year, it seems pretty feasible. ROTATION: Lopez is an add, so a rotation would start with Lopez/Ryan/Bradley. Particularly when you consider that Bradley starts the year with a strong season under his belt, adding Lopez makes that trio a much better front half of the rotation than they've had this year. Then, when you consider some level of success from Matthews, Prielipp, the snippet from Abel, maybe even Rojas if they decide to/need to keep him as a starter, and that all of these guys are younger than average and would be a year more experienced, it feels like the back end of the rotation should also be stronger than it has been this year. This doesn't take into account that Lopez's injury has made Ober the de facto No. 3 starter this year, whereas a Lopez return slides Ober to No. 4 at best. BULLPEN: In the bullpen, much has been written about how bad/inexperienced they were at the beginning of the year. In a bunch of articles, I've applauded their approach of churning through bodies this year as a major part of their building a bullpen. I've had a hope that they will essentially identify one body per month that they can pencil in as an expected contributor for next year. So far, I've got Gomez, Morris, I would say Banda and Rojas if they go the pen route with him. Funderburk hasn't been up all year, Sands just came back and the first couple outings from Nance have looked promising. There's two more months left. If they can get another two to "count on status" and enter the offseason with as many as six solid relievers, that's a far cry from entering the season with what we did this year. HITTERS: I'm not going to go through the offense position by position, but it seems the net is that it would be better next year, even with just the internal folks. Buxton is the only real stud and returns. I keep thinking that Clemens is going to turn into a pumpkin, but the dadgum guy keeps performing. The current Lee at 3B seems substantially better than the Lee that started the year at SS. The current Lewis at 1b seems substantially better than the Lewis who started the year at 3B. It feels like I could make similar statements about others. And then it seems likely (or at least very feasible) that somewhere between Jenkins, Culpepper and others there will be some level of addition from rookies. The sum of the parts next year seems better than what the sum of the parts has been this year. And that's using a current offense that's somehow the AL leader in runs scored, so it's not starting from a bad spot. A note on losses. At this point, I see Bell as the only known loss among contributors on the offensive side of the ball. I'm putting an asterisk on Jeffers. I think it's at least 80 percent that he's gone, but my personal preference is to hang on to Jeffers through the deadline and offer him a QO. I don't think he would take it, because I think he'll easily get at least 3/$60M or 4/$72M. But if he does take it, I don't feel bad about what might be a slight overpay of $23M on a one-year deal, and they'd enter the offseason in a great spot. Trade Caratini or Jackson if Jeffers surprisingly takes the QO. As I said, I think it's most likely Jeffers is gone, so for the sake of this conversation, let's assume that. But I think Bell is easily replaceable internally, so losing Jeffers would leave catcher as the only known setback among the positions. I think that even with no moves, there would be an improvement over this year's 81 wins. Enough to get to 90? I'm not sure, but perhaps. You've said, "as currently constructed," so let's leave it there. But it seems like that's a roster that doesn't have huge holes to fill. Even with six or so knowns in the bullpen, I'd love to see additions there. I don't have a specific position in mind, but I'd love to see them add a bat that they could count on being the level of this year's Larnach. Tom Pohlad has again made comments about spending and wanting to be competitive. I commented in another post yesterday that while much of TD is going to discount (or ignore or disparage) anything he says, I take him at least somewhat at his word. He's been smart enough to say the right things in terms of PR regarding recognizing the frustration of fans, yadda, yadda. I think he's smart enough to know that making the kind of statements he's made recently and then not following through would be an even bigger PR disaster than he inherited. So again, I've really liked your posts, but I've been curious on where you see things differently.

Except for last year, when he caught 88. And in 2024, when he caught 86. And 2023, when he caught 82, And 2021, when he caught 84. And most of those were load management years, when they made the choice to time share evenly. This year, when not limited by a hitting injury, he's caught three games out of four (37 of 48 team games before the hamate injury, 8 of 13 since). If he continues that pace and doesn't get hurt, he'll catch around 85 games despite a long IL stint. If not for dealing with a non-catching injury, he'd be on target for about 120 games. In today's game, that's a true starting catcher, particularly when you add a handful of DH games on top of that. I do agree that they can resign him even if they do trade him, but it seems like that doesn't happen very often. A Google search gave me an article from last year's deadline that only came up with Jack Flaherty (2024), Aroldis Chapman (2016), Yimi Garcia (2024), Jay Bruce (2017), Kelly Johnson (2015) and Jason Hammel (2014). It didn't claim to be a complete list, but there aren't others that jump out at me. It seems there's a far greater likelihood a player resigns if the team didn't trade him.

Um, Boston is only 1.5 games ahead of the final wild-card and there are five teams within 3.5 games of them. Would I rather be where Boston is than where any of the teams following them is sure. Sure. Has Boston wrapped up a playoff spot? Not even close. Teams make up 3.5 games in a week all the time, let alone with more than a third of the season left.

I get that the current tenor on TD will lead mostly to comments ranging from “I’ll believe it when I see it” to “He’s just another *#¥^}^+ Pohlad,” but thanks for posting this. I think there has been a big gap on TD by no one reporting these comments. Call me naive, but I think they do bring a different narrative than past FO comments. He has said the right things from a PR perspective in terms of wanting to win back fans. I think he is smart enough to know that making these kinds of comments and then not following through would be an even worse PR disaster than he inherited. Will it be a $160 million payroll going forward? I wouldn’t count on it, but I do think there will be some level of increase.

To clarify, we should give someone a modest prospect in order to get a rental right-handed bat? While a lot of folks on TD suggest we trade Jeffers for a modest prospect? it seems like it would be easier to just keep Jeffers.

I wasn’t making any statement on whether I thought this was the best way to spend it (though it might appear that way with my attempt to parrot the OP with my “Imagine how…” sentence). And I wasn’t saying they shouldn’t have done more. Rather, I was trying to rebut the notion that the FO did nothing with the money saved on Correa.

I'm sorry. I thought you were referencing the desire of some to send Outman down after 21 plate appearances -- I clearly misread your post. (And no, I wouldn't send Jenkins down after 21 at bats either. 😀)

Savings on Correa: $21.5M Free agent signings: Bell: $7M Caratini: $10M Rogers: $2M I guess I'm not following the logic that says they didn't redeploy the savings from the Correa trade. True, they didn't explicitly link the Correa savings when announcing any of these signings (they never do), but that's $19M in free agent spending that seems unlikely to have happened if they still had Correa's full salary on the books. That also doesn't count signing Larnach for $4.475M when he was strongly considered to be a non-tender candidate. Add that and they more than redeployed the Correa savings. Imagine how different this year's club would look without those four available. EDIT to add: I note that elsewhere you have a post pleading for an extension on Bradley. Depending on terms, I would potentially support that. Having moved $21.5M of Correa's salary for future years makes that a much more viable option.

In a recent interview, Shelton said that a current goal is to "give Roden extended run." I think that's a good move. But on your question, they already burned an option this year in his not making the Opening Day roster.

Yes, please.

As a hint toward that, here is his game log before getting hurt: At that point in the season, it was worth it to consider not playing the rookie-status game if he was pounding the door in. At this point, I don't see them ignoring that factor.

(Bold highlight mine.) You've also identified another variable -- where does Jenkins play? Injuries change things, I recognize -- Keaschall wouldn't have played CF recently had Buxton not been hurt. But if Buxton is healthy and able to play defense, he will be in CF. I'll buy the approach that says Buxton will eventually move to a corner spot, but I don't see that happening midyear. So for now, Jenkins could play CF on days Buxton is off and corner spots on many other days. However, Jenkins hasn't played an inning in the corner since May 2. I suspect we'll get a clue on the likelihood of him coming up when he starts to get some time in corner OF spots in St. Paul.

And on the slight chance he does come up, it likely won't happen before August 14. Unless altered by the CBA, if he starts 2027 on the active roster and wins the Rookie of the Year award, the Twins get an extra draft pick. Bringing him up before August 14 costs him rookie status for 2027.

Are you sure your brother didn't buy the Twins without your knowing it? Or are you really Joe and hiding your identity?

Prielipp went on the IL July 9, so he can't return until the 23rd at the earliest. Paredes (or an alternative) will need to make at least one start.

Yeah, an overlooked part of the 2019 Bomba Squad's success was that all but 16 starts were made by a group of five guys, with two more having 11 of those 16 starts. Additionally, 105 of the first 110 games were started by those five. Extreme starter health is a huge advantage, even when two of them are Kyle Gibson and Martin Perez, who were both slightly below average according to OPS+.

Ryan's $13M for next year is a mutual option. I think it's been years since a mutual option was taken by both sides. With the year he is having, Ryan will easily decline his end. With the amount Skubal got as an S3 player, Ryan will be paid significantly above $13M.

I'd love to see them extend Ryan, but I think you are right. Lopez goes into next season with a lot of weight on his needing to have a full injury-free season in order to get a multi-year deal. A one-year extension to guarantee 2028 and give him more time to re-establish himself makes gobs of sense on both sides.

I think the "Joe Ryan wants to leave" stuff comes from the same place as the "Sonny Gray wants to leave" stuff did. They are competitive athletes. They sometimes have a bad day. When they do, they are angry at themselves, and their body language sometimes shows it. They are confident in their abilities, so they are (appropriately) disappointed that they got taken out of the game, because they want to see themselves through it. They are interviewed after a game and in the heat of the moment make a comment like, "I wanted to go after the next guy," which gets taken out of context and magnified on the internet. And then, if something happens a second time, it gets mushroomed even more. Meanwhile, in more settled times, we see Gray make comments about how much he liked being in Minnesota. And recently an article in The Athletic talked about how much Ryan has bought into the team and what it's doing. But because those comments don't happen in the heat of the moment (or on television during a game), people don't pay attention. I'm not sure I'd go as far as you in saying he's a Twin in 2027 PERIOD (though I hope he is, and think it very likely), but when you consider that all the noise about 2026 has come from the outside (looking at you, Bowden and others), I definitely think he's here past August 4.

CBA ends December 1. Expect a flurry of activity before that date. https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/mlb-competitive-balance-issue-explained.html

As was Jhoan Duran…

You had the most expensive bike in the neighborhood and didn’t even know it!

Schmidt was certainly the first guy that came to mind when I was thinking of having someone from each team. Given that Kaat is known to be ambidextrous, having shot his age both when playing golf right-handed and left-handed, and that he played for both teams, maybe he could throw out a ball for each team simultaneously! 😀

Whether right or not, it seems the Face of the Franchise legacy pecking order has been Killebrew, followed by Oliva and then Carew. After that it feels like personal preference from among Kaat, Puckett, Hrbek, Blyleven, Mauer... Whether fair or not, I wonder if Kaat gets penalized in FoF consideration for not having played his entire career with the Twins (witness his number not getting retired until he made the HOF) and that his two best seasons (measured by bWAR) were with Chicago. Carew played with the Angels, of course, but the '73-'77 stint dwarfs anything he did in California. No. 6 is now at the point where his total association with the Twins is nearly long enough to be eligible for Medicare. I'd be glad for any of the living retired uniform people to be included, but for me, it starts with Tony O.