chpettit19

"I would prefer they extend him, but this FO hasn't even approached Ryan for that according to all reports. Sad, but true." This is hard, factual data? Or, is this you assuming? We're all assuming. It's all we can do. Unless you have inside knowledge you'd like to let us in on? My argument is that it's a far more reasonable assumption that they at least asked about 2028 when they were talking about 2027. No, it doesn't contradict my assumption. My assumption is the Twins asked about 2028 when they were talking about 2027 and he said no. Which sticks with him not being interested in an extension. Yes, we agree there.

I like the idea here. I think it's tough to get a guy who's such an elite prospect and so close to the majors, though. Is 1 year (if they wait til the offseason) or 1 year and a playoff race of Joe Ryan worth plugging Lee in at 3B for the next 4 years instead of Made for the next 6? If the Twins would be looking to plug Made into the 3B job in 2027, why wouldn't the Brewers? I think Luis Pena may be a more likely target when talking about the Brewers specifically. Still an elite prospect, but not in AA yet and likely looking at more of an end of 2027 debut timeline. Or an Eli Willits type if the Nats want to get wild and make a push (not predicting that, but he's also farther away than Made). Cam Caminiti and Eric Hartman from the Braves have been my desired targets for Ryan. Both should be in AA at the age of 20 (sometime this season) but aren't likely to be expected to contribute largely to the Braves until 2028 (2027 debuts). Starting pitching and CFers are always good places to start (along with SS) when bringing back prospects.

It's a more "startling conclusion" to assume they discussed an extension beyond his arbitration years when they were already talking about future seasons than assuming they haven't at all discussed a deal beyond his arbitration years? Your argument is that it's more realistic that they were talking about 2026 and 2027 but didn't even broach the idea of 2028 and beyond than it is that they mentioned 2028 and beyond when discussing 2026 and 2027? Yeah, sorry, but that is a "startling conclusion" to reach. There are thousands of extensions that are reached or not reached without a single peep about them in the news. The most obvious conclusion to draw here is that they at least mentioned the idea of an extension. What is widely available in reporting is that Joe Ryan has been very staunchly against an extension and the arbitration process in general. That combined with the fact that they discussed at least 1 future year would make it a pretty simple jump to them having discussed an extension beyond his arb years and he told them he wasn't interested so let's just get the arb years done.

If they will, we should never see Jeffers in a Twins uni again because he should be gone before today's game!

How is Caratini peaking anymore than Jeffers? They've had nearly an identical slash line for 2 years. Neither is a good defensive catcher. I'd argue Jeffers is the one truly peaking right now since his slash line is so far off his norm. Caratini is doing slightly better than he normally does recently, but nothing crazy. Jeffers is the one with the value that will never be higher. But, beyond that, the simple answer is that losing Caratini or Jackson now means you go from 3 to 1 catcher next year. Losing Jeffers means you go from 3 to 2.

Why would the Yankees want to trade their first and 3rd most used relievers for Jeffers when the point of Jeffers is to try to win now? That's the point the other poster is making. Teams trying to get Jeffers aren't looking to trade MLB pieces because they're trying to win. They aren't going to plug their hole at catcher while opening a hole in their pen. If the Twins want MLB relievers in return for Jeffers, they need to get a 3rd team involved. Jeffers to Yankees, Yankee prospects to team 3, team 3 relievers to Twins. The Yankees aren't trading Cruz and Headrick to the Twins for Ryan Jeffers.

Call Atlanta and tell them the talk starts with Caminiti and Hartman and we'll go from there.

Joe Ryan signed a new deal this last offseason that included an option for next year. Not sure what reports you're reading, but they had to talk about his future with the team to do that. Joe Ryan has been very open for nearly his entire MLB career that he wants to hit the market and thinks the arbitration system is stupid. The Twins are clearly not a super well-run team, but not having extensions for players doesn't automatically mean they haven't discussed it. As it turns out, players have the ability to say "no."

Burnes is actually an example of why I'd trade him before the deadline. Teams aren't "willing to pay a premium for a full season of control" by trading for a guy during the offseason if it's just 1 season of control. Teams pay for control. 2 playoff runs will get you more value than 1 full season. Joe Ryan is worth more now than he will be in the offseason. The Brewers didn't hold onto Burnes to "get a premium for a full season of control," they held him because they were 57-50 at the deadline. Not below .500 like the Twins have been since April 22. Trade Joe Ryan. And Ryan Jeffers.

.246/.328/.414/.742 .263/.329/.406/.735 Those are the stat lines for the last 2 years for Caratini and Jeffers. Which one is Caratini and which one is Jeffers? Unless you think Jeffers is suddenly a .950 OPS player, Caratini very much is Ryan Jeffers.

2 things. 1. Why do you assume not trading him means you'll be able to keep him after the season? 2. Why does trading him mean you can't sign him after the season? Wait, 3 things. 3. You didn't mention that not only do they have Caratini under contract for next year, but they also have control of Jackson next year. If we're going to believe in extreme outlier starts to the season (Jeffers is not a .900 OPS guy, I'm sorry) why not believe in Jackson's and then there's no need to keep Jeffers? This wasn't at all a convincing argument for keeping Jeffers. You don't even mention trying to extend him now. I assume because you know the odds of that are miniscule unless you're throwing crazy money at him. But you argue they should just keep him after the season. You're going to have the same bidding war on your hands after the season whether you trade him or not. Players have a say in where they sign. Not trading him doesn't mean you just get to keep him. Trade Ryan Jeffers.

The Jackson decision is actually really fascinating to me. I think they 100% lose him if they try to get him back to AAA through waivers. Tampa or New York likely claim him, if not others. I by no means want to make it sound like I think he's going to maintain these numbers, or is any kind of star, but the Twins are going to lose Jeffers after this season. I think it'd be a mistake to lose Jackson on waivers and then lose Jeffers after the season. If it were me, Jackson or Jeffers would be in a Yankee or Ray jersey by the end of the break. Preferably Jeffers. You'll get more for Jeffers and you'd then still have Jackson for 3ish million next year to pair with Caratini again. The Twins have been wasting a spot on a guy they won't play (Fedko) for weeks now, so they could certainly carry 3 catchers for a bit. But you definitely don't want to carry them all for the rest of the season with the current makeup of this team. And you don't want to lose 2 of them before next year. They need to make a trade.

I don't know that any of us here can say what kind of impact Sizemore has had, but Martin looked markedly better last year than the year before, and Keaschall has played OF since he was 18 in the Cape Cod league. He played CF coming up through the minors. The suggestion that he is brand new to the outfield is flat out incorrect. Sizemore was an incredible player, and I assume he's a smart, quality coach since the White Sox had him in the interim manager position. But the examples provided in this article are not very convincing.

Totally fine that those are the reasons you mute the broadcast. They aren't the reason I do. I simply don't enjoy the typical play-by-play/color guy broadcast. When I watch games I am sitting and watching. I far more prefer 2 or 3 players in the booth so they can discuss the different sides of strategies. I keep going back to the 3-0 red light debate they had late in the game yesterday. I really enjoyed it. I want that all the time. I don't have any need for Provus. That's nothing against Provus. When I've listened, he's done a perfectly fine job. I'm just not interested in hearing what I'm watching. I want the talk about how Span was a red light guy and Morneau wasn't. I wish they'd gone deeper at the end of it when Morneau was talking about how they had different jobs as well. Span was more typically a guy expected to get on in front of someone like Justin. They had 2 different thought processes. I love that stuff. And I have no need for play-by-play. That is why I specifically mute the broadcast.

And that's totally fine. That's how you ingest the game. I'm not saying everyone should watch or listen to the game the same way. What I enjoy isn't going to be what everyone else enjoys. The comment you originally responded to was more about the other poster's claim that this take was just Seth being the always positive guy (which does tend to be and I've certainly not enjoyed all of his takes because of it). It was about how you can enjoy certain things that I find annoying and I can enjoy things you find annoying. Seth's take isn't "koolaid" just because the other poster doesn't like this broadcast. Because many of us do. And many of us dislike the normal one that that other poster presumably prefers. We're all allowed to enjoy different parts of the game or broadcast. I get very little enjoyment out of the announcers on any sporting event. I would far prefer to listen to 2 or 3 players breaking down and discussing the strategies being implemented, what they'd do differently, why they'd do it differently, why the team did it how they did it, what the preparation is like beforehand, what day to day life as an athlete is like, all the behind-the-scenes stuff. I appreciate when the singular player in the booth gives their thoughts on things, but I want back and forth. I want multiple players. The debate on 3-0 red light vs green light was great. I want that all game long. Doesn't mean that's what everyone wants or that others shouldn't find the typical broadcast enjoyable or useful. It's just not my cup of tea.

When I say "this team," I mean this specific season. It's why I have no interest in rentals and why I said I'd prefer Soriano or Detmers type deals if they made any. There's at least 1 poster suggesting they should go after Skubal. There's lots of talk of Sonny Gray. I have no desire to make those kinds of trades. I wouldn't give up anyone with a decent chance of providing any future value for a rental. None. Not a single one. Soriano or Detmers are a more interesting thought. I think they'd cost something like Emma and Culpepper, though, and I wouldn't go that far to get them. I don't think we're terribly far off in our views of the team. I disagree that getting a AA or AAA guy wouldn't be a good move, though. I'd trade both Ryan and Jeffers in an attempt to get more of those guys. I think the next 2 to 4 years is heavily reliant on the actually young guys. Buxton is a star. They have no other stars on offense. None. They need more to truly open the window. Larnach, Clemens, Lee, Keaschall, Martin, etc. are all at their likely ceilings. The offense is significantly out performing their numbers by putting up unsustainable numbers with RISP. The chances of those guys putting up these run totals next year is not great. Or even good. They need young guys to come up and raise the ceiling. This is pretty much best case scenario for this core and they're struggling to get to or stay above .500. Running it back and hoping they take the next step is what they've been doing for years and it's lead them to this same exact 75-85 win range. They need guys with higher ceilings to come from the minors and perform. Brooks Lee is actually a great example. He's been valuable this year because he's been unbelievable with RISP. Significantly out performing the rest of his numbers and every predictor data point you can come up with. Is it possible that he maintains this for much of his career and is just a statistical outlier? Sure. Anything can happen. But it isn't likely. And building a team is about giving yourself the best odds. If the team performance right now was more solidly backed up by a reasonable expectation that it'd be the same moving forward, I'd agree with you. I wouldn't have a problem with moving some of the A+ level type prospects. But I don't think it's sustainable. Happy to be wrong, but I'm not sold yet. And I simply don't buy the "pipeline is robust enough" argument. Ever. The calculation for me is always what the odds are of success in a given time period. I don't like the odds of this "success" (they haven't been at .500 since April 22, so let's keep this "success" in perspective) continuing are great. And there is very real risk in trading from what people think is a "logjam," or whatever term they want to use, and trading the 1 guy that actually hits their ceiling and being left with the ones who don't. Prospects fail at too high a clip to ever think you have enough. Again, I don't think you're crazy for wanting to follow the strategy you've laid out. It's just not what I would do.

That's totally fair. I by no means think it's a perfect broadcast, but I turn the volume on normal games off because I have no interest in the play-by-play. I don't know why they feel they need to show the guys sitting in the booth or in outfield corners. Brings nothing to the broadcast. But I'd far prefer hearing players having a back and forth on strategy and telling clubhouse stories, etc. than have a play-by-play guy telling me what my eyes already are.

Emma has been the guy I've been suggesting they trade for a few years now. Because he couldn't stay on the field. But now that he hasn't stayed on the field even more, his value is lower. I have no problem trading him, but I'll never buy the "surplus" argument. We've supposedly had a "surplus" of lefty corner guys for years. Yet every year we end up with guys nobody wants playing corner spots. And if you guess wrong on the prospects and trade the wrong one, you're really in trouble. There's never enough talent. People love to say there's no such thing as too much pitching, but I think there's no such thing as too much talent. Injuries happen. People spent all offseason debating trading from our pitching "surplus." Now we're talking about trading from our OF "surplus" because we don't have enough pitching. The "trading from surplus" argument just isn't something I go for. You certainly have to be willing to trade guys, but I don't buy that we have too many OFers. I'd prefer Soriano and Detmers type trades over a Gray trade, but I wouldn't buy anything beyond a couple relievers if I did any buying. I don't think this is the team to invest in. And I don't want short-term PR to be a reason they make moves. I don't think it's crazy that people want to be buyers to some level, but it's just not what I'd do. I'm glad the team has performed well enough to at least make it reasonable to take either side of the argument, though. I'd trade Jeffers and Ryan still. If I can get a reliever for a song, I'd do that, too. But I wouldn't give up any "real" prospects for anything.

Pablo is with the team all the time. Joe Ryan and Bailey Ober are veterans. Taylor Rogers is about 100 years old. I'm not sold on the idea of needing a mentor for young pitchers. Especially for just half a season. If the Twins can't guide their pitchers with Lopez, Ryan, Ober, Rogers, and a team full of coaches, I don't think Sonny Gray saves them. I'd rather spend far less prospect value on an actual reliever or 2. The Petty trade was getting multiple years of Gray, not 2 months. I don't see how getting Sonny Gray on a rental deal is anything other than winning now. I just don't buy the "help our young pitchers" argument when the roster is full of veteran pitchers already. I don't think Wallner has any value. What team would want him? Rebuilding teams don't because he's 28 and in AAA. Win now teams don't because he's in AAA. Jeffers certainly has value. Him or Jackson would be in a Yankees or Rays jersey before the teams are back from the break if I were in charge. I am certainly not going to claim Jackson is any kind of world beater but losing him on waivers just to lose Jeffers at the end of the year would be bad roster management, in my opinion. Larnach could maybe fetch a lottery ticket as a rental platoon bat, but he's been on the block for years and nobody has ever been willing to give them anything. Was pretty widely reported last year they tried to deal him at the deadline and couldn't get a buyer. He's more expensive with less control now. Agree on the lack of moves the last few years. But I hope they don't use that as a reason to take away future pieces to help a team that can't get or stay above .500.

It's ok if you don't like the broadcast, but many of us do. The guys debating 3-0 red lights is great to me. My eyes can tell me what's happening in the game. It's why I watch the games. To see what's happening. I don't need an announcer to tell me the ball is in the air to left field. But I love the look behind the scenes and the baseball talk from the players. It's not drinking the koolaid to like something that you don't like.

I'd have no interest in selling an actual prospect for Sonny Gray. Or any other rental. Sonny reworked his deal when he was traded to Boston and has a mutual option for next year. Mutual options are essentially never picked up. He should be viewed as a rental. I know others disagree, but I'm not giving up anybody with any kind of chance of helping future Twins teams to get a rental for this team. I'm not sold they can continue to so significantly outperform their normal numbers in RISP situations. And they're still below .500 (maybe that changes today!). They haven't been at .500 since April 22. There being a bunch of other bad teams in the AL is not a good selling point for me to want to give up future assets for the 2026 MN Twins to try to sneak into the playoffs with 84 wins. It's exactly how you keep staying in this no man's land middle ground of high 70s to mid 80s wins. I'm not interested in it. But, yes, I'd think Hill or Soto would return Gray. It's entirely possible that neither Soto nor Hill even makes the majors, but they are real prospects with real chances to make the majors. I'm just not giving up real prospects for anything intended to only boost the 2026 team.

Very little risk. What is that player going to do? Say no because the Giants offered them a hypothetical 15 mil? Well, they aren't getting that 15 mil next year so are they going to pass on the 10ish mil this year? Roch and Lackey would be seniors with no leverage and Emerson would either have to go to JUCO or wouldn't even be eligible to be drafted again next year and then would have to perform in college for 3 years to get top 3 money in 3 years. The Giants can make whatever promises they want, they have very little ability to really impact things, though.

You're going to have to give up significantly more than just Emma to get a quality SP with 2.5 years of control left. Like Culpepper, Tait, Quick, or Houston. Somebody in or close to the top 100ish prospects. I don't have a problem trading Emma, but he's not valuable enough to front a package for the type of arm you're talking about. If he can bring back Soriano or Detmers, they should be doing that deal tonight. And Wallner isn't really worth anything meaningful. He's in AAA at the age of 28. Doesn't fit a rebuilding team's timeline and win now teams aren't going to give anything up to see if he can figure out how to hit MLB pitching again immediately.

Free agency isn't the only way to spend money. Like the Astros getting Correa because they'd spend money on him. The entire premise of this discussion is that the Twins will be forced by CBA rules to spend 150 million. If that rule is in place, there will be other rules with it that cause teams to cut players. The owners aren't agreeing to a forced floor without a cap. The pool of players available to spend money on with go up significantly. I think you overrate the player's opinions of ownership situations. Especially if there's a floor and cap in place. The Angels and Rockies sign high priced players regularly despite being absolute disasters in terms of ownership. 23 million for Jeffers instead of 9 million for Caratini and Jackson and 10 million for Arraez and 4 million for a pen arm? Yeah, going to have to agree to disagree there. The timing of a lockout or strike will be interesting. But, if the CBA forces them to spend money, it is also going to force teams to cut guys to get under a cap. If the CBA doesn't force them to spend money, they won't be rolling out a payroll at 150 mil and it's all moot.

He could certainly be a short side platoon at one of those other positions. But teams trying to win the World Series don't generally want 1B and DHs with a career 109 OPS+. If teams are sold that he's going to come back from an injury pretty famous for sapping a player's power for well after they return from it and continue on his extreme outlier of an offensive performance, they may want him at those offense first positions. But having your DH be a guy with a 105ish OPS+ is not ideal for real contenders.