chpettit19

1. That's the same comment. I only made 1 comment in this thread about you getting paid to write articles about the team. Maybe I said it in another thread that I don't remember, but I only said it once here. The word "also" appears to be misused here. And, no, I don't think it's just like any other disagreement. This "disagreement" is you telling me, and others, how we feel. You don't get to argue with that. That's the entire point here. You've decided you know what's best for the rest of us and it's to enjoy what you enjoy, how you enjoy it. 2-5. Again, I think you've out kicked your armchair psychologist coverage here. No, hoping they sell certain pieces doesn't diminish my enjoyment. And selling off pieces doesn't equal ducking out of the playoff race. See 2024 Detroit Tigers for example. But the real point is that, apparently, if YOU hoped they'd trade Jeffers it'd diminish YOUR enjoyment of the season. And you've then projected that on to everyone who does hope they trade him. I mean, if trading Ryan Jeffers (a player that missed 2 months of the season already, by the way) means they're "ducking out of the playoff race" they aren't really in the playoff race to start with. Your premise is flawed. It assumes a lot about other people that you can't assume. Like that we can't separate our opinions about how to run a team we have no part of and our enjoyment of their performance. My point about nobody writing a story like this last year was that the team had almost the exact same record as it does this year and none of you were telling us we shouldn't want the team to sell because we wouldn't actually enjoy the rest of the season if they did. You weren't clamoring for us to want a sub-.500 team to hold expiring contracts then. They were only 5 games out of the wildcard on this date last year. And if they hadn't sold, they wouldn't have Rojas, Abel, Bradley, or Roden. 4 guys who've played at least somewhat of a role of them being anywhere near .500 now. Why weren't you clamoring for us to hold on to Bader last year? Shouldn't we have all wanted them to stay in the fight then? Or, and hear me out, is this actually just about you enjoying the season more this year so you've decided to tell the rest of us we should think the same as you?

I picked up the semi-deadpan humor. Was adding to the semi-Pohlad hating by pointing out how long of a shot it is that they would even get that extra financial goal even though it's a likely driver in their decision making. I was agreeing with you.

Oh, I would 100% take Jeffers over Caratini with all things being equal when it comes to the chances they're a successful #1 catcher next year. And I expect there to be a noticeable Jeffers sized hole on the roster next year. I just don't think there's any reason to be all that confident he can be a true #1. He's never done it, and he's not exactly young anymore. I'd prefer they sign him to a 3- or 4-year extension. But I'd be even happier if they traded him and then brought him back on that deal. Have my cake and eat it too, as it were. But have no faith at all that they're going to win any bidding war for his services. Always happy to be proven wrong on such a lack of faith, though.

1. When have I ever said anything about readers paying anyone's bills before that specific comment? Not saying it's impossible that I did, but I have no recollection of it. The point is that if we all agreed and people didn't come to this site to have their fill of Twins centric debate, the site would get significantly less traffic and they wouldn't be able to pay people to write articles. It's generally not a great strategy to tell a large segment of your customer base they're doing it wrong. See, St Peter, Dave and his never ending "fans are just bad at being fans and it's their fault we don't sell more tickets." Not a great business plan. 2. I actually don't think anyone simply saying "don't tell me how to fan" is lacking in anything. I most definitely use more words than most people, and tend to overexplain my stances. But "don't tell me how to enjoy things" is 100% enough of a retort. It's none of your business how anyone enjoys anything. As long as we're not hurting anyone, we can enjoy the Twins in whatever fashion we like and you don't get to tell us we're not enjoying them correctly. "Don't tell me how to fan" is absolutely a good enough stand alone statement. 3. There's no cognitive dissonance in me having opinions about the Twins best path forward. Also no illusion of control. Whether or not they trade Ryan Jeffers won't affect how I enjoy the rest of this season. Again, that's your mistake here. You've decided you know how I enjoy the Twins and what drives my enjoyment. I have no problem separating what I would do, what I think they should do, what I think they will do, and my for fun debates with others (on TD or anywhere else) with my enjoyment of the team. I'm watching the game while I type this and there isn't 1 part of me wishing they'd lose so there's a better chance they trade guys, thinking "man it's cool they're winning, but I'm still so worried about whether or not they'll trade Jeffers I just can't enjoy it," or any other negative things besides the fact that the pen is making this game much closer than it should be. 4. I don't think those articles are meaningfully similar to this one. They may be your armchair psychologists attempt at explaining some things in relation to sport, but they aren't telling people that if they don't enjoy things the way you do, they aren't really enjoying it. Again, you've come at this from a false premise of you knowing the way to enjoy being a fan. There is no 1 way to enjoy being a fan. Some of us enjoying being arm chair GMs while following a season doesn't mean we aren't enjoying the season every bit as much as we would if we had no thoughts or opinions or wishes on what the team would do. I can wish they'd trade Jeffers and Ryan and still wish for them to win out and enjoy when they do well. They don't have to be separate things in everyone's mind. The cognitive dissonance you may feel isn't present in me. I'm sorry your enjoyment is so attached to the team doing what you wish they'd do. Mine isn't. I didn't say it was the worst, I said one of. And it's bad for a completely different reason than articles like Sano and Vargas making it back. No, when you have a preference, you have a preference. I'm sure you can find a whole lot of people on this site that will tell you I'm arrogant when I post. I won't deny that it's absolutely how I write. But that doesn't mean I think my way is the only way to success. Yes, I prefer they do things a certain way. And, if you're being honest with yourself, you do, too. But that's the entire problem with this post. You think your way is the only way to truly do something correctly. Either we get as masterful over our minds to be able to truly block out any thoughts or opinions on how the team should be managed like you, or we simply aren't enjoying things as much as we could. Part of my enjoyment comes from the research and tracking of history of the game. Humans are fully capable of separating things like that from their enjoyment of what they're doing in the moment. The nice thing about being a fan and playing armchair GM is that I can have a preference without having to be convinced it's the best way. It's a challenge that actual GM's have to overcome to truly be effective. I can want them to trade Jeffers without it ruining my day, or next 2 months, if they don't. Once the decision is made I get to move onto the next step of seeing who was right, as best I can, me or them. That becomes the next step of my enjoyment in the armchair GM department while I continue to cheer for the Twins to win every game. I think you've simply stretched your armchair psychology too far on this one. I don't think you've shown us any enlightened insight into how our brains work, you've simply showed us that you can't comprehend others enjoying things a different way than you do.

The odds of the Twins making the playoffs are not good. The odds of them having home playoff games are even worse. Like really, really low kind of worse. The wildcard round is all played at the higher seed's stadium. The Twins would have to jump a whole lot of teams during the season or win 2 or 3 on the road in the first round to get a home playoff game.

The problem is that you're defining "best for everyone" to be what you enjoy most. Either we fan how you fan or we're not "living our best life" as they say. You're assuming people like me who 100% want Ryan Jeffers traded aren't enjoying the season as much as you. You're working from a flawed premise of you knowing the best way for all of us to enjoy the Twins, and this season in particular. Why do you think you know how much any of us are enjoying it, and why is your way not only the right way, but only way, to truly enjoy the Twins? You don't want the best for everyone; you want everyone to enjoy what you enjoy. Those aren't the same things.

Well, right. If you're willing to overpay everyone, you can extend everyone. My question is around statements like "The Twins did not choose to extend Ryan Jeffers as he was entering arbitration." Did they choose that? In the sense that they chose not to overpay him, sure. But do we have any reason to believe they never talked to him about it? They've successfully extended other players pre-arbitration. Kepler and Polanco being the best results. They extended Pablo Lopez. People make a lot of statements about the Twins "choosing" not to extend people. Jeffers and Ryan the 2 biggest examples right now. I don't know why the default seems to be that they don't even try. They extended Buxton before he hit the market. Why isn't the default to assume they tried and there wasn't a number both sides agreed on? It was pretty widely reported they tried with Berrios before they traded him. It sure appears that they try to extend most of their better players. 2 years ago was Jeffers coming off a 133 OPS+ season followed by a 103 OPS+ season. I'd bet it's very likely there wasn't a number both sides agreed to at that point. The difference between a 130 and 100 OPS+ from your catcher is some pretty massive bucks. I'd bet they have discussed an extension with him multiple times. Just wasn't a deal to be made. Like the situation in an overwhelming number of cases. The concern is something we really never know, and it's how reasonable they were being in their discussions. I think the assumption should be they "try" to extend all of the guys we wish they would, but how hard that effort is will always be in question with the Pohlads. The reported Joe Ryan ask was 7/210. If that's what he was demanding, I'm glad they haven't extended him. If Jeffers was demanding similarly above market numbers, I'm glad they didn't extend him either. But we'll never know that stuff for sure.

Has it been reported that Jeffers was open to an extension? One of my pet peeves is the idea that teams can just extend guys if they want to. Not every player is open to an extension. I don't remember seeing anything saying he was or wasn't open to one, but that's the first question to ask. Was Ryan even open to the idea? If he wasn't, then, no, the Twins couldn't have extended him earlier.

Isn't Mr Swanson with the Yankees organization now? The org everyone is talking about needing catching so badly? I'm certainly not arguing the Twins have been good at developing catching, but I'm not sure why Swanson is pointed to as some catcher whisperer. The Twins have been awful at developing in general. Catcher isn't some specific weak spot. In fact, almost every team is bad at developing catching. It's why it's such an in-demand position and backups have 15-year careers.

Alex Cora was considered one of the best managers in baseball for years. He suddenly forgot how to manage this year? Cora was fired on April 26th. I mean, it's not like he was fired and a week or 2 later the Sox went bonkers. It was 2 months later. The sox were 11-17 when he was fired. Certainly underperforming. 2 months later, on June 26th, the Sox were 34-46. 23-29 in those 2 months. Better than the start, but nothing crazy. They went on a wild winning streak. The Twins had double digit winning streaks each of the last 2 seasons. Was Rocco some master manager for that? A crazy winning streak does nothing to dissuade me from being in the "manager doesn't make much difference" contingent. And doing it 2 and a half months after the change certainly doesn't make me think the manager is the reason for it.

"I think there is a large group of baseball fans into the arm chair GM game more so than watching the current team. Call it looking at what could be instead of what is. Nothing wrong with that except I think they miss out on the good baseball in front of them." Here's the thing about this comment that you made in the other post. It isn't an argument. I don't have a "side of the argument." Because it isn't one. Your "opinion" was a comment on how other people think and feel. There's nothing to like or dislike about the opinion itself. It's either right or wrong. And I'm telling you, for many of us in the group you describe, you're wrong. You don't get to argue about how I, or anyone, enjoys the Twins or anything else. That's the issue with the comment like "they miss out on the good baseball in front of them" and the article in general. You don't know how anyone enjoys the baseball in front of them. The author doesn't know how any of us enjoy the Twins. All the article is is a complaint that he has to see tweets or posts or whatever that differ from his and he says we're all wrong if we don't just think the way he does. Author has the real simple option of just not taking money from twinsdaily.com to write articles and to change his social media interactions. And you both have the real simple option of simply not worrying about how any of us enjoy the Twins. The article and the clipped part of your other comment aren't arguments about trading Jeffers or Ryan or extending Buxton or drafting Lackey or anything else. They're statements telling other people how to live their lives, think, or feel. You can't tell me I'm wrong for how I go about being a fan. Just like the author can't. Nothing to argue about because you don't get to tell anyone what they enjoy and what they don't. Just like none of us get to tell you you can only enjoy the Twins if you enjoy them the way we do.

I don't agree with the pathetic and gutless comment, but I'd suggest you remember that us disagreeing and making these comments is what allows you to get paid to write articles about a baseball team. Maybe lecturing us on how to be a fan correctly isn't the best look.

You, like the author, confuse wanting to see certain moves made with not enjoying the games we're watching. I can do both. Wanting them to trade Jeffers and Ryan doesn't make me sit in my living room and hate every second of watching them. It doesn't make me not watch. What makes me not enjoy this season to any great extreme is that this team has been at (not above, AT) .500 for 1 day since April when they were 12-12. I enjoy or don't enjoy each and every game on its own merits. My desire to see Ryan and Jeffers traded plays no role in that. My desire to not see yet another below .500 team in 2027 is what drives my desire to see moves made. You're going to struggle to find many people who are upset with you enjoying this team. All some of us are asking is that you not tell us that we can't enjoy this, or any, team unless we want to keep 100% of the players on it. As another poster said, I contain multitudes. I can enjoy games, the team, and even the season while still wanting them to trade Ryan and Jeffers. I'm sorry if some of you can only enjoy any individual part of those options if you want to keep Ryan Jeffers. The Pohlads love you, though.

There's many lines of thinking that teams should have depending on the state of their roster. We're talking about the 2026 and 2027 Twins with relation to Joe Ryan. I was all for adding when they were good. I didn't have any problem with the Mahle/Lopez deadline. But this team isn't that. The line of thinking is to take inventory of what your team is and what they're likely to be while Joe Ryan is under contract. Decide how realistic it is that you can even be a .500 team before he leaves for a comp pick at best and make moves based on that. I'm not advocating always selling every veteran before they leave in free agency. I'm advocating trading veterans on a below .500 team so they can improve their chances of being a team worthy of investing in. Extend Ryan if you can. They talked about it last offseason and couldn't. This team isn't even .500. Has been for 1 day since they were 12-12. That changes the line of thinking. There can't be a stagnant line of thinking. It must adapt to the situation. And its hard to argue the 2026 and 2027 Twins are teams worth chasing "the now" for.

Jeffers has never, in his life, caught more than 81 games in a season. He's no sure thing to be some true starting catcher either. And they can trade him now and sign him after the season. Nothing says they can't offer him the best deal if they trade him.

Few things to explain why I disagree with this entire article and think its one of the worst ever posted on this site. #1 You can fan how you want to fan and don't worry about how I, or anyone else, fans. You enjoy the Twins, and sports in general, how you want and I'll enjoy them how I want. #2 The reason I want them to trade Jeffers and Ryan is because I'm a fan. I do enjoy playing armchair GM, but my thoughts and opinions are clouded much more by fandom than any GM's should be. I want them to trade them because I'm a fan and will be next year and the year after and the year after that. And I want them to be good in those years! #3 There's a massive gap between "have to win a championship or its a bust of a season" and "hey, they're almost .500!" I absolutely want them to push to be champions and get out of this "hey, weren't completely and utterly terrible so it was a success" mindset. But that doesn't mean I consider the entire season a waste if they don't. #4 I don't care about a sub-.500 team trying to get close to making the playoffs at the expense of the following seasons. You can. And I hope you're enjoying this team. I enjoy some of the performances we're seeing, but the season isn't overly enjoyable for me when they lose more than they win. And its none of your business that I don't enjoy that. Don't worry about me and how I fan. I don't remember you, or anyone, writing these kinds of articles the last couple years. The league being down (until recently) doesn't change how I enjoy this team. I didn't enjoy them not being able to get to and stay above .500 last year and I don't enjoy it this year. One last time: Keep your eyes on your own bobber. Fan how you want and don't worry about how I fan. Trade Jeffers and Ryan.

Because the chances of keeping that "really good desirable player" after next season is somewhere between 0 and 5%. And basic asset management tells us to get 2 different assets that they have 100% chance of keeping beyond next season. Especially because the odds of next season being dramatically better than this one are about the same as the odds the Twins keep Ryan beyond 2027. The question isn't at all whether the 2 prospects are likely to turn out as well as Ryan, it is whether or not having those 2 prospects is better than having 1 possible comp pick. Unless you're here to make the argument that the Twins should be going all in on 2027, you need to acknowledge the realities of the chances the Twins actually keep Ryan. For context, Dan Hayes has reported his requested deal last offseason was 7 years, 210 million. Very likely significantly above market value in years and total money. They agreed to a mutual option for next year last offseason. They've already discussed his future with the team. And he isn't signed. The Twins aren't likely to keep Joe Ryan. Most everyone here would prefer Joe being extended for another 4 years or so. But that isn't going to happen. So, the 2 prospects are pretty easily the better option, in many of our opinions.

I'm old enough to remember the days when the Twins didn't need position player prospects because they had Larnach, Wallner, Rodriguez, Julien, Miranda, Martin, and Lewis. Then they added Lee and REALLY didn't need position player prospects. Especially infield prospects. And then they added Keaschall and they weren't going to even be able to think about a position player prospect for another half a decade. Oh, and they added Jenkins. As it turns out, there's no such thing as having a system filled with any kind of prospect. Because prospects fail. A lot. The Twins need as much high-end talent as they can get until their major league roster is full of All Stars at every position. And then they should work on getting All Stars with options because there'll be injuries. I think the packages presented here definitely have flaws. The Mariners aren't trading the best pitching prospect in baseball for anybody that's reasonably available in a trade and definitely aren't adding another piece to him in a trade for Joe Ryan, for example. But the idea that the Twins could bring back a position player prospect in a trade for Joe is not one of the flaws.

Why not? Giver the whole kit and AAA kaboodle. I'd be totally fine running out some of the most obscene lineups for the next couple weeks after the deadline to see what some of the AAA filler looks like. Why not? Save me the rookie eligibility of our big guns but see if there's a diamond in the rough amongst the mid-20s guys at AAA. You never know. If they all look completely and utterly overmatched, send them back down or DFA them or whatever you want to do and start the "real" youngsters on their MLB journeys.

I think this is probably right. Jeffers, an Emma or Tait type, and somebody more random should be awfully tempting to the M's. We'll obviously never really know, but I'd be so incredibly frustrated with the Twins if they never called Dipoto and said "I have Jeffers, you have Hancock, how do we make this work?" and at least give it a real run at him.

It is definitely easier to make trades on the internet or in games. But I actually think it's a realistic possibility to pull something like that off. Not in terms of likelihood, but in terms of there being a path to moving pieces in such a way that you don't look like you blew up the now while also boosting your odds in the future. To me, the Hancock thing is incredibly intriguing. Jeffers is likely to be one of the better right handed bats on the market. Especially now that Boston has gone nuclear and Contreras is less likely to be dealt. Suzuki, Paredes, and Jeffers are probably your top 3 righty bats from the rumors I've seen of who may be available. That should make there a very real conversation to be had with the Mariners. If you can get Hancock, it really opens the doors to a wide variety of moves that don't sacrifice 2027 but help build beyond that. I'd be blowing up Dipoto's phone if I were Zoll.

I'll do you 1 better, I would give our new Pohlad overlord another year before complaining about him being terrible.

If the Twins are willing to get wild and wheel and deal this deadline, it could be very interesting. I don't find it likely, but I don't think it's outrageous. I still think going and getting Hancock with a package built around Jeffers is incredibly interesting. Put Emma with him if that's what Seattle wants. To me, that then opens up a trade of Ryan elsewhere with Hancock taking his spot in the rotation (I mean literally pitching on the days Ryan would have, not as any statement on skill level). Whether it's my Atlanta idea or something else. If I can get 2 top 100 prospects and Emerson Hancock for Ryan, Jeffers, and a prospect, I'm thrilled.

Could I see Pohlad finding this sort of idea intriguing as he continues to point at .500 as some sort of success? Sure. But I don't see the value in bringing back Rogers at all. Why not just offer him that deal in the offseason while getting better prospects in return in the trade? Have my cake and eat it, too.

2 top 100 prospects? Yes, I'd still want to trade Ryan if the return is 2 top 100 prospects. The Twins are going to lose that great player anyway. The question isn't whether or not people would rather have Joe Ryan than 2 unknowns, it's whether they'd rather have the unknowns or nothing after the team goes 3 straight years under .500 while having the 4th one be 1 game over .500.