chpettit19

Isn't advocating for spending an extra 10 mil on Jeffers doing the worst of both worlds? He's not a star. Unless you think this season is his new norm and he's a 160 OPS+ guy instead of a 105 OPS+ guy. So, you're going after a worse signing than Luis Arraez and overpaying for him by 10 million. If Jeffers wasn't a Twin and was just on the free agent market and people around here were suggesting paying him $23 million next year, I don't think they'd be getting a lot of support for that idea. Overpaying for him just because he's familiar isn't good. I would take a crazy overpay for Skubal or Burnes or Michael King or Seiya Suzuki 100 times out of 100 over a crazy overpay for Jeffers. If they aren't even going to try to improve the team when they have to spend 150 million (free agents aren't the only way to spend more money, by the way) then I have no interest in any change to the CBA in regards to a floor and cap. If it's a cap situation, there will be more players available than the list you're currently looking at because teams will have to get below the cap by cutting guys. I do not believe that there is no better way to spend 150 million in player salary than to drop 30 million on catchers.

I don't think Chapman is worth a top 7 prospect. Especially not in a good system. But I also wouldn't call Jeffers a top 5 everyday catcher. For 1, he's never been an everyday catcher. 2, this season was an extreme outlier in his offensive performance. He'll be the best catcher available at the deadline (most likely), but he's more of a top 10 to 15 split-duty catcher.

I'm not sure Claude is providing you great results here. What comp does it use to suggest a Ryan Jeffers rental would return not only a top 5 system prospect (not all systems are created equal, remember) plus more? The 2 mid-tier guys is far more likely.

I think basing giving Jeffers the QO off his awesome start to this season would be a mistake. His OPS the last 2 years were .732 and .752. His career OPS is .755. He's not a great defensive catcher by any means. He's a slightly better than average MLB hitter and bad or ok defensive catcher. None of that suggests he's worth a QO. Who would trade for a significantly overpriced catcher? The Twins would have to pay to get rid of him if they were paying him more than any other catcher in baseball.

I don't want Josh Bell types, but I'd rather have multiple options than overpaying for Jeffers. I'd rather have a combination of 5 Josh Bell, Harrison Bader, Willi Castro, Kyle Farmer types or 5 pen arms or any number of things than overspending on Jeffers "because they have to spend it anyways." How does the team improve by spending an extra 10 million on Jeffers and 20% of their budget on catchers? Your original stance was "if the new CBA is going to force the Twins to spend 50M+, I'd rather overpay Jeffers than sign three more Josh Bells." Why are those the only options? Is it entirely possible the Twins are so incompetent that they make those their only 2 options? Sure. But if they are forced to spend another 50 million, there are so many better ways to spend it. Including overpaying for guys like Skubal or Burnes. It's far-fetched for fans to think the Twins would sign Skubal or Burnes because it's far-fetched for fans to think the Twins would spend another 50 million next year. When they did spend in that 150ish range, they signed Carlos Correa. In the scenario you presented, they are forced to spend that extra 50 mil. It takes out the typical fan reaction of "the Pohlads won't spend anyways." If they're being forced to, why is it far-fetched that they'd spend it on a big-name guy when the only other time they've spent like that, they spent it on a big-name guy? If they're going to be forced to spend, I really hope they don't do ridiculous things like overspend on catchers just to spend. I hope they actually take the chance to improve their team. Would I bet on them not screwing it up? Of course not. But I certainly won't hope they QO Jeffers for no reason at all.

Why couldn't the Twins get Skubal or Burnes if they're forced to spend another $50 million? I'd offer them the full 50 before I spent 23 million on Jeffers. Spending 20% of your budget on catching is a terrible use of resources. Trade for an overpriced guy. Sign 5 $10 million relievers. Throw all 50 mil at Skubal or Burnes. I'd take 5 Josh Bell types before I took Jeffers for 23 mil and am spending 20% of my budget on catchers. At least I have 5 shots at a breakout that way.

I'd rather spend $50 million on pitchers or picking up guys other teams will have to cut to get under a cap if that comes with the floor. Spending $30 million on catchers sounds like an awful use of resources. Bringing Jeffers back at an unbelievable overpay doesn't make the team better. If they're going to be forced to spend, at least make an effort to improve the team. Even if the floor is 150, you'd still be spending 20% of your budget on catching. That's simply awful resource management.

Would love to hear what trades you actually think are worth doing. What future pieces are you willing to give up for current pieces on this team? Not only at the deadline, but now. Who are you trading and for what? It's easy to say they should be buyers, harder to say who they should give up for help in a season where they still haven't been able to get and stay above .500. Pohlad's words aren't a reason for being a buyer. Only a hard, unbiased look at the roster is. Pohlad trying to sell more tickets (let's be clear that his only motivation for anything he said was to try to get more butts in seats) isn't a reason to make any roster move. Do what's best for the team now and moving forward. Don't sell a prospect for a rental just because Tommy Boy said he was a "go big" guy.

He'd be a September call-up for me. Roden, Wallner, and Rodriguez (if he's ever healthy) would get the first lefty call-ups for me. They've been doing the "we won't know what we have with this 26+ year-old player, so we have to keep them around and find out" dance with guys for years. It's held them back. Roden is 26. I want to get a look at him and decide what role I think he can play on an actually good MLB team. There's value in having depth guys if that's all Roden is, but he's 26 and they need to start getting real data on all these guys. I'd start with him. I don't know where exactly Wallner is at on the service time situation, but he was supposed to be arb eligible next year for the first time. I'm not going into 2027 with him, or paying him arbitration, if he can't come back and mash. I need to get an answer on him. I'm not going into 2027 with Emma out of options and never having seen a major league pitch if I can help it. If he's healthy, he's getting MLB ABs for me. Depending on the spot that opens up, I may call up Gonzalez before Jenkins. Or Mendez. If I have Roden-Buxton-Emma across the outfield and want to check out DH types more, Gonzalez and Mendez would be my call since they're already on the 40-man. But, once we get to September and I have an extra roster spot, Jenkins would be my call-up and he'd start getting his feet wet then. I want data on everyone, though, and I'd start with the guys who are already burning option years or are older. I would've started with them on opening day, though, so I don't think I'm using the same playbook as the Twins.

I'm sure there are some examples, but I can't think of any off the top of my head of teams in the modern BP era trading any of their top 5 bullpen arms in a year they're trying to win. They can get bullpen arms, but not likely from teams that would be interested in Bell or Larnach types. The teams trading MLB talent overwhelmingly look for future assets in return. Teams trading for MLB talent overwhelmingly give up future assets. MLB for MLB at the deadline is incredibly rare. I wouldn't be surprised at all to not see him up until 2027 no matter what they do at the deadline. As others have stated, they have other OFers who they'd likely call up first. Not how I'd do it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

MLB for MLB trades rarely happen. A team trading for Larnach is looking to win this year, they're not likely to trade useful bullpen pieces in that situation. The buy and sell dance is trading prospects for bullpen help while trading Larnach types for prospects to replace the ones you traded.

And not have a bench spot dedicated to a guy you won't play?! Blasphemy!

Fair. I'm sure there's ways to keep him below 3.3 ABs a game. But it gets harder if he's doing well and you're just sitting him randomly. I think it's easier to wait til September and give him one of the extra roster spots and just let him rip. But it can be done with the August call-up. Agreed that Roden and Rodriguez are also factors. Especially Rodriguez. He'll have to make it a week without hurting himself, though.

If they're going to play that game (I think they should certainly consider it), they shouldn't call him up until September. He'd eclipse the 130 ABs rookie limit if he were up in the middle of August and finished the year on the team.

If the 2027 season is completely lost, I don't think you should be worrying about the current service time/payroll/team control rules in place. If they cancel an entire season, the rules are going to be very different.

The more you limit team's ability to move guys up and down, the more you're forcing those players to succeed quickly before they're just tossed aside and discarded. The vast majority will/would never succeed even without more opportunity, but some would. And you're significantly hurting their chances by making them succeed in their first 3 brief stints.

It absolutely would. Teams are always going to find a way to be as efficient with their rosters as possible. The up and down guys aren't suddenly going to be kept in the majors because they've used their 3 options that year. They'll just get DFA'd. I think the players should push for the minimum salary to be applied to anyone on a 40-man roster and require teams to have a full 40-man roster at all times. Then the ups and downs don't matter to salaries, which, let's be honest, is what the players care about there. And you'd have at least 1200 guys making the minimum at all time. Team wants to DFA a guy because he's been optioned 5 times? Well, they have to replace him with somebody anyways. The Twins have been notorious for at least the last couple years for sending a guy down the day before an off day and thus saving a few thousand bucks by not having a full 26-man roster. Strategy doesn't work if you're paying your whole 40-man anyways.

September call-up. Unless they are positive at least half of next season is going to be lost, that shouldn't play a role in the decision at all. There are other places to work on your game during any possible lost games. And the 40-man has plenty of guys who can be cut without worrying about it. The roster make-up shouldn't prevent calling up a guy you think is going to be the center piece of your team for the next 6+ years. If he's healthy and looking anywhere near ready, get him his first MLB action this year. Let him start making adjustments. The expectation should not be that he comes up and is a contributing part of a successful team immediately and with no dips. He's going to have to make adjustments. Get him exposure as early as you can so he can start making those adjustments and get to the point where you do expect him to be a consistently productive member of a good team.

Thanks for that link. I'm even more in the camp of "just pick whichever of those 3 is left" camp now.

I was very excited when they got Martin in the Berrios trade. Thought he could be a faster Bo Bichette offensively. His odds of being an everyday player took a massive nosedive the second it became apparent he didn't have the ability to turn on inside pitches and punish them. After that adjustment failed, this became the most likely outcome for Martin. It is really hard to be Luis Arraez offensively. When major league pitchers don't fear you at all, you put yourself in a real tough spot.

If the top 3 prospects are truly on a different tier than the rest, there isn't any decision to be made. Much like the 2023 draft that had a top tier 5 deep and the Twins had the 5th pick. Don't get cute and just pick whichever one is left. The real question is simply whether or not Roch, Lackey, and Emerson are truly on a different tier. If they aren't, then you can start thinking about Flora. If they are, then the decision is made. Best player available.

I'm absolutely not confusing those things. You're confusing what drives the financial structure of Major League Baseball. Which is weird considering your entire world view of this subject is that the owners are nothing but greedy leeches. The players play real roles in forcing revenue sharing between the owners. Why do you think the owners agreed to share media revenue? And why would they agree to a new revenue sharing structure that the MLBPA doesn't force on them at all but then accept the rules the MLBPA wants to put on it? Your argument is the owners are going to do something that isn't in their greedy best interests and then sit down at the negotiating table and also give the players the rules they want on top of it? 1.8 million is middle-middle? You're kidding, right? The MLBPA used to represent those kinds of players, but with the formation of the MiLBPA they represent very few people who aren't millionaires in their teen years or early 20s. And 65% of their members make a minimum of 780k a year. None of them are middle class. None. That argument just goes to show how far from reality you are on this. And to @TheLeviathan's point, the MLBPA has ignored the actual middle class players for their entire existence. Bryce Harper isn't screaming at Manfred because he's looking out for the Matt Wallners of the world. He's looking out for the richest players. And the MLBPA has notoriously booted members of the leadership group who do actually try to stand up for the Wallner types.

No, they don't, and they don't want to hand it to players either. The players forcing minimum salaries and arbitration and luxury taxes is the only reason the owners do. That's literally the point. If you don't have the players forcing certain revenue sharing, the player's overall salary numbers will go down. Its wild to watch you over and over argue the players only care about money but the revenue sharing is only an ownership thing. Forcing revenue rules is the entire MLBPA goal. I don't think there's as much pressure to spend it from owners as you think. Because they aren't forced to send as much as they could be. Its a cost of doing business. They don't get to keep that money if the other team doesn't spend it. Its gone. The other team not spending it just makes it easier for them to win and make more money. The average fan is never handed 1.8 million (Wallner's signing bonus) at any singular point in their life. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing and I understand you need to find a way to justify going against your claimed principle of not liking greed. But, no, Matt Wallner is not like the average fan no matter how much you want it to be true. The average American isn't a millionaire in their early 20s.

They aren't on a formal revenue share, but the MLBPA has played a massive role in the rules governing how the owners split the revenue and thus how much is spent on players. Listening to your thoughts about revenue sharing being entirely an ownership issue would lead to the owners removing all requirements for spending revenue share and the amount of money the players get would go down. The only thing the players care about is revenue sharing and the rules surrounding it. Its literally the opposite of your claims. Again, this is the entire point of having the union and the CBA. Stopping the owners from making all the financial rules themselves. Its complete nonsense to suggest the players don't and shouldn't play a role in that discussion. Its the only discussion they care about and you say as much yourself. Your arguments are literally counter-arguments. You don't want the billionaires making the rules cuz they'll screw everyone over and then you turn around and argue the players shouldn't care cuz its "entirely an ownership issue." And I don't relate to Matt Wallner in any way. Being closer to me than he is to Tom Pohlad doesn't make him in any way the average American. It just makes you feel better about defending the greed you claim to hate.

I just laid out a revenue sharing option for the owners. It didn't include any rules requiring any of them to spend any certain amount of money (beyond minimum contracts) even though they're sharing their revenue. Your repeated claims that the revenue sharing problem is entirely an ownership issue is so wildly ridiculous. You don't for one second believe that the owners actually care about competitive balance. It's actually the basis of your entire argument against, and hatred for, them. They only care about money (which you don't see as a problem for the players because you've somehow convinced yourself they're somehow like regular people, but that's another discussion for another day). The owners aren't trying to fix competitive balance for any reason other than improving the financial position of themselves. Which is what you want the players to be doing. Improving their financial position. But then you keep arguing it isn't their problem at all. If the players leave it up to the owners to figure out their own way to "solve" the issues they claim to care about but we all know they don't, they won't end up in a better financial situation. They won't end up in the same financial situation. They will end up in a worse one. Your arguments are counters to each other. Players should only care about making sure they're getting as much from the evil billionaires as possible while also leaving it completely up to the evil billionaires to decide how to best split up their revenues. It's nonsense. The entire point of their "generations long-held red line" is to have a say in how the revenues are split up so they can get as much of it as possible. Claiming that's then "entirely an ownership issue" doesn't make any sense at all. The owners would absolutely destroy the player's cut of revenue if the players listened to you and treated revenue sharing as "entirely an ownership issue."