chpettit19

The Twins don't NEED to trade Joe in the sense that they would still have the offseason and next deadline to make a move. But the Twins SHOULD trade Joe this deadline. Joe's patented 2nd half fade, and Pablo Lopez are the exact reasons why they should. Pablo was the other big chip they had to play and now he's completely useless in trade. Joe blowing out his elbow on August 1 would mean they no longer have the offseason or next deadline to move him because nobody will want him. It was said all offseason that the Twins didn't have to move Lopez or Ryan because of the control they have left. Some of us pointed out that there was risk in holding onto them. Pablo showed that risk immediately when spring training started. There is risk in not trading Joe just like there's risk in the prospects you get back. Joe isn't young. He may not have 10 years of experience, but he didn't debut until he was 25 and get real time in the majors until he was 26. He's about to turn 30 in 3 days. Would I love current Joe around for another 5+ years? For sure. But odds are that he starts to fade in the next couple. The Twins got his prime years and moving him for prospects is absolutely the right baseball move. Paying for his decline years is not a smart baseball move. The Twins should trade Joe Ryan before the deadline. Do I have faith they actually will? No. But we'll see.

It was pretty widely reported that Zoll ran the deadline last year. He brought in Taj, Abel, and Rojas who are all pitching well in the majors this year. He brought in Mendez who is about to kick the door in to the majors. I don't know if those guys will all continue their success, or what Tait, Jiminez, etc. will become. But to this point it's hard to say Zoll didn't do a very good job last deadline. And, yes, trading Joe Ryan is 100% Tom P's call. He's not going to be picking the return or deciding if it's good enough, but he will absolutely make the determination if they trade him. If Tom doesn't want to trade him before the new CBA, it doesn't matter if it's Zoll or whoever your favorite all-time GM/POBO is running the show, Joe Ryan isn't going anywhere.

They played him at 1B twice in AA (11 innings). There was talk of him getting work there in the AFL, but he never played it in a game. My guess is they've spent a good amount of time with him at 1B outside of games. It's entirely possible that he can't field that position either. I've never seen him there, so I have no opinion, but it's possible all the guys people talk about just moving to first have been tried there and they simply can't field that position. Wallner, Larnach, Gabby, Mendez, etc. may all have taken hundreds of grounders in practices that none of us saw and it was very clear they couldn't field them. The bar for his offense is likely going to be very high no matter where he ends up because it's likely he simply doesn't have the physical ability to field any position well. It's his biggest challenge right now.

I'd go Flora over Lombard, but the draft has a lot more intrigue at the top than people expected. With Lackey putting up the numbers people hoped (expected?) Roch to put up, there seems to be some real decisions that need to be made at the top. Even before including bonus demand talk. Makes for a more exciting draft cycle!

They clearly don't believe in Fedko. And as a 26-year-old there's certainly room for doubt. But if you won't even play Outman, what's the harm in giving Fedko some run? When you're moving Kody Clemens to CF to avoid playing someone, it may be time to just move on and at least give some other folks some run. Fedko likely isn't good enough, but why not find out? Give him some run and see what he does. Maybe you have a 4th outfielder on your hands. Maybe you have a platoon OFer on your hands. Maybe he's a late bloomer and things have finally clicked for him and you have a guy who can play everyday. You've clearly decided Outman can't play. Why not try someone else? Mendez continues to move up my list of prospects I'm most excited for. Kid can flat out put the bat on the ball. Groundball rate is still higher than you'd like, but the LD rate has come up and at some point you just need to look at a guy who puts the barrel on the ball and puts up numbers and say there's something there. Yelich has had a GB rate over 50% for 12 of his 13 seasons and I think he's done alright for himself (needs to be noted that his 1 year under 50% was 2019 when he put up a 174 wRC+). That kid definitely needs to see the majors in 2026 if he doesn't absolutely fall apart. No idea what his future holds defensively, but they need to see the bat this year.

"As the summer unfolds, the hope is that the Twins can be competitive in this division." I'm sorry, but that is not my hope as the summer unfolds. I understand it is some people's hope, and I have no problem if it is. But it certainly isn't mine. My hope isn't that the Twins can compete in a division full of below average teams (Cleveland isn't below average, but it sounds better to say full of) while staving off the real decisions and moves that need to be made so they can compete with the above average teams the rest of the league has. My hope as the summer unfolds is that the Twins re-accept that they aren't good enough and they need to put their efforts into building a future that has a chance to be good enough. I am not sure what the chances of that are with the new Pohlad in charge and my belief that their only intention and driving force of their decisions is to best set themselves up to maximize their sale price in 2027. But it's my hope. Trade Ryan. Trade Jeffers (if he's back and regains value). Trade anyone else who won't be here in 2028 and can bring back value for the 2028 and beyond seasons. My ranking of the division is: 1. Cleveland 5. Teams that need to be building for the future.

The Twins don't even want to see Outman as they've moved Clemens to CF just so they don't have to play Outman. But they roster him anyways. I'm just not smart enough to understand why a team rosters a vet they won't even play.

I view this year as relatively similar to the Jenkins draft, but the Twins are picking 3rd in a 4-player draft instead of 5th in a 5-player draft. It may actually be a 3-player draft, but the top high school guy is always going to be part of the discussion (Emerson isn't as tooled up as I'd like a top 3 pick HS guy to be). I'd be happy with any of the Roch, Lackey, Flora, Emerson group, but that's probably the order I'd put them in. Bonus demands will play a bit of a role in who's there for the Twins at #3, I think. Roch hasn't run away with the #1 player spot like everyone expected, and it wouldn't be the most shocking thing ever if the White Sox went another direction if someone is willing to take a below slot deal to go #1. I would be pretty shocked if Roch made it to #3, but certainly happy to have him if he does drop for whatever reason. I think the most likely decision the Twins have to make is Flora vs Lackey. And I'd be fine either way. If they think Flora is a front of the rotation arm, I'd certainly understand that pick. If they think Lackey is an elite bat, I'd be more than happy to have him. My preference is for one of the 3 college players over Emerson, and Lackey would make me very happy. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to draft him because of Tait or Jiminez. He's on a different level than both of them. He'd come in as a top 100 prospect. Maybe top 50. If all 3 make it, that'd be a wonderful problem to have. It's more likely only 1 of them will, and Lackey has the best chance. Don't overthink it. If you think his bat is elite, take him.

What do you base this stance on? You don't think he's a top 10 talent and needs to agree to an under-slot deal just to get picked?

The strategy being bad and the Twins being unable to deviate from pre-game plans are 2 different things. There is nothing that says you have to pull your starter at a set time just because you have a bulk guy who was scheduled that day. If Ryan goes 8 and you're up 1-0 in the ninth and he's out of gas, you can bring in your closer (would be cool if the Twins had a real one). The league isn't going to call and say you have to put bulk pitcher x into the game. You can save him for the next day. Actually, the article does a great job of laying out the timelines these guys have thrown on, and it wasn't an exact set timeline for any of them. And the number of innings they threw wasn't the same every time. The Twins have been adjusting to game situations. How is using up 2 pitchers in a day worse than using 4 pitchers in a day, 2 of which probably threw on back-to-back days and are now unavailable for future games? If you get through an entire game with just 2 guys, is that not a far better situation than needing 3, 4, or 5 guys every night? I don't get how people act like bullpens aren't insanely overused these days by going with 5 starters and 8 one inning guys. Every inning a bulk guy throws saves innings from everyone else. Everyone else gets more rest that way. It's why starters going longer in games helps more. The more innings you can get from anybody, the more it helps everyone else. The fewer arms you use in a game the better it is for the pen overall in future games. I don't understand the logic behind wanting to use more pitchers every game in an attempt to save arms from being unavailable in future games.

Having bad pitchers throw more is not a good strategy. I think the general idea is that there's more options than just 5+ inning starters and 1 inning relievers and this could get their best pitchers more innings. I've wanted them to put Varland in this role for years. He was lights out once through the order when he was a starter. Then he fell apart. You don't think there's value in having a guy who can get through an order really well 1 time pitch 2 or 3 innings instead of being relegated to just 1 inning? The more guys you have that can go multiple innings, the better, right? Isn't that the entire reason we have starters? Otherwise, why wouldn't teams just go with thirteen 1 inning guys? Ideally, I'd love to see more starters going 6, 7, 8, 9 innings. The good ones do. But the middling ones can't. The third time through the lineup thing is real. Go look up random Hall of Famers and how they did the 3rd time through. Most of them were noticeably worse, too. They were just so much better than the average pitcher that their "worse" was just as good as the average guy's "normal." But they did get worse the 3rd time through. And now teams have even more data and are even better at adjusting mid-game (well, some of them). If 8 or 9 of your best arms are starters, why would you want to turn 3 or 4 of them into 1 inning guys or send them to AAA instead of having them be the 8 or 9 guys who throw the most innings for you? As those guys start getting hurt (pitchers always get hurt) you replace them with your next best arm. If it's a 1 inning guy, cool. If it's another starter who can throw multiple innings every 3 or 4 days, cool. Why do we need to lock guys into 2 roles? Long relievers can't just sit on the bench for weeks on end without ever getting into a game waiting for a blow up or injury. When do they throw a pen to keep themselves stretched out? Can't throw a long enough pen to simulate 3 or 4+ innings today because if the blow up or injury happens tomorrow, now that guy can't throw. It's why you don't see 30 guys rotting away at the back of every bullpen. If you have 8 or 9 guys. Or 7. Or 6. Eating multiple innings on a regular basis (every 5 days for your rotation and every 3 or 4 for the other guys), it also gives all your 1 inning guys more rest and means there's less of a need for throwing on back-to-back days. And that'd make them more effective in all of their appearances. Joe Ryan and Pablo Lopez types are allowed to go more than twice through an order. Average starters typically aren't given that leash regularly because they are a step below the Ryan and Lopez tier. Then there's guys like Mason Miller and Jhoan Duran who it's decided can't hold up to a starter's workload, so they turn into 1 inning monsters closing out games. But Jax is showing us now that he can throw more than 1 inning effectively. You wouldn't have preferred 120 innings out of Jax instead of 60? Varland was great once through the order and never seems to wear down. You wouldn't have preferred 120 innings out of him instead of 60? There's middle ground between starters and 1 inning relievers. Teams need to figure out how long (innings, pitches, times through the order, whatever) a guy can be effective without breaking down. Then find a way to maximize that guy. If they can only do 1 inning, nice, that's their role. If they can do twice through the order? Great, here's 5 or 6 innings most of your appearances. If he can get once through an order? Wonderful, here's 2 or 3 innings every 3 days. If he can slice and dice a lineup until his arm falls off most appearances? Perfect, here's a spot at the top of our rotation, go get'em, big boy! The Twins lack pitching talent. Especially in the pen. We all knew that coming into the year. This strategy isn't (or shouldn't be) a means to make crappy pitchers better. But if Ryan, Ober, Abel, Taj, Zebby, Rojas, and Prielipp are all on top of their game and healthy at the same time, which ones do you want in AAA wasting bullets or being turned into 1 inning guys in the majors instead of throwing multiple innings and saving us from watching Luis Garcia, Justin Topa, and Zak Kent types get smacked around every night?

That article is the math I've always thought should drive this. Crazy to me that the MLBPA doesn't have the data to look at this kind of stuff. Maybe they do and the numbers in that article are wrong? To me, if the goal is more money in player pockets, the simple decision is to estimate how much you think the league makes now, figure out how much of that is going to players, and decide if it's more or less than 50ish%. If it's less, then you should be the ones fighting for a cap/floor situation with strict rules on what counts as revenue, what doesn't, and how you get your 50% every year. It all comes down to what percent you think you're getting now and what percent you want to be getting. Real easy decision if the math says you'd be getting more with a cap/floor.

Hartman, Caminiti, and 2 other pieces or JR Ritchie from the Braves. Done and done. I think you're underselling the Dodgers' outfielders, though. I'd certainly prefer a legit fielder, but if De Paula is going to be an Alvarez/Martinez/Ortiz/Cruz type DH, I'd be very happy with him as the centerpiece of a deal. Up to the Twins to decide if he can be that, and get him there if he can. I think Quintero, Sirota, and Hope are all intriguing as well. Not big on Tibbs or River, but as the 3rd or 4th piece in a deal they would be very nice. If you can snag 3 or 4 of those guys you should jump at it. I wish Baltimore had a little more in the minors as they've been my destination for Ryan for a while. Was hoping for a Ryan for Basallo deal last year. That ship has sailed (unless Baltimore is getting real crazy). Ike Irish is interesting as a possible long-term 1B solution, but I don't think I'd be real happy with him as the centerpiece. Him and George is a solid 1-2 punch in a deal, but I don't think I'd love any realistic deal with them. Walcott is certainly incredibly intriguing, but he's going to miss essentially this entire season so I'd want another top 50ish guy with him and I don't think Texas has one which would make a deal with them pretty tough. Milwaukee would be the ideal situation as they have premium up the middle players coming out of their ears, but they'd be putting themselves in the same situation as the Twins with Ryan under short control so I'm not sure you're talking them into Made or Pena. I think there's deals to be done, though. Teams will throw a bunch at the Twins if he keeps rolling like he is now.

I don't think they can, or would, extend Ryan. So, trade him. As soon as they get the wonderful trade package that will absolutely come their way. Pablo Lopez is exactly the reason you trade him. Or his 100% rate of fading in the 2nd half of seasons. Trade Joe Ryan. Get a haul. And start preparing for the future.

Royce needs to go, unfortunately. I was the president of the Royce fan club for a long time, but it's time. For both sides. The Twins need to get out from under the "number 1 overall pick with flashes of superstardom" trap and Royce needs to go to a new organization to get his mind right. It's broken on both sides at this point. Once a player starts talking about how he thinks members of the organization want him to fail it's time to move on and just clean the slate. Even if you get nothing and Royce turns into a star wherever he goes, trading (or cutting?) him is the right move. He doesn't trust the org and the org doesn't seem to have any way to fix him (his AAA numbers alone mean nothing). The relationship has run its course. Time to move on. And that is a really crappy thing to have to say.

Then the players are idiots. How the money is dispersed in the league and the rules that govern it is incredibly important to the players. The Dodgers having to give more money to the Twins but the Twins not having to spend that money is very bad for the players. It means less money being paid to players. The players don't care about it for the reason of balancing competition, but they very much care how the revenue the league generates is dispersed. It's their entire fight every CBA.

Because it's all based on CBA negotiated rules. The owners want more money. The players want more money. Prices go up because they all want more money. And the MLBPA plays a role in what the rules governing the money the league brings in are. You're arguing they need a soft floor while also saying the players play no role in anything financial. If the players don't force a soft floor rule the owners will continue to have no floor. The entire point of the union is that the players get a say in what and how the owners do things with the revenue in MLB. I am not interested in continuing this discussion. You are free to believe what you'd like. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And the players use the same propaganda just in the other direction. I get it. Yes, you can absolutely build a system with a soft floor and cap that better balances things. I don't understand your stance that the players have no role in anything, though. It's nonsense, and pretty clearly built largely, if not exclusively, on your biases towards billionaires. The owners are raking in money. All of them. The players not pushing for certain things and just letting the owners decide how they want to split up their money doesn't help the players at all. If the players are so convinced that the teams have more money to spend than they actually do, and don't feel they're getting at least 50% of the revenue they're driving, then they should absolutely be actively in the fight for deciding where MLB revenue goes. If they truly believe there's more money to be spent they shouldn't be fighting for a soft floor, but for a hard one. One that forces a certain percentage of the money they feel MLB is making, and not paying them, to go to them. The players should be doing everything they can to be involved in the revenue sharing decisions because it gives them the chance to force more money their way.

I can agree with that in general terms. My core desire is that every fan can go into every season feeling that their team has a legitimate chance to succeed if it's run well. The Dodgers aren't successful only because they spend. They were really bad for a long time while spending. The Mets are bad even though they spend. The Dodgers are the best run organization and also have the most money. That puts them in a position to go on what could be a pretty crazy run of success. One could make very compelling arguments that Tampa, Cleveland, and Milwaukee are 3 of the 5ish best run organizations in MLB. They have absolutely no ability to do what the Dodgers do. None. Zero. And their fans know it. But if the playing field is leveled in a meaningful way, suddenly you have those teams with a chance to make Dodger like teams. All I ask is that more of the results are based on actual front office competency and less on simply money.

I disagree that there's already enough parity, but don't wish to get into that discussion here. I'm fine with a soft floor and cap or hard floor and cap. I feel change is needed, but that change can come in a number of different effective forms.

I think it depends on what rules you put around the revenue sharing. And the enforcement of those rules. Splitting all local TV money would certainly bring the massive revenue advantage teams like the Dodgers and Yankees have down, but if you don't actually force the Pirates and Twins of the world to spend it, it doesn't really do anything. And the Dodgers have plenty of other income sources to still wield a pretty sizeable advantage lead by their desire to win and not only make swimming pools full of money. I don't think it's a hard argument to make that teams aren't spending the revenue sharing they get now in an attempt to win. If you don't add, and enforce, rules along with the increase in revenue sharing you don't really make much progress if the Pohlads still care more about making money than trying to win baseball games. It'd be improvement, but not substantial.

MLBPA interim director Bruce Meyer: “The last time the owners made such an explicit push for a cap — over 30 years ago — it led to the longest work stoppage in MLB history. For generations, our members have fought against cap systems because they harm players at all levels, erode or eliminate contractual guarantees, pit player against player, lead to more work stoppages, not less, and get worse for players over time. Caps don’t lower ticket prices for fans, eliminate tanking or ensure teams are run with equal competence. They suffocate competition by offering owners an all-purpose excuse for inaction and mediocrity.” The players had made their proposal the day before. It has a "soft floor" at 50% of the luxury tax number. Floor at 150 million and luxury tax at 300 million. Anyone below the floor would have penalties similar to those above the luxury tax threshold.

The one I saw was all local-media revenue would be shared.

I don't expect him to have reverse splits for his career, but he absolutely murdered left-handed pitchers in the minors. Including at AAA. Like over a .900 OPS. The Twins undying obsession with platooning everyone lead to 46 PAs against lefties in 2023 and 44 PAs against them in 2024. The very definition of small samples. He got 97 last year and we saw the OPS start to rise. There's no reason to believe Matt Wallner can't hit lefties. In sample sizes over 50 PAs a season he's done incredibly well against them. He's been a victim of Twins macro-analytics.

.782 within 2 runs. .708 within 1. Yeah, late and close is bad at .577. But those other 2 numbers aren't bad at all. .719 was the average OPS in baseball last year. .782 is well above average while .708 is just below. This idea that Wallner has been atrocious with runners on and is simply "not clutch" is based on people's feelings from last year. The 2 seasons before he was outstanding. It's all smallish sample size. But Matt Wallner has not been this awful black hole in the lineup with runners on base. Even in close games. Since the start of the 2023 season, Matt Wallner is 59th in baseball in wRC+ with runners in scoring position for players with at least 60 PAs in that time. There are 992 players with at least 60 PAs in that time period. He's 59th. 2 outs and RISP? 47th out of 962. High leverage? 52 out of 1060. High leverage, 2 outs, and RISP? He does crater there. Below average with a wRC+ of 80. So, he ends up in the section of the list with Yordan Alvarez (wRC+ 83), Francisco Lindor (81), Brandon Nimmo (80), Christian Yelich (79), Matt Chapman (79), and Teoscar Hernandez (73). I'm betting there aren't many fans screaming about teams needing to get rid those guys. Probably not many claiming those guys are "knee shaking terrified." That Alvarez fella has a .944 OPS in the postseason. Guess he only "appear(s) to tense up and (be) knee shaking terrified" during those regular season games, but not postseason ones?