chpettit19

Makes sense to me. My point being that Detroit didn't just do it because Falvey asked super nicely and the Tigers were feeling extra generous that day so they decided to throw a couple extra mil the Twins' way. There was something given in return. Teams don't just eat millions in salary for fun. The Twins had a choice to make with their leverage. They chose the money. Which is their prerogative. But I don't understand people's argument that the Twins couldn't have gotten anything better than the deal that was completed. Because the Tigers didn't take on Dobnak's deal for nothing.

What do you propose is the reason Detroit took on Dobnak's deal? Why did they do that? I'm super curious what people think the logic of that is from Detroit's side. What reason does Detroit have for adding millions of dollars to their payroll for nothing in return? Just really nice people over there?

More than 1 thing can be true at the same time. Getting anything at all in return for Paddack is a win. That's true. Jimenez is a nice lottery ticket return in this deal. But the Tigers didn't take on Dobnak's contract for fun. The Twins paid a price for that. I'm not sure what price people think that could have been other than a lower ranked prospect. It's the only thing the Twins got in return. So, it's the only thing that could've been lowered in value. The Tigers taking on money as part of the deal (eating Dobnak's deal) means the Twins gave up some prospect capital. Both things can be true. The Twins got a lesser prospect in return by making the Tigers take on Dobnak to save the Pohlads a couple mil and the Twins still got a nice little return for a player who wasn't going to be part of the future anyways.

Falvey meets with/talks to Baldelli every single day. They are one and the same. The lineup changes are an analytics thing. They're driven by front office data that is provided to Baldelli daily. If they fire Baldelli they aren't going to hire somebody who doesn't believe in matchup based lineup decisions. That's the point. Baldelli is a symptom, not disease. Firing him doesn't cure anything because he'll be replaced with the same symptom. That complaint of yours is a complaint about a Falvey belief. Falvey believes in matchup based lineups. Without removing him it doesn't matter who below him is removed because he just replaces them with other people who believe the same things and will run things with the same philosophies.

While I don't believe in "log jams," Boston is actually getting close to having too many outfielders. With Roman Anthony, Duran, Abreu, Rafaela, and Yoshida. Their next prospect to debut is likely Garcia (not even going to attempt that first name) who is already on the 40-man and tearing AAA apart. If there was ever a time to trade from a strength, this is it. That's 6 guys for 4 spots. Yoshida is a DH so I wouldn't want him. But I'd call about the rest and I think Mr Breslow would be happy to talk to his former club about their arms in exchange. No idea what a final deal would look like, but I think there's a path there.

Wilyer Abreu from Boston would probably be my target. Or Duran. This offseason I'd have a lot of talks with them about my pitching and their OF bats. Those are 2 way players that would hit at the top of this order. They'd have to put more in the deal if its Ryan going their direction, but I think they're a good trade partner. Baltimore is another possibility. You know I love Basallo. And they need pitching. Bad. Cowser is kind of interesting to me. They'd be more of a secondary target to me because I don’t think there's an established bat for sale there.

I'd only trade them for MLB ready or established talent that other teams already developed. They only have the pitching for 2 more years, the window is closing. Fast. Boston has too many OFers and they're willing to deal Duran or Abreu. Duran or Jax aren't nearly enough, but one of our starters are this offseason. Now you have a legit, 2 way MLB outfielder to add to the top of the Twins lineup plus more depending on which starter you deal. Moises Ballesteros is ready to hit in the bigs right now. If you can get him for either of the relievers now you've added 2 bats. But I'm not one who subscribes to the "fire Baldelli and the coaches and its all fixed" hypothesis. They fired the hitting coaches after last season. How's that working out? It starts at the top. The FO and the coaching staff are one. The sooner people realize that, the better. Falvey can fire Baldelli, but he's just going to bring in somebody else who believes in the same kind of things because he believes in those things. He's not going to hire somebody who doesn't believe in using the players he brings in the way he believes they should be used. Until Falvey goes, nothing else matters.

Fully agree. I completely agree they shouldn't trade their non-expiring players just to trade them. That'd be incredibly foolish. I like the 2 top 100 price. I think its a smart bar to set. I don't think they'll get anyone to pay it, but it only takes one so there's always a chance. What I'm pushing back on with that comment is the idea that you can't/shouldn't trade these guys in general because they're good. They're good right now and it doesn't matter. The Angels didn't want to trade Shohei because he was good either. So they kept him and he played in 0 playoff games for them and now he plays across town and they got 1 pick for him. Juan Soto was good for the Nats and they didn't want to trade him, but they weren't winning. We're (well, not me I'm on my way up north for a camping trip) about to get a front row seat to Gore, Abrams, and Wood and how exciting those 3 are. Plus they have another filthy top 100 pitcher from that deal. And could turn Gore into more if they feel like it. I'd definitely prefer to wait until the offseason to deal a starter. Unless you're absolutely blown away with some sort of overwhelming deal now. But I don't understand how people think this team improves without trading a real piece or 2. How long does this position player group have to fail? What gives people faith the next wave of prospects are going to be so good in the next 2 years when the Twins have failed to produce any consistent position player talent at all in 8 years?

Again, I've said many times I like that the Twins have put 2 top 100 prospects as the asking price. I think its the smart move. I'm not disagreeing with them requiring that. I'm saying I don't think they'll get it. I didn't say the Twins don't have leverage, I said the Twins don't have ALL the leverage. The Twins shouldn't sell Duran or Jax just to sell them. But they're also not likely to get what they're asking. Just like Cleveland isn't likely to get it for Clase even though he's worth it. And all these posts saying 2 top 100 isn't even enough are nonsense. Nobody can find an example of any trade like this being done. Nobody. And, yes, that does matter when the point the author clearly stated he was making in his comment and I've been making is their ability to actually get that return. They may get it. It only takes one team. But everyone here should be highly impressed with Falvey for setting a new precedent if he does. Because there is none now. And that matters.

Yes, that is what's holding them back. And nobody has been willing to throw out any suggested answer to my question on how you improve the hitting without trading some of the pitching. They have the pitching for 2 more years. Then they lose it for comp picks. How do you improve the hitting in the next 2 years so the team can win with no real money to spend? You have to better balance the roster or you're just going to have 2024 and 2025 happen in 2026 and 2027 and then watch Ryan, Lopez, Ober, Duran, and Jax ride off into the sunset. How do you win in 2026 and 2027 without making any trades of real talent?

I said from the beginning I don't like that site and I guessed they'd be in the 20-30 range which wouldn't be as much as 2 top 100 guys together and they aren't. You're choosing to round up and say they are. I'm saying the same thing can be done and rounding down can be done to say they're worth the 1. It's not "ummm." It's the same stance I've had on that site for years. Me being able to see an article from a week ago saying they had just changed Duran's value to 19.3 and now you telling me it's at 26 is just another example of why that site isn't as useful as people like you try to make it. Duran pitched twice between those "value" changes. The idea that his value changed by nearly 40% in that time period where he gave up 2 runs in 3 innings is a joke. That's not based on data, that's based on rumor and blind guessing by random people behind computer screens. So, no, it very much is not "ummm." It's the same stance I started this conversation with when you brought up the trade simulator and I said I didn't like it. You just provided another example of why I don't like it. Teams didn't change their evaluations of Jhoan Duran by 40% in the last week. That's not real. I don't think the Twins will get 2 top 100 prospects for either of them. If they do, great. It'll be the most impressive thing Falvey has done in a long time. If they don't, I'm good with that, too. I've said many times I think setting the bar there is smart. My point has been that there is no evidence that any of you can provide that it is so blatantly clear that relievers are worth what you're claiming they're worth. You called the author's stance "absolutely bizarre" and the best evidence you have is that a massive spike in their "trade simulator value" over the last week puts them almost within reach of one of the packages the author presented. Nobody can provide a single real life trade that compares to anything they're suggesting is a realistic trade deal They just claim it's obvious it's what they're worth even though no major league team has made a similar trade. That's my point. I'm sorry I expect there to be a little precedent for claims. Not asking for a lot. Just a singular trade to point to. Because I can provide numerous trades that suggest you guys have all overvalued relievers pretty significantly, and the author is far closer in his suggestion.

They're the prospects from the article, I didn't just pull them out of nowhere. And from the Cubs perspective Ballesteros is basically the same value as either of them. If you get to round up why don't the Cubs get to round down? And, shoot, if Duran's value jumped 7 points in a week the Cubs may as well wait a week and see if either of their guys jump that much, too! Another reason that site isn't so useful. Nearly 40% increase in a week? What did Duran do in the last week that changed his value that much?

So, Duran and Jax alone aren't obviously worth 2 top 100 prospects according to your preferred value source either. But you're still convinced it's "absolutely bizarre" that people say that? Isn't the more bizarre thing that so many people are so convinced that they're worth so much with no actual evidence? Sure, and the Cubs and other teams can go get Dennis Santana from the Pirates, Jake Bird from Colorado, Carlos Estevez from the Royals, Reid Detmers from the Angels, Pete Fairbanks from Tampa, Ryan Helsley from the Cards, David Bednar from the Pirates, or any number of other relievers without giving up a single top 100 prospect, let alone 2 of them. And then next year the Twins have Duran and Jax worth less value and have to find some other magical way to improve their team without meaningful money to spend or valuable players traded. The Twins don't hold all the leverage because teams have other options. Duran and Jax aren't the only playoff caliber relievers on the market. The teams don't have to over pay for the Twins product when they could get 3 playoff caliber relievers for less than you're suggesting the Twins should clearly get for 1.

No, I made the claim that Berrios at the time of the trade was more valuable because he pitched more innings. The context mattered. Ok, what does the trade simulator say about the deals presented here? I don't subscribe so I have a limited view. I can see one article where they just updated Duran's value to 19.3. Their home page has a fan suggested trade that includes the Cubs' Ballesteros who's value is 19.5. You're the fan of the trade simulator. It's saying that not only is Duran not worth 2 of the Cubs' top 100 guys, he's almost exactly worth this one. Which is exactly what the author said and you called "absolutely bizarre." And Duran is the guy people are saying is the more valuable reliever the Twins have. And I'd guess the simulator agrees. So, that'd mean Jax is worth less than the 19.3. Which means he's probably worth around what the #82 prospect Alcantara is worth? You subscribe to the simulator and want to confirm that? So, at this point nobody can provide any previous trade showing relievers are worth what's being suggested and now your own suggested value source is showing that they're not worth what you're suggesting they're worth. What is the argument here?

Berrios didn't have that contract when he was traded so you're not comparing the right things. The math is very different now. The discussion we were having was about what the package was for Berrios when he got traded with 1+ year left on his deal. His value now has no bearing on that discussion. Who said Jax and Duran aren't among the Twins top 10 most valuable trade assets? Certainly not me. That has nothing to do with whether or not they're worth 2 top 100 prospects. Jax and Duran are absolutely 2 of their 10 most valuable trade assets. It's why they're being discussed in trades. It's why I'd look to trade one of them. You can't make your team better by trading your bad players for good players. Despite what some people around here want to do in some of their wild trade suggestions. Do you have a trade of a reliever in the last 5 years that shows they're worth a single consensus top 100 prospect? Tanner Scott and 4+ years of Bryan Hoeing brought back Robby Snelling who made a singular top 100 list (MLB's) last year. Scott was the best reliever on the market and the Padres got 4 more years of Hoeing and they couldn't get a singular consensus top 100 prospect in the deal. Garrett Crochet was just traded this offseason with 2 months less control than Jax and Duran. That's a legitimate ace starting pitcher. He's already thrown 135.1 innings this year. That's about as much as Jax and Duran will throw combined for the entire season. They're at 90.1 on the year right now. And he brought back 2 top 100 prospects and 2 dime a dozen prospects. Why should we believe Duran and Jax are worth nearly as much as him? Provide a single trade of a reliever in the last 5 years that shows they're worth what so many here are suggesting? I have no problem with the Twins setting the price at 2 top 100 guys. I think it's the smart play. But the suggestion that they're not only worth that but more isn't based on anything that's actually happened in major league baseball recently. I'm not a fan of "the trade simulator." Mostly because I think fans take it far too literally. But I'd guess they have the value of these 2 guys in the 20 to 30 range. Which is far from enough to bring back 2 top 100 guys let alone more than 2 top 100 guys. If you believe in the simulator so much, have you run all these deals through it for each of these guys individually? What does it kick out? Does it say Duran and Jax are more valuable than all these deals? Or is it more along the lines of what the author says and that it'd take both of them to bring back these types of prospect packages?

No, I wouldn't even think about it unless you're adding something significant to Duran. Relievers simply aren't worth that much. A starting pitcher throws 100 more innings a season. And Berrios specifically throws 140ish more innings. That extra season of Duran still doesn't catch him up in impact because he still won't throw as many innings. The problem with your theory is that the Dodgers will just go elsewhere. Because they don't have to buy Duran. Or Jax. I understand that your argument back will be that the other options won't be as good, and that's fine. The Dodgers won't care. They'll be good enough. Shoot, they can get Paddack for a flyer and put him in the pen. Dennis Santana from the Pirates, Jake Bird from Colorado, Carlos Estevez from the Royals, Reid Detmers from the Angels, Pete Fairbanks from Tampa, Ryan Helsley from the Cards, David Bednar from the Pirates. None of these guys are costing nearly as much and they can all pitch in October. The Dodgers can easily just go get 3 of these guys without giving up a single top 100 prospect. And it's all good if you're good with that. I think setting the cost at 2 top 100 prospects is reasonable. But suggesting Duran is worth more than that isn't realistic, in my view. Yes, the Dodgers are injured now, but Snell is coming back soon (actively rehabbing). Treinen is coming back (actively rehabbing). Sasaki will be back. Scott avoided the dreaded ligament injury so should be back no problem. Graterol may be back. Kopech will be back. That's 5 or 6 pretty big time arms. They're not just going to throw out a crazy trade when they can supplement their loaded roster in the mean time by giving up much lower prospects and still get really good relievers. Their FO is way smarter than that. Again, Garrett Crochet is a legitimate ace. He had 2 months less control than Duran has. He went for 1 nothing prospect more than you're suggesting Duran is worth. Duran simply isn't worth that. And you can't find an actual deal that was done to show he is.

I'm not "gung-ho" to trade them, but they're not winning with this pitching. They didn't win with them last year. They aren't winning with them this year. How do you propose they win with them next year? They aren't going to have money to bring in some stud free agent. They haven't developed a position player worth a darn so I'm not sure why we should believe next year they're suddenly going to have a bunch of these guys suddenly be stars. How do you make this team better? How do you stop the 2026 team from just being the 2024 and 2025 team all over again? What would your plan be if it doesn't include trading any of the pitching?

The Cubs got Chapman for Torres a decade ago, not last year. The Red Sox just gave up 2 top 100 prospects plus 2 dime a dozen prospects for 2 years of Garrett Crochet. He's no mid rotation starter. This idea that Duran or Jax are clearly worth at least 2 top 100 prospects isn't based on anything obvious. The Marlins couldn't get 1 consensus top 100 prospect for Tanner Scott and 4+ years of Hoeing last year.

Does anybody have an actual comp to suggest the Twins should realistically get more than these deals for either of these guys? Does anybody have an actual comp to suggest the Twins should even get these deals for either of these guys? Robby Snelling (the big get for Scott last year) was on 1 top 100 list by the time he was dealt last year (MLB's). The other pieces in that deal were highly ranked in their system, but their system was awful because of previous deals (mostly the Soto deal) and graduations (Merrill). And Scott wasn't even the only MLB reliever in that deal. Hoeing is a good reliever who had 4 more years of control when he was included in that deal with Scott. And they combined to fetch Snelling who was a top 100 guy on 1 list and 3 guys who you don't want to look up because they are doing awful this year. Is there any other actual comp to suggest that it's realistic to demand more than 2 top 100 pieces for any reliever? Even with 2 more years of control? I very much think the demand of 2 top 100s is a good bar for the Twins to set, but there's so many posts here acting like that's not even enough. Is there a reason to believe that beyond not wanting to trade these guys? And I totally get not wanting to trade the talent we have. But I'll again ask, how else do you propose they improve this team? If they don't trade real talent how do they make the 2026 team better than the 2024 and 2025 teams? And if you're going to trade a piece or 2 of real talent you have to be realistic about the return in that trade. And I'm not sure there's a whole lot of people looking at what deals for relievers have actually been completed recently. Garrett Crochet was just dealt with 2 years of team control left. And he returned 2 top 100 guys plus 2 other pieces. Do people really think an extra 1/3 of a season of Duran is worth nearly as much as a legitimate ace starting pitcher? That can't actually be people's stance.

That Chapman trade was a decade ago. The way FO operate has changed. I'm not sure that's a good comp anymore. I'd say we should use the Hader deal, but they got an established closer back in that deal so it muddies the waters some. I'm not sure there is a good comp for Duran or Jax with all the control they have. I think setting the expectation at 2 top 100 prospects is a good general idea for the Twins. It's a high bar to clear for relievers. I know fans try to claim the Marlins got a lot for Scott last year, but Snelling was only a top 100 guy on 1 list by that time and was off every list by the end of the year as he was free falling in rankings. And the Padres also got Bryan Hoeing so it wasn't even just Scott in the deal. It was 2 MLB relievers, including the best reliever on the market and the other with 5 years of control for no top 100 prospects. The Twins are very unlikely to get 2 top 100 guys for either of these guys. 1? Sure. But 2 would be pretty darn impressive. Garrett Crochet only got 2 top 100 guys in return (plus 2 others) and he had 2 years of control. I doubt either of these guys are traded because the Twins have rightly set the bar high and teams simply aren't likely to meet that asking price.

I don't think they're playing each other, but I don't think either is planning to move any of their top end arms because I don't think either team expects to get offered the packages it'd require to move them. Falvey is still driven by the numbers and won't make a deal if the value isn't there. And it's hard to get value for guys with this much control. The odds aren't 0 because some contender may get desperate. The Dodgers, for example, are incredibly injured right now. And the Phillies always need pen arms so they may be interested in one with extra control. I think Falvey still believes in the general ability of this team to compete, but will do some selling of the expiring deals because the numbers say his playoff odds are just too long for this season. There's too many teams between them and the last wild card spot. I don't think he'll do any big selling if it's not for what appears to be an obvious win. Especially if Lewis keeps mashing until the deadline. The Guardians have had Clase rumors for at least a year. There's a couple Smith rumors floating about. They have Kwan rumors. They always have rumors. They rarely trade guys with this much control left. For the same reason as Falvey, the value has to be there. They aren't in the business of giving guys up for less than they're worth. It's why they're usually good. They get value. I highly doubt Clase or Smith are moved. Or Kwan. Although, a Kwan for Emma deal is intriguing to me.

Already off it.

Camargo had Tommy John. He's not going to be catching again until 2027.

If that's his timeline, this entire conversation is moot because he's not worth talking about. Guys who take 2 years to get from AA to the majors and another year to become a regular aren't actually regulars. Even those of us saying "let's not get too carried away here" aren't talking about a 2027 call up, we're talking cup of coffee this year with real time next year. If he doesn't get a cup of coffee this year it's not crazy, but if he isn't getting real playing time in the majors next year he's taken a step back and he's getting passed up by others. Or should be if they're developing any talent at all.

It's not useful information. The situations are completely and utterly different. The Twins were buyers at the deadline last year. They're sellers this year. The other posters here are under the impression this is new, recent information from Hayes. A conversation with the White Sox at last deadline has nothing to do with the Twins at this deadline. The Twins were 59-48 at the deadline last year. Completely and totally different situation. This stuff about the White Sox asking for Jenkins, Emma, or Lee for Fedde is completely and totally irrelevant. Fedde just got DFA'd by the Cardinals. The Twins can get him for literally nothing right now.