chpettit19

I'd argue the Maeda trade has been an unquestioned win to this point.

I like it. Can't imagine the Padres are giving up Weathers at this point, though. If Snell and Paddack were pitching better I think this is a deal that could maybe get done, but Weathers would start a playoff game over either of those 2 right now so can't imagine they'll deal him. Perhaps Paddack instead of Weathers coming back to MN?

A conversation requires at least 2 parties exchanging ideas. To this point you've refused to share any ideas beyond "the longer this team waits, the less of a return they will get." without any reasoning as to why. So I will move on to discussions with people who are willing to provide ideas and not just be condescending while refusing to discuss actual ideas. Hope you have a wonderful day.

I don't see your point. You haven't made one. You compared the trade deadline to a test. They aren't comparable things. A test is an individual activity that has only 1 possible answer to each question. The trade deadline is an interaction between dozens of people with moving parts and human dynamics. So if you have a reason to believe that getting closer to the deadline equals worse prospect returns for selling teams I'd love to hear it as perhaps I'm mistaken in my belief and I'm always looking to gain more knowledge. But so far I've provided multiple reasons why I take the stance I do and you've provided a picture of a horse that compares 2 things that aren't comparable.

I don't get it. That isn't an argument against any of the points I made. Do the Twins need to trade Berrios more or do "Contender X" need to add a pitcher like Berrios more? If the Twins don't trade Berrios by tomorrow at 3 CT they still have him for next season. They can still trade him in the offseason. If Contender X doesn't trade for Berrios (or another pitcher of his quality, of which there's only 1 other available) they're stuck. If the Dodgers get Scherzer today does that raise or lower the Padres offer for Berrios? I'd argue it makes Preller more desperate to stick with the Dodgers and Giants by upping his offer. So, if you'd like to have a real discussion on this, I ask again, why is it automatically a failure that they haven't traded him yet? You can respond to my points about the other handful of players I listed in the other post too if you'd like. But I'm not interested in meaningless memes that don't have any actual arguments or counterpoints. Sorry.

I'm not sure why deals not having been done yet is such a concern. The Twins have some throw away expiring contract guys (Simmons, Happ, Colome, Robles) who won't fetch anything more than a lottery ticket, if that. so I can't imagine there's real negotiations going on about any of them. They're basically team calls, Twins say we need 1 of these handful of guys, other team says yes or no, move on. Then there's a Pineda type who may have a little more back and forth as he's on an expiring deal, but he's still useful. But he's low on the list of targets for contenders. Sure, a contender will take him for a lottery ticket A ball player now, but if that contender is the one left standing without one of the Scherzer/Berrios level guys it's entirely possible the contender ups their package as they're more desperate to get another arm. As far as Berrios goes I'm not sure why things not getting done yet is bad. Scherzer getting added to the mix changed the dynamics. He became the #1 target of anyone looking for pitching. If the Twins have set their asking price for Berrios and are sticking to it I don't know why that's bad. The goal isn't to unload him just to unload him. They can still deal him during the offseason if they're not getting offers they like now. Or next deadline. Or take their comp pick. I'd like to just get it over with and see what they get, but the idea that they've somehow failed by not trading everyone yet doesn't make sense to me. The deadline itself is a great motivator for the contenders. Not sure why the assumption is the FO is automatically screwing things up because moves haven't happened yet.

I think Abrams will be top 5 on every major prospect ranking that comes out after the deadline. Top 1 or 2 on some. Don't see any way the Padres move him. He'll be their CFer of the future if they want Tatis at SS. Or Tatis will move to CF if he's open to that. Either way I don't think there's any chance the Padres trade him for anyone currently available at the deadline. Him and Tatis are their future up the middle.

I'd certainly take Campusano back, but agree with Dman that I don't really like the Padres system as a match for the Twins. They could certainly sell a Gore and Campusano return for Berrios being a great get, but Gore is free falling down rankings and doesn't seem to be the same guy anymore. Could the Twins (or another org) fix him? Always possible, but I'm sure the Pads are still trying to sell him as a top 5 pitching prospect in all of baseball and he isn't that right now. As for the Twins catcher depth and adding Campusano to it I like the idea, but wouldn't be my priority. I like Jeffers and Rortvedt, but I don't think anyone would argue there isn't room for improvement there if you can make it. I question how much longer Garver will be a catcher as he gets into his 30s. He's already bad defensively, and if he's going to be one of their better bats the next couple years you'd want him to be in the lineup more than he would be as strictly a catcher. I like the trio, but they certainly need an influx of minor league talent. I'd just focus on SS (again agree with Dman that Toronto is a better system fit as I'd like any of their top 3 SS prospects) over catcher. That trio being around for 2 more years with 2 of them around for the next 5 gives me enough comfort to prioritize SS as we are severely lacking in true SS talent on the horizon (I think Lewis and Polanco can survive there, but are better in CF and 2B respectively).

For sure. I don't see a lot coming behind Rortvedt in the system so think they can bounce him back and forth as needed for the next couple years until Donaldson is gone and Garver really shouldn't be behind the plate. If they had another youngster coming I'd be more open to moving one of them, but their catching depth is shot. May be the only reason Tortuga is brought back next year, honestly. I'd honestly DFA Sano to make room at 1B/DH before I moved one of their 3 catchers simply because of the lack of depth at C. Keep those 3 for relatively cheap and spend the money it'd take to bring in another Castro type elsewhere.

I'd keep them both. And Rortvedt. Garver has 2 arb years left (I believe) that will take him through his age 32 season. Jeffers should have 5 years left and Rortvedt 6 if my memory serves on their service time. Not a ton of catchers staying super productive beyond age 32, especially offensively which is where all of Garver's worth is. I think it sets them up well to have Rortvedt up and down as injury fill in the next year+ while he works on his bat in the minors then as Garver moves on Jeffers and Rortvedt provide a solid catcher tandem. Or if Garver is still mashing you keep him around as a DH/1B as he ages. And depending on what the Twins do with the DH position moving forward they could carry all 3 at the same time. I'd prefer a 12 man pitching staff with 14 bats, but that's a different conversation for a different day. But having 3 catchers on the roster allows for you to pinch hit for Jeffers or Rortvedt late in games without fear of injury causing you to put in an emergency catcher. Rotating Garver through DH/1B/C allows for a lot of flexibility in the lineup and keeping him in there more often. That's not so much of an option if the Twins go fulltime DH again, obviously. All that said...it all goes out the window if/when the service time rules change with the new CBA. But that won't happen til the offseason so I can backpedal after that. But catcher is a hard position to fill so keeping multiple MLB quality guys around would be my move.

If Dan Hayes and his sources are to be believed you've overshot what Buxton is willing to take in guaranteed money. Hayes says Buxton (his agents) and the Twins are on the same page with a base 7/80 deal. It's the top end of his incentives that are the holdup right now. Maybe Hayes' sources are wrong, but with the way Buxton is talking it sure sounds like they're relatively close and he isn't expecting 100M guaranteed.

I think I'd try to get him some ML ABs this year. He's got to be feeling about as good as he's ever felt at the plate. Let him see if he can carry that hot streak over to the majors and build some confidence going into next year. And give the FO a look at him against big league competition so they have an even more informed opinion on whether he can be a contributor next year. If he struggles at the next level he will go into the winter knowing how pitchers are going to attack him and what he needs to work on.

Pitching is obviously needed, but it's also the hardest thing to get teams to give up. Simeon Woods-Richardson would immediately become our second best pitching prospect, at worst. And add another arm that could debut this year even. Bringing in him and a top 100 up the middle prospect (I want Martin, but Groshans was what the article suggested) would be a huge get for the Twins in any deal. Throw in a second well regarded (but not top 100) up the middle prospect and it's hard to say the Twins really bombed. If they can bring back Pearson or Woods-Richardson, plus Martin or Groshans, and another top 10 Blue Jays prospect for Berrios I think they'd do that in a second. Adding Rogers to that deal changes things a little, but they still probably can't expect much more than that in a deal. Maybe get another low level lottery ticket thrown in for him. But Simeon Woods-Richardson would move the needle as much as just about any reasonable return the Twins could be looking at in the next 5 days. There aren't many better arms that could possibly come back in a trade, realistically. And the Twins aren't even remotely loaded with up the middle talent in the minors. Most of their top position prospects are corner guys. Adding Groshans, or Martin, is definitely something this org could use. Depending what outlet you're looking at they'd possibly take over as the #1 prospect in the system and both could realistically debut next year.

I'd prefer to try to pull Austin Martin from the Jays instead of Groshans, but would be very happy with that return. Don't think the Mets are giving up 3 of their top 6 prospects for Berrios and Simmons, so I'd be thrilled with that return. Padres trade seems quite reasonable and I'd be happy with that.

Feels like Rooker has 2 months to show he has the chance to be an above average MLB bat. He's brutal in the outfield and should never be out there again. With his negative value in the OF he would need to be a plus bat to be worth taking up a roster spot. If he can play a passable 1B he'd still need to be a plus bat. If he's a DH only he really needs to be a plus bat. I don't see it as I just don't think he can get those K numbers down. But he has 2 months to show he deserves a spot on the 40 man as the Twins hit the offseason with some decisions to make there. I may not see him having a future here, but they should certainly give him the DH spot and let him run with it for 2 months and see if there's something there. As for trading him, I just don't see him having much value. Certainly don't see teams giving up pitchers or up the middle players of any quality for him. So at this point you let him go for 2 months. Maybe he shows something another team likes and you can trade him during the offseason if he doesn't fit here. Wouldn't be trying to trade him in the next week, though.

Exactly this. This is what good organizations do for their players. I have to imagine they sat down with Nelly and asked him where he'd like to go, or not go, and did what they could to get him to one of the teams he wanted to go to while also bringing back some legit arms. As big of a bummer as it is to lose him (I was at the game last night so wished they'd had waited a day so I could see him 1 last time in a Twins uni) from a fans perspective, the team did right by him. Give him a shot at the ring he deserves.

Yes, but that's taking that sentence out of context of my entire post. I suppose I could have said "having to pay wildly more" instead. But the point of my post is that the markets made it pretty clear what Wheeler was worth. From what was reported by national outlets the Twins weren't wildly under that like people are making it sound. And as others have pointed out Chicago was actually above what he agreed to with Philly. MadBum made it abundantly clear he wanted to go to Arizona if they were competitive. The point is that the Twins going wildly above what a player is worth to convince them to overlook other priorities or concerns they have isn't a sound team building strategy.

Makes me wonder what the players are asking for. If Berrios is asking for Wheeler's contract and the Twins won't do it I don't get that at all. If he's asking for significantly more than that I can understand the Twins hesitation. Without any real knowledge of what the Twins are offering, or have offered in the past, or what the players are "demanding" it's really hard to say what is going on. Pohlad making comments about the Twins being able to afford both doesn't help anything. Of course they could pay them both, but what does that mean for the rest of the roster? Not sure what to think about the "still-in-arbitration discount" thought. I mean it's not Falvine's fault the system is what it is. It's unfortunate that teams have as much control as they do over the prime years of player's careers (changing that system is my number 1 hope for the CBA negotiations this winter), but it'd be poor team management to pay players huge contracts that ignore the arbitration system (which is supposed to allow lower payroll teams to compete since they can keep players like Berrios around longer at more affordable rates).

That bolded sentences don't prove your point. In fact it far more shows the point you're trying to disprove. Offering the same deal as the teams that signed players and having them choose different cities (Wheeler openly talked about wanting to stay on the east coast) is the exact definition of players preferring to play in other cities despite the Twins offering competitive deals. The Twins having to pay more than other teams to get players to come here doesn't equal competitive offers, it equals above market deals to make up for players not wanting to come here (whether it's location, FO, ownership, competitive window, whatever). Having to pay more to get players to come here isn't good asset management.

I don't want anything to do with Whitley as the headliner of any deal. More than happy with him as a potential flier/lottery ticket on a deal, but he's not the prospect he used to be. Still young-ish with the arm to be intriguing, but he's 23 now and hasn't pitched since 2019 where he got absolutely blasted at just about every level of the Astros system. 2017 was the only season he topped 60 IP so you're looking at quite the process to build up his innings totals to get him to starter level innings anytime soon. So if he's a secondary piece that you think can do well out of the pen early (I assume he needs to be on the 40 man, but don't know for sure) while he builds up his innings for a couple years before plugging into the rotation, cool. But as a headliner I want nothing to do with him. I generally don't like the Astros system as a fit for the Twins. I think pretty much everyone is looking for arms to return to the Twins in the deals they make and the Astros have already graduated the majority of their legit arms.

Keith Law released his updated top 50 prospect list today. Mets had 4 guys on it. Francisco Alvarez at 8, Kumar Rocker at 28, Ronny Mauricio at 36, Brett Baty at 43. Reference point to Twins prospects would be Balazovic at 38.

Megill, Allan, and Ginn would probably get a yes from me. Megill, Allan, and Dominguez would have me calling in my top scouts and analysts to have a serious discussion.

That's kind of the whole situation in a nutshell, right? Right now you're saying they only have 2 guys worthy of the rotation for next year and need to fill 3 other spots. The question becomes "do you think you can fill 3 rotation spots well enough to compete next year?" If you can't do that then is it really that big of a deal if you have to fill 4 spots instead of 3 when you can turn Berrios into future assets since you won't be contending before he leaves anyways? That's what the FO has to figure out. Hopefully they don't screw it up.

I don't know that Max really has another level he can hit consistently, but even the current edition of Max is significantly better than anyone they have to replace him at the moment. They should always be open to trading anyone if it improves the team/organization, but I don't see a trade for Max that would do that. And, as prouster stated, I don't know that 45th best trade asset is what I'd call "one of the most valuable." Interesting that they have him ranked 2 spots ahead of Tim Anderson. I can't say that I wouldn't trade Kepler for Anderson straight up right now, even with the difference in their contracts.

My rant was about specific posters on this site who have complained about a specific thing about Rocco then changed it today based on this particular game to then complain about the opposite of the specific thing they didn't like. Then I responded to your post about this particular game. I don't quite understand what you're saying here. You made a comment. I responded to it. I've also responded to comments on other threads today that have nothing at all to do with either game yesterday. I don't even know if your previous comment was directed towards me. I didn't take it as it being as you didn't quote me or anything. I was simply responding to a comment.