chpettit19

What are the right spots? The new rules have made it really hard to use lefty specialists. It's why there aren't many left. If you can't get both side hitters out you're not useful on a modern day pitching staff. They haven't been lighting it up, but adding a guy who's given up 15 runs in his last 8 innings isn't helping that. If I were bringing in a reliever this deadline it would've been Tanner Scott.

No. I don't care what your splits are when you're an overall bad reliever.

Reverse splits are not appealing when they lead to an overall bad reliever. I don't see how this move raises the ceiling on the 2024 Twins in any way at all. Feels like a move just to make a move.

Yeah, that wouldn't excite me. Difference is the Twins are choosing not to add top line talent. I assume you're not actively choosing not to be a professional golfer and make millions of dollars. The Twins are making a choice. They could add if they were willing to make the sacrifices needed.

Gonzalez for Scott I'd do in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even think twice. If they'd take that I hope he's in NY tonight and they can show a nice clip of him walking into the dugout mid-game. I'd try to take Jenkins out and add in a Festa, Raya, + package with Emma. Throw Julien in on that, too, if they see any value in him. The Twins have 6 top-100 prospects on multiple lists. I'd be very hesitant to add Jenkins, but a combination of 2 of the others should be enough to get a conversation going. And I'd be willing to trade some guys folks around here didn't like moving. 2024-2027 is their window. You don't have to sacrifice the entire future to make this squad a legit threat for the next few years. Adding Skubal to the rotation through 2026 would give them arguably the best rotation in baseball. I'd risk a lot of prospect capital for that.

I mean, he had 3 years of less than mediocrity because he couldn't even stick in the majors. I don't want anybody the Twins can add for a PTBNL. That doesn't increase this team's odds of winning the World Series. That's exactly why I wouldn't be happy with a Topa addition at the deadline. That just doesn't raise the ceiling on this team. They need top line talent, not guys you can get for a PTBNL.

I would not at all have been happy with a 33 year old reliever with 1 good MLB season who hasn't pitched in the majors at all this year as the deadline pickup. I don't view him as "like a trade deadline pickup" at all. I view him as a wild card lottery ticket we hope is useful this year.

I don't think it's "all in." Rotation: Lopez, Ober, Ryan, SWR all under control through 2027 at least. My suggestion of Skubal adds him through 2026. That's maybe the best rotation in baseball for 2-3 seasons. That's not all in for 2024. Even if it's Snell instead, that's still 4 rotation spots locked up through 2027. Pen: Stewart, Jax, Duran, Sands, Varland all locked up through at least 2027. That's a pretty solid base. Lineup: Correa, Buxton, Lewis, Julien, Wallner, AK, Miranda, Larnach, Lee all locked up through at least 2027. That's a pretty nice little start to a lineup. That's 18 guys locked up through at least 2027. The system is in great shape right now. I just don't see trading a few top 10 prospects as being some death blow to the future of this organization. If those 18 guys aren't good enough to build on over the next three years because you lost Emma and Festa and Raya then it's not good enough to start with and they should start pivoting. If they can't replace a handful of prospects in the next 3 seasons their future is doomed anyways. I just think this is the time to start taking some swings. You have a core locked up for 3 more years. Take advantage. If this isn't a good enough core to risk a few prospects, they'll never have a good enough core. I think every year from here on out is going to be pretty extreme on the seller side. That's the nature of adding so many playoff spots. Many more teams think they're in it.

If the Twins added Skubal and Scott they'd be pretty close to the favorites. Certainly in the conversation. But we can agree to disagree on that.

How many teams have ever traded for a #1 starter, elite reliever, another reliever, and an upgraded bat? Dodgers got Scherzer and Turner a couple years ago. It cost the Dodgers their top 2 prospects, and a top 15-20 prospect (and a random throw in). I think our disagreement is in the definition of "going for it." Has there ever been a team he "went for it" the way you're describing? Blake Snell can be had for 1 prospect (look at Scherzer and Verlander deals last year). If "going for it" has to mean what you suggested then the team isn't close enough to even think about doing that. But, generally speaking, teams that are going for it aren't going after all that. If the Twins think they need a #1, an elite reliever, a second reliever, and an upgraded bat to have an increased chance at the WS this year they should be leaning towards trading some expiring deals instead of trying to add anything.

That's fair. I'm sure that's who they'd ask for. But if they see Emma as a top 30 or 40 global guy who's ready to join their team next year he's an awfully close replacement. Closer to the majors may give a boost. But certainly may take Jenkins.

That's 2 top-100 prospects plus others. I don't think that's a riot worthy proposal. Soto and Bell brought back 3 top-100 prospects plus others. 2 top-100 guys is a pretty reasonable starting point I think.

The Twins have their entire core locked up through at least 2027. Do you really think trading a couple top prospects hurts them that much in the long run? Do you not believe they can produce anymore prospects between now and 2027? My dream trade is packaging Emma, Festa, and Raya with whatever other lower prospects is needed to get Tarik Skubal. Is that a move that is significantly hurting their long-term World Series prospects to just help this 1 year? What about Emma for Snell? Is trading 1 top-100 prospect really going to hurt their long-term chances that significantly? I just don't understand this idea that trading a top prospect or 2 is somehow going to just ruin their future years.

They can have Raya, too. 2 top 100 prospects is a pretty good starting point for a Skubal trade I'd think.

Emma + Festa + lower prospect or 2 for Skubal. Sign me up all day.

The club didn't get to, and stay above, .500 until the middle of July last year. They went into the break 45-46. They were 60-58, barely staying above .500, on August 11. There was nothing about last year's team that suggested they had a decent chance of doing much damage in the playoffs. They struggled to pull away from an historically bad division until the middle of August when Cleveland finally collapsed. They finished 73-89 in 2021. They were 78-84 in 2022. And then they were below .500 at the break in 2023. I'm not sure why their lack of attendance then is surprising. Once they started playing well and got to the playoffs the fans showed up. The team then decided to immediately (less than a week after the World Series finished) throw water on that excitement. Last year's team did not have the expectations that this year's team did. They are not good comparisons.

If "going for it" blows up your organization to the point that you're dropping your team from 5-6 chances to 1 chance, your organization isn't in a very good spot. If trading 2 or 3 good to really good prospects tanks 5-6 years of your team you're not close enough to "go for it." If the Twins trade Festa and Keaschall or Zebby and Emma or any combination of their top 5 or 6 prospects do you believe it takes them from 5-6 years with 6-8% probabilities to just this year with a 20% chance while tanking the next 5-6?

I also don't believe he's stepped foot on a major league field in 2024. He did get to 4 WAR once in his career, though. Broke 3 WAR his rookie season, too. So if you ignore his other 3 seasons, and this mostly missed season, one could argue he's a 4-5 WAR player.

"The overall Twins franchise - inclusive of all entities - has supposedly been annually losing over $10MM on a cash basis for several years." Is this not somebody saying the team loses money every year? Not just some money, but over $10 million a year "for several years." They didn't say they've averaged that loss, they said they lose it annually. Which means every year according to the dictionary. Maybe avoid the super-sized, bolded, italicized, underlined text when you're actively ignoring posts in the very thread you're condescending people in. Before you call me illiterate which seems to be your favorite word in this thread, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of annually: "once a year: each year." Examples: an event that occurs annually. a report that's published annually. So, yes, people are claiming the Twins lose money every year. If you want to argue the Twins are trying to make up for 2020 losses, cool. Makes sense. But your chart shows they've lost money in 3 of 21 full seasons. Suggesting they've ever lost money on a regular basis is ignoring your own data. 2020 is an outlier. If they want to try to make up for that, cool, but it is not an example of them running at a loss when participating in a normal, full MLB season. The Twins do not run at a loss over an extended period of time.

Depends if they want to keep Jazz in the OF where he's terrible or move him back to the IF where he's good.

Dan Hayes yesterday: "Team sources say the Twins aren’t in a position to add significant salary at the trade deadline, which is why the front office is targeting starting pitchers in a thin rental market...One club source described finances as tight and suggested an opposing team might need to absorb salary in a deal, which would likely cost the Twins a better prospect in exchange."

For sure. I think most of us understand that this was a move made for legitimate financial reasons in 2024. I don't think that explains their absolutely horrid public strategy, but it certainly explains the business decisions. I just don't find it all that plausible that they've been losing significant money for even a handful of years while still keeping the same person in charge of them making money. It's entirely possible, I just don't think it's all that plausible.

Dave St Peter was named the president of the Twins November 26, 2002. I think we all believe the Pohlads understand the financial results of their business entities. That's actually my point. To believe they've been losing 10s of millions a year, even for just a handful of years, you have to believe that's acceptable because they haven't changed the guy in charge. Or it just isn't true. How many years are they willing to lose 10s of millions? 2? 3? 4? 5? I find it hard to believe they've kept DSP if they've been losing 10s of millions each year since 2020.

If they are actually losing tens of millions a year I'd be even more confused as to why Dave St Peter has held his position for 2 decades. I think most of us can understand why the Twins cut payroll from a 2024 revenue stance. I think it's pretty universally accepted that they lost a good chunk of change in 2020. But I find it hard to believe that they've been losing tens of millions of dollars for numerous years and continue to employ the same person to run their business. Most of the public projections have the Twins making money annually. Paired with the fact that they've let the same person run their business for as long as they have I find it hard to believe they've been losing tens of millions a year. If they have, then that's clearly acceptable to them and they must be set to lose even more this year to get to a place where it isn't acceptable. If you let the same person run your business for 2 decades while losing 10s of millions you're either ok with that number or you've done something that allows that person to blackmail you for 10s of millions a year. It simply doesn't make sense to me that they'd continue to employ DSP in his role if they were losing that much money year after year. I don't find that to be a very plausible scenario.

Legitimate question, where are you seeing that the Twins have been losing over $10 mil in cash for several years?