June 27, 20179 yr What would it take to get Haley's rights? If we said, "look, he's either going to the 60 day, and you get nothing, or you get Melo" (or wim or palka) wouldn't they accept and we option? What do they think they're going to get?The Red Sox have the leverage here. Even if the Twins DL him, Haley still needs to be active for ~48 more days to satisfy the requirement of 90, and he still can't be optioned this season in order to remove Rule 5 restrictions. So the Twins need to give him about 17 days of non-September roster time this year -- that's going to be tough for a club in contention with pen issues -- or be forced to stick him on the opening day roster again next season, which would affect our offseason signings, etc. If the Twins don't want him on theit roster anymore, I am sure the Red Sox would welcome him back as a non-40-man AAA starter who can't become a minor league free agent until after 2019 -- they have some rotation depth issues too. They probably don't want our fringe 40-man corner/relief guys in return -- they will probably get a chance at them on waivers soon enough anyway. And Wimmers is a minor league free agent after the season, etc. And before the Twins and Red Sox could even agree to such a deal, Haley would have to be off thr DL and clear waivers with the other 28 teams in MLB too (although he would still have Rule 5 restrictions attached). Long story short, there probably isn't a trade match there that both sides would like, which is probably why such Rule 5 trades are relatively rare. Last time, to get Diamond, we had to give up Billy Bullock, who eventually washed out but at the time he was a recent 2nd round, 23 year old, fast rising college relief prospect. I don't think we'd want to give that up now, for Haley!
June 27, 20179 yr The Red Sox have the leverage here. Even if the Twins DL him, Haley still needs to be active for ~48 more days to satisfy the requirement of 90, and he still can't be optioned this season in order to remove Rule 5 restrictions. So the Twins need to give him about 17 days of non-September roster time this year -- that's going to be tough for a club in contention with pen issues -- or be forced to stick him on the opening day roster again next season, which would affect our offseason signings, etc.If the Twins don't want him on theit roster anymore, I am sure the Red Sox would welcome him back as a non-40-man AAA starter who can't become a minor league free agent until after 2019 -- they have some rotation depth issues too. They probably don't want our fringe 40-man corner/relief guys in return -- they will probably get a chance at them on waivers soon enough anyway. And Wimmers is a minor league free agent after the season, etc.And before the Twins and Red Sox could even agree to such a deal, Haley would have to be off thr DL and clear waivers with the other 28 teams in MLB too (although he would still have Rule 5 restrictions attached).Long story short, there probably isn't a trade match there that both sides would like, which is probably why such Rule 5 trades are relatively rare. Last time, to get Diamond, we had to give up Billy Bullock, who eventually washed out but at the time he was a recent 2nd round, 23 year old, fast rising college relief prospect. I don't think we'd want to give that up now, for Haley! Oh man, the angst about trading Bullock. That was good stuff.
June 27, 20179 yr Oh man, the angst about trading Bullock. That was good stuff.Which was silly, because the front office had already replaced him by acquiring Jim Hoey!
June 27, 20179 yr Which was silly, because the front office had already replaced him by acquiring Jim Hoey! I'd have to ban myself if I responded to this post...
June 27, 20179 yr The Red Sox have the leverage here. Even if the Twins DL him, Haley still needs to be active for ~48 more days to satisfy the requirement of 90, and he still can't be optioned this season in order to remove Rule 5 restrictions. So the Twins need to give him about 17 days of non-September roster time this year -- that's going to be tough for a club in contention with pen issues -- or be forced to stick him on the opening day roster again next season, which would affect our offseason signings, etc. If the Twins don't want him on theit roster anymore, I am sure the Red Sox would welcome him back as a non-40-man AAA starter who can't become a minor league free agent until after 2019 -- they have some rotation depth issues too. They probably don't want our fringe 40-man corner/relief guys in return -- they will probably get a chance at them on waivers soon enough anyway. And Wimmers is a minor league free agent after the season, etc. And before the Twins and Red Sox could even agree to such a deal, Haley would have to be off thr DL and clear waivers with the other 28 teams in MLB too (although he would still have Rule 5 restrictions attached). Long story short, there probably isn't a trade match there that both sides would like, which is probably why such Rule 5 trades are relatively rare. Last time, to get Diamond, we had to give up Billy Bullock, who eventually washed out but at the time he was a recent 2nd round, 23 year old, fast rising college relief prospect. I don't think we'd want to give that up now, for Haley!To be clear, I'd just send him back next time we need a spot. The spot is more important than the player or player we'd have to trade, imo. The player you referenced doesn't sound that different from Melo actually.. Edited June 27, 20179 yr by Jham
June 27, 20179 yr Is Haley going to contribute in 2018. What IS his role. I sure haven't figured it out this year. We need a long relief guy, but I don't trust him unless it is a pure blowout, and we can extend Giminez's arm for that, soon (sic). The reality is that two more pitchers are heading to the minors, possibly three at some point, so we lost Busenitz and Hildenberger (which pushes against an already overflowing pitching staff at Rochester that has names like Pino and Turley and Gee blocking Reed and Curtis). I'm shaking my head at the musical chairs game of Minnesota Twins pitching...majors AND minors!
June 27, 20179 yr Oh man, the angst about trading Bullock. That was good stuff. Never mind the Bullocks.
June 28, 20179 yr To be clear, I'd just send him back next time we need a spot. The spot is more important than the player or player we'd have to trade, imo. The player you referenced doesn't sound that different from Melo actually..Bullock was a non-40 man guy, 23 years old, just K'd 14 per 9 in his AA debut. A bit different than Melotakis, but maybe not too far. Pre-DFA / 90 mph report, of course. Jake Reed, maybe? Not that I would offer him, of course, but he is not on the 40-man and is a bit younger than Melotakis.
June 28, 20179 yr Never mind the Bullocks. RottenJohn, GMatlock, StevenJ and PCdrummer like this post. Edited June 28, 20179 yr by LaBombo
June 28, 20179 yr Much ado about nothing... Per Mike Berardino, Mason Melotakis has cleared waivers. What a birthday present for Melotakis!
June 28, 20179 yr Obviously makes this a solid move. We'll also still have control of Melotakis through 2019 if we want, assuming no one selects him in Rule 5. (Although I feel kind of bad even admitting that, a guy in Melotakis' position should probably have the right to free agency after this season, but that only comes after the 2nd outright assignment or if he had 3+ years MLB service time.)
June 28, 20179 yr What a birthday present for Melotakis! Well, none of the other 29 teams wanted him. It's sort of like getting picked last for the kickball game, isn't it?
June 28, 20179 yr The Twins gambled, but it looks like they won. Hopefully Melotakis puts his head down, gets back to work, and takes back one of the 40 man spots that probably should have been vacated before his.
June 29, 20179 yr I'm a bit surprised Melotakis cleared waivers. It makes me wonder if there's something wrong with him if no other team was interested in taking a chance on a lefty who has had good velocity in the past.
June 29, 20179 yr Much ado about nothing... Per Mike Berardino, Mason Melotakis has cleared waivers. Well put. 30 teams have spoken, Melotakis isn't worth a roster spot.
June 29, 20179 yr Well, there is one potential issue. If the Twins decide to bring him up at some point, they'll have to move some else off the 40 man to do it.
June 29, 20179 yr Well, there is one potential issue. If the Twins decide to bring him up at some point, they'll have to move some else off the 40 man to do it.I wouldn't worry too much about this.
June 29, 20179 yr Falvey and Levine need to build a time machine, so they can travel back in time to keep Jason Kubel out of the Arizona Fall League. Only then will I be convinced they are good at their jobs.
June 29, 20179 yr Well, there is one potential issue. If the Twins decide to bring him up at some point, they'll have to move some else off the 40 man to do it. Yup, the same is true for Gonsalves, Tonkin, Wimmers, Jake Reed, John Curtiss, JB Shuck, Niko Goodrum... and everyone else not on the 40 man.
June 29, 20179 yr 200 comments of angst about a career minor league reliever, all for naught. As usual, other teams not perceiving Twins pitchers with quite the same luster as this board.
June 29, 20179 yr Well put. 30 teams have spoken, Melotakis isn't worth a roster spot. Of course management has more information than we do. That doesn't mean they are always right, and it doesn't mean they above reproach. If a fan forum can't post opinions to that fact, I guess I don't see the point. I guess don't understand the "angst" about the "angst".
June 29, 20179 yr I find it super depressing that so many think we shouldn't discuss moves the Twins make.....or ever question a move. What, exactly, is the point of this site? edit: and, heck, I didn't even say it was a bad move. I said I didn't understand it. Edited June 29, 20179 yr by Mike Sixel
June 29, 20179 yr I do hope we get a chance to see him in the majors before he gets DFA'd again, should that happen. I imagine that's inevitable if it happens this year, since the only reason to put him on the 40 now would be in order to bring him up. I'd like to see him get a chance, and I'm not too worried about having too many good relievers to try him out. I suppose the same thing could happen next year, though, if they decide to keep him then. I would love to know why all the other teams passed on him- geez, seems like either Toronto or Baltimore has grabbed just about anyone the Twins have dropped over the years. What's the famous phrase, left-handed and breathing???
June 29, 20179 yr I wouldn't worry too much about this.No doubt. The list of potential candidates is not a short one.
June 29, 20179 yr Maybe this is baby steps towards trusting the current FO more than the previous regime?
June 29, 20179 yr Hmmm, I think I've seen this movie before: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/24833-twins-dfa-byungho-park/
June 29, 20179 yr Hmmm, I think I've seen this movie before: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/24833-twins-dfa-byungho-park/ My personal favorite was when Zack Jones went unprotected for the Rule 5 draft.... Some of those taeks melted polar ice caps.
June 29, 20179 yr I find it super depressing that so many think we shouldn't discuss moves the Twins make.....or ever question a move. What, exactly, is the point of this site? edit: and, heck, I didn't even say it was a bad move. I said I didn't understand it.Of course we're supposed to discuss moves the Twins make, it'd just be nice if we could leave descriptors like "clueless" out of the discussion when discussing a brand new front office. This is Twins Daily, not RubeChat. We should demand better of ourselves from both sides of the argument. And most posters in this thread were better than that.
Create an account or sign in to comment