Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players


Squirrel

3,995 views

 Share

Twins Video

We’ve had several threads/articles lately about next season … what you think the 2022 lineup will be, who do we want to sign, what are our positions of most need, will certain players have a place on the team next year. All very good discussions. And not too far in the future, we’ll be having discussions on which prospects should be added to the roster. But before we get to all of those, there are larger looming discussions and decisions regarding the 40-man roster … who stays, who goes. When I thought about doing this thread, I ran into a lot of difficulty exactly how to do this. It seemed easy enough initially … who should the Twins jettison? Well, after thinking about it, a lot, hemming and hawing, trying to learn more about the status of individual players (something I am not well-versed in, I fully admit), and after discussing with others what I wanted to discuss, (thank you @ashbury, @Otto von Ballpark and @Brock Beauchamp), I realized the question might not be ‘who do we jettison’, but rather’ Who should we keep?’ I found the question to be, well, daunting. It’s really a big puzzle when it comes down to it. Time is a precious commodity. You want to maximize the time you have of your best prospects/players, so you don’t want to add them before they are ready, so you can capitalize on their best years; and don’t want to jettison a struggling player too soon, only to see them finally figure it out elsewhere. We’ve been down that road, too. Once a player is added, removing them certainly means losing them, if they have any kind of potential, great or small. You want to make sure you’ve really done your due diligence to determine the value you have. So, this 40-man thing is one to be cautious with. In a recent conversation I had with Brock, he said this: “I think of it this way: about 35 spots of the 40-man are locked down with good prospects or MLB veterans. An org might play fast and loose with those final 3-4 spots but they spend A LOT of effort avoiding tampering with that 35 unless they have confidence in what they’re doing.” So … part one of this discussion … position players on the Twins’ 40-man roster … who should the Twins keep? We won’t see these decisions come to fruition all at once. It will happen gradually. I’m sure the Twins have made some decisions already, but others will ‘hang out’ until which time the Twins either feel they have a better replacement, decide to make trades, need the space for prospect additions, or feel they’ve just reached the ‘end of the road’ with them. So … of the listed players, who would you keep? Discuss any reasoning below.

STATUS PLAYER Options FA FA if outrighted?
28-man Luis Arraez 2 in 2026 (arb eligible 2023) YES
28-man Byron Buxton n/a FA in 2023 YES
28-man Jorge Polanco 0 signed through 2023, club options for 2024 and 2025 YES
28-man Josh Donaldson n/a signed through 2023, club option for 2024 YES
28-man Max Kepler n/a signed through 2023, club options for 2024 YES
28-man Mitch Garver 2 FA in 2024 YES
28-man Miguel Sanó n/a signed through 2022, club option for 2023 YES
28-man Nick Gordon 0   YES
28-man Andrelton Simmons n/a At end of season  
28-man Ryan Jeffers 2    
28-man Willians Astudillo 1   YES
28-man Jake Cave 1 FA in 2025, arb eligible 2022 YES
28-man Brent Rooker 2    
         
60IL Kyle Garlick 1   YES
60IL Alex Kirilloff 2    
10IL Rob Refsnyder 0   YES
         
40-man Ben Rortvedt 2    
40-man Drew Maggi 3   YES
40-man Trevor Larnach 2    
40-man Gilberto Celestino 1   YES
         

 

Many thanks to Otto who did this chart for me, and I filled in some of the contract info, and to Brock and Ash for bearing with my endless questions.

 Share

54 Comments


Recommended Comments



2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I know he has options, I'm saying I don't reserve a 40-man spot for him.

If he can sneak through waivers, sure, keep him... but I'm not dedicating a spot for him at this point.

Dude has an xOPS of .775 this year and is in the top 15-20% of MLB hitters for exit velocity, barrel rate and hard hit rate on BaseballSavant. 0.00% chance he slips through waivers.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dennistwinsfever2 said:

I just listened to the Rand podcast, and the bit had Phil Miller on as a guest. ...Also, both suggested that Polanco is moved back to SS, and use as a bridge to Lewis. That would allow Arraez to move to 2B, and allow Gordon to be utility. "Gleeman and the Geek" really do not like Nick. Any thoughts?...

 

I think I've been as opinionated as anybody on Polanco at SS as anybody, but he's arguably the worst regular starter to play the position in 20 years (I'm being literal here). If the Twins want to bridge, I think they're far better off just grabbing a short term free agent and sticking him there. I mentioned Eduardo Escobar as an option previously. He's not viewed as a shortstop by other teams, but I didn't see anything in his physical tools suggesting he couldn't still be adequate there. Arraez has a lot of trade value. I think you move him or Polanco this offseason.

Link to comment

I see the following retained:

Arraez

Buxton (Hopefully signs an extension.  If not trade him.)

Polanco

Gordon

Sano (Hopefully we see a full year like the second half of this year)

Jeffers

Kirilloff

Larnach

Donaldson

Kepler (could be packaged with Garver and prospects for a decent pitching up grade)

Garver (see above)

Miranda

Celestino

Possibly 2 out of Refsnyder, Rooker and Garlick.

No Cave we have enough younger outfielders.

 

Link to comment

I have no idea.  The biggest question for me is who has value to other teams and what can we get from them?  Then there is the FA question - which FAs fall into the list that actually might be willing to sign with the Twins?  The prospects needing to be named are a good group, but too many coming off injury to project them in the majors.

The only reason I can see for Cave playing during the last few weeks is hoping he hits enough to interest someone else.  He hasn't.  He is my first drop.  Rooker, Refsnyder, Garlick are the kinds of players that fill out the rosters of bad teams - I want something better.

SS is the biggest puzzle.  I cannot believe that Simmons might come back, but all the discussions eliminate us from the big book boys and say our own players can't play SS.  So what might happen?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

Rooker, Refsnyder, Garlick are the kinds of players that fill out the rosters of bad teams - I want something better.

I'd say that's definitely true for the backups on the 26-man ... but I'm not so sure that one or two of them could be a good option in AAA for depth? There are a lot of 'it depends' in all of this because, well ... it depends! lol. All I know is that you have to cautious about who you keep with as much as who you drop. Fun and frustrating puzzle to mull over.

Link to comment

In trying to get down to 40 players to begin the off-season, I start from a similar point as others have stated.  40-man roster management is hard, but becomes at least a little less intractable by partitioning it into playing positions.  The coarsest such partition is simply hitters and pitchers.  A 20-20 split between them isn't how it's done anymore, but for this stage of thinking I'm going to aim for 19-21 rather than radically overweight toward pitching with 18-22 or even 17-23.

According to MLB's 40-man roster for our Twins, there are currently 20 batters either on that roster or else temporarily shielded by being on the 60-day IL.  (That same logic comes to 29 pitchers, so the next part of the decision making process is going to be more difficult).  So now I further partition into 3 groups.

Catching: we have 3 guys on the roster (not counting Astudillo), and I keep all 3.  Gee, this is easier than I thought.

Infield: In this group I include Arraez, Astudillo, and Rooker (1B for lack of a real position) which gives a count of 9.  I let Simmons walk, and DFA Maggi.  Replacing them are Royce Lewis and Jose Miranda who are rule-5 eligible, leaving the total at 9.  Still fairly easy.  I'm missing a true shortstop but that probably has to come from free agency - I don't prematurely cut someone else in anticipation, but when that time comes, there will be candidates remaining - we're not an all-star squad.

Outfield: Counting Kirilloff (whom some might think debatable in the OF) there are 8.  I am happy to mark for disposal Garlick and Refsnyder who are mediocre hitters with no outstanding defensive talent to help make a case.  That leaves only 6, which is a little light, but several of the nominal infielders can fill in, in left.  CF remains the most critical to have coverage for, and Cave seems to remain the best range if Buxton is unavailable and Celestino's bat isn't ready next spring - and Lewis among the infielders might be capable in CF but is right now too much of a question mark - so I am not quite as eager to be rid of Jake.  Anyway, that brings us to 6.

Huh. 3+9+6=18, so I came in with 1 fewer than I expected.  Maybe I protect Maciel in CF, but he had a mediocre year at high-A so I don't think Baddoo Lightning will strike again.  No, I'll hold off on adding him (conceptually) to my 40-man planning until the pitching side of the question is sorted out better.

In summary, Simmons walks, and I explore quick trades involving Maggi, Refsnyder, and Garlick, planning to DFA them if nothing like that pans out (it probably won't in each case) before 40-man rosters are locked in for the off-season.

Next up, the hard part: pitching.

 

/ Those who know me will assume that my thinking is heavily influenced by having played dozens of off-seasons using Out Of The Park.  The above does indeed reflect how I go about it, but no one wants to read me wax eloquent about that aspect.  Suffice to say that I have been burned too many times by allowing my roster to be unbalanced and thus too small in one area of need during the course of a long season.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Huh ... I didn't get that far into my thinking, but that is a very pragmatic way of doing it.

Two aphorisms come to mind:

For every complex human problem, there is a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. – H. L. Mencken

Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.  - Albert Einstein

So I'm kind of trying to thread the needle here, between two smart guys. :)

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, ashbury said:

In trying to get down to 40 players to begin the off-season, I start from a similar point as others have stated.  40-man roster management is hard, but becomes at least a little less intractable by partitioning it into playing positions.  The coarsest such partition is simply hitters and pitchers.  A 20-20 split between them isn't how it's done anymore, but for this stage of thinking I'm going to aim for 19-21 rather than radically overweight toward pitching with 18-22 or even 17-23.

According to MLB's 40-man roster for our Twins, there are currently 20 batters either on that roster or else temporarily shielded by being on the 60-day IL.  (That same logic comes to 29 pitchers, so the next part of the decision making process is going to be more difficult).  So now I further partition into 3 groups.

Catching: we have 3 guys on the roster (not counting Astudillo), and I keep all 3.  Gee, this is easier than I thought.

Infield: In this group I include Arraez, Astudillo, and Rooker (1B for lack of a real position) which gives a count of 9.  I let Simmons walk, and DFA Maggi.  Replacing them are Royce Lewis and Jose Miranda who are rule-5 eligible, leaving the total at 9.  Still fairly easy.  I'm missing a true shortstop but that probably has to come from free agency - I don't prematurely cut someone else in anticipation, but when that time comes, there will be candidates remaining - we're not an all-star squad.

Outfield: Counting Kirilloff (whom some might think debatable in the OF) there are 8.  I am happy to mark for disposal Garlick and Refsnyder who are mediocre hitters with no outstanding defensive talent to help make a case.  That leaves only 6, which is a little light, but several of the nominal infielders can fill in, in left.  CF remains the most critical to have coverage for, and Cave seems to remain the best range if Buxton is unavailable and Celestino's bat isn't ready next spring - and Lewis among the infielders might be capable in CF but is right now too much of a question mark - so I am not quite as eager to be rid of Jake.  Anyway, that brings us to 6.

Huh. 3+9+6=18, so I came in with 1 fewer than I expected.  Maybe I protect Maciel in CF, but he had a mediocre year at high-A so I don't think Baddoo Lightning will strike again.  No, I'll hold off on adding him (conceptually) to my 40-man planning until the pitching side of the question is sorted out better.

In summary, Simmons walks, and I explore quick trades involving Maggi, Refsnyder, and Garlick, planning to DFA them if nothing like that pans out (it probably won't in each case) before 40-man rosters are locked in for the off-season.

Next up, the hard part: pitching.

 

/ Those who know me will assume that my thinking is heavily influenced by having played dozens of off-seasons using Out Of The Park.  The above does indeed reflect how I go about it, but no one wants to read me wax eloquent about that aspect.  Suffice to say that I have been burned too many times by allowing my roster to be unbalanced and thus too small in one area of need during the course of a long season.

I followed you until you kept Cave - Celestino can hit as well as Cave and field a lot better.  

Link to comment

I can see keeping Rooker, since he still has options if not traded.  Buxton seems to be OK with long term, let's get it done. Pohlads have always stepped up for long term face of franchise assets, that is how I view Buxton.  If we sign Buxton, can see Kepler and Garver packaged for pitching.  Too many holes to fill there.  Gordon and Arraez and fine for utility players and should be kept and see plenty of AB's.  Cave should be gone.  Can see starting Kirlloff in left field and give Laurach some more AAA time until ready.  He was rushed this year.  

If you don't resign Buxton this list is going to look a lot different. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

I followed you until you kept Cave - Celestino can hit as well as Cave and field a lot better.  

Keeping Jake Cave isn't a hill I would die on. :)  I've been on record a long time for not liking his game very much.  If you or someone else want to keep Garlick as the OF place holder instead, it's not terribly consequential, but IMO we have an oversupply of options for the corners.

Celestino is on the 40-man and I would of course keep him, but I'm not confident he'll be ready on Opening Day - his good AAA numbers are built on a rather high number of hits dropping in.  I drop Refsnyder and Garlick because their bats aren't any better than Cave and they do not have his range - Refsnyder hurt himself trying to play CF, after all.  Dropping Cave too, brings the OF count down to 5 and that's too thin.  The acquisition of someone better than Cave in center will make his departure assured and painless.  We are short on up the middle talent.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I see almost a zero percent chance of the Twins risking Polanco's health and offensive production by moving him back to short, a position he was bad at in 2019 before injuries and age set in.

Gleeman & the Geek don't dislike Gordon, not at all. They simply don't have faith in him as a starting shortstop (or probably even a starter anywhere) and for good reason. He hasn't shown either the long-term hitting proficiency to be a starter or the ability to play a competent shortstop in Major League Baseball. Scouting reports have been skeptical of his ability to stick at short since draft day and they haven't improved since then. For right or wrong, it's quite apparent this front office does not view Nick Gordon as a starting shortstop.

I agree with your Polanco stance. Why mess with the one part of your lineup that produced above expectation to put him somewhere he has failed at previously? It makes zero sense.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, beckmt said:

I can see keeping Rooker, since he still has options if not traded.  Buxton seems to be OK with long term, let's get it done. Pohlads have always stepped up for long term face of franchise assets, that is how I view Buxton.  If we sign Buxton, can see Kepler and Garver packaged for pitching.  Too many holes to fill there.  Gordon and Arraez and fine for utility players and should be kept and see plenty of AB's.  Cave should be gone.  Can see starting Kirlloff in left field and give Laurach some more AAA time until ready.  He was rushed this year.  

If you don't resign Buxton this list is going to look a lot different. 

If the Twins don't re-sign Buxton then they are playing us all for suckers. He is pretty much the pivotal piece to indicate the Twins intentions over the next 5 years. If you are not going to pay your Berrios and Buxton prospects who actually produce at the major league level without having younger MLB producing players ready to replace them, what is the point?

Link to comment
20 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I think I've been as opinionated as anybody on Polanco at SS as anybody, but he's arguably the worst regular starter to play the position in 20 years (I'm being literal here). If the Twins want to bridge, I think they're far better off just grabbing a short term free agent and sticking him there. I mentioned Eduardo Escobar as an option previously. He's not viewed as a shortstop by other teams, but I didn't see anything in his physical tools suggesting he couldn't still be adequate there. Arraez has a lot of trade value. I think you move him or Polanco this offseason.

Tampa would most certainly trade Polanco. He has peaked, and is our best trade value chip. Selling high and buying low is always the objective in Tampa and Oakland. When, if ever have we sold at the peak of anyone's value? We certainly have a surplus at 2B. Trading anyone else (with the exception of Arraez) would be selling low. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, In My La Z boy said:

Tampa would most certainly trade Polanco. He has peaked, and is our best trade value chip. Selling high and buying low is always the objective in Tampa and Oakland. When, if ever have we sold at the peak of anyone's value? We certainly have a surplus at 2B. Trading anyone else (with the exception of Arraez) would be selling low. 

Ughhhhh I cannot state how much I hate this brand of baseball thought. Who cares if Polanco has "peaked"? He's a good player and the Twins need good players. Every team needs good players.

Tampa is an extremely well-run franchise but they're also a bunch of empty uniforms. There's a reason the fanbase is non-existent. They're also a ****ing scam. Their entire payroll budget is roughly what they received in national television revenue from MLB this season. They're raking in money hand over fist and deserve huge ridicule for it. They pull the crap they do on their fans because they want to, not because they need to.

As a fan, I want my team to be good and I want to cheer on players I recognize and like. The Twins do not need to operate like Tampa. No team needs to operate like Tampa, including Tampa.

There are times it makes sense to trade good players. I didn't have an issue with the Berrios trade due to the short-term incompetence of the team and the return on the player. I didn't love trading Berrios but understood it was a reasonable baseball move.

But it's a big jump to go from Berrios to trading a good, cost-controlled player in his prime like Polanco. That would just straight-up piss me off.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, In My La Z boy said:

Tampa would most certainly trade Polanco. He has peaked, and is our best trade value chip. Selling high and buying low is always the objective in Tampa and Oakland. When, if ever have we sold at the peak of anyone's value? We certainly have a surplus at 2B. Trading anyone else (with the exception of Arraez) would be selling low. 

I don't think they would. Tampa generally doesn't trade their players until they have 2 or fewer years of team control. The Twins have 4 more years of control so Tampa would never actively push that move.

Sano, Garver, Berrios, Rogers, Buxton and Kepler would be gone by the 2022 trade deadline.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

...Tampa is an extremely well-run franchise but they're also a bunch of empty uniforms. There's a reason the fanbase is non-existent. They're also a ****ing scam. Their entire payroll budget is roughly what they received in national television revenue from MLB this season. They're raking in money hand over fist and deserve huge ridicule for it. They pull the crap they do on their fans because they want to, not because they need to.

 

I feel like the Twins were virtually identical to Tampa from in regard to the revolving door of names until the Target Field era. The Rays have a very serious stadium placement issue, though Florida teams seem to have widespread fanbase issues in general.

I do expect a payroll floor to be agreed upon in the next CBA so Tampa will have to spend more, but I half expect that to be leverage for new ownership/stadiums to be pushed in Tampa, Oakland and Pittsburgh.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I feel like the Twins were virtually identical to Tampa from in regard to the revolving door of names until the Target Field era. The Rays have a very serious stadium placement issue, though Florida teams seem to have widespread fanbase issues in general.

I do expect a payroll floor to be agreed upon in the next CBA so Tampa will have to spend more, but I half expect that to be leverage for new ownership/stadiums to be pushed in Tampa, Oakland and Pittsburgh.

The Twins were at a financial disadvantage in the latter days of the dome but they definitely weren't Tampa.

Brad Radke: 1995-2006
Torii Hunter: 1999-2007
Johan Santana: 2000-2007 (signed through 2008)
Michael Cuddyer: 2002-2011
Justin Morneau: 2003-2013 (signed extension at least two years before TF)

The Twins were a revolving door of players through a lot of the mid- to late-90s but that's typical of a bad team. Through the 80s, they retained many of their good players. Through the 2000s, they retained many of them at least one year beyond free agency, oftentimes more than one year.

Tampa doesn't even keep their guys until free agency.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Ughhhhh I cannot state how much I hate this brand of baseball thought. Who cares if Polanco has "peaked"? He's a good player and the Twins need good players. Every team needs good players.

Tampa is an extremely well-run franchise but they're also a bunch of empty uniforms. There's a reason the fanbase is non-existent. They're also a ****ing scam. Their entire payroll budget is roughly what they received in national television revenue from MLB this season. They're raking in money hand over fist and deserve huge ridicule for it. They pull the crap they do on their fans because they want to, not because they need to.

As a fan, I want my team to be good and I want to cheer on players I recognize and like. The Twins do not need to operate like Tampa. No team needs to operate like Tampa, including Tampa.

There are times it makes sense to trade good players. I didn't have an issue with the Berrios trade due to the short-term incompetence of the team and the return on the player. I didn't love trading Berrios but understood it was a reasonable baseball move.

But it's a big jump to go from Berrios to trading a good, cost-controlled player in his prime like Polanco. That would just straight-up piss me off.

Next time don't beat around the bush and just tell me what you really think. I advocate nothing here. Just saying, why do we play the games? We play to win. Tampa wins. They keep winning. I'd like to win. As other posters have posited - we have an excess at 2B, and if trading - should trade from strength. I love Jorge. Easily my current favorite player, but he likely brings back more in quality trade than any other 3 players we have combined. He had a career year, and honestly we could have finished last without him. We are a million miles away from the playoffs with this pitching staff. Can we compete the next few years during the balance of Polanco's contract? 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

Next time don't beat around the bush and just tell me what you really think. I advocate nothing here. Just saying, why do we play the games? We play to win. Tampa wins. They keep winning. I'd like to win. As other posters have posited - we have an excess at 2B, and if trading - should trade from strength. I love Jorge. Easily my current favorite player, but he likely brings back more in quality trade than any other 3 players we have combined. He had a career year, and honestly we could have finished last without him. We are a million miles away from the playoffs with this pitching staff. Can we compete the next few years during the balance of Polanco's contract? 

There are plenty of ways to win without pulling the crap Tampa pulls on its fanbase. Sure, they're a good team and I like many of their players but they give fans little to no reason to cheer on the franchise as they rake in the millions while crying poor.

And they have just as many championships as the Twins do over the past 25 years.

What I'm saying is that a team that operates like the Tampa Bay Rays does deserves very little community support. I don't want my team to operate in that fashion. I don't want any baseball team to operate in that fashion. Fans deserve better than what Tampa offers them.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

There are plenty of ways to win without pulling the crap Tampa pulls on its fanbase. Sure, they're a good team and I like many of their players but they give fans little to no reason to cheer on the franchise as they rake in the millions while crying poor.

And they have just as many championships as the Twins do over the past 25 years.

What I'm saying is that a team that operates like the Tampa Bay Rays does deserves very little community support. I don't want my team to operate in that fashion. I don't want any baseball team to operate in that fashion. Fans deserve better than what they offer.

There are plenty of ways to win? I'm sorry, but major league baseball says no salary cap's/no salary minimum's so there seem to be only 2 ways to win in today's game. The Tampa/Oakland way - The Yankees/Dodgers way. If we aren't playing the way Tampa plays there is no other way for us until Pohlad gives us $200M annually.

As to fan support - it has way more to do with the State of Florida, and the ridiculous dome. Marlins never draw either even when they are good.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

There are plenty of ways to win? I'm sorry, but major league baseball says no salary cap's/no salary minimum's so there seem to be only 2 ways to win in today's game. The Tampa/Oakland way - The Yankees/Dodgers way. If we aren't playing the way Tampa plays there is no other way for us until Pohlad gives us $200M annually.

Tampa/Oakland have zero championships in the past 20 years.

Yankees/Dodgers have two championships in the past 20 years.

Perhaps there are other ways to win.

Link to comment

A player on a 40-man roster, when removed, either becomes a free agent, is claimed on waivers, or clears waivers and you can send them to the minors if you wish and they are under contract.

 

The Twins have 20 position players currently on the 40-man. Two are on the 60-day IL. Expect Rortvedt, Jeffers, Garver to stay, as well as Sano, Kirilloff, Polanco, Arraez, Donaldson, Gordon as infielders. Larnach, Buxton, Celestino, Kepler as outfielders. That's a magic 13, with two doomed to go to the minors.

Cave will be arbitration bound. Rooker is younger and can play 1B, the corners, and DH. The Twins have no set DH for the moment. The importance right now of Garlick and Refsynder depends on the stock you put in Kerrigan or Contreras as possible outfielders. Both can be grabbed in the Rule 5, but doubt that they will be.

 

The Twins need to add Royce Lewis and Jose Miranda. They also need to make a decision on Trey Cabbage. I believe Jermaine Palacios and Wander Javier could walk if they wish.

 

The Twins will no doubt be on the hunt for experienced catchers to play at AAA, be interesting to see who they go after. Jair Camargo has lots of play for his young years and can leave the organization after next season. Caleb Hamilton is also on the bubble. You have to ask the necessity of Willians Astudillo to stay on the 40-man. Will some team grab him? Part of his value is that he can be catcher.

 

The trick is knowing you have some guys like Kerrigan, Contreras in the minors. That you can sign Drew Maggi to another minor league contract, as well as B.J. Boyd, and quite possibly Refsnyder or Garlick. Again, you do keep a couple of fringe names on the 40-man, players you can jettison if you need to add a free agent (and hopefully not Brandon Waddell).

 

I expect 18 names of the above being kept, with three being minor league adds. Last year the Twins signed some 33 people to play at AA/AAA minor league ball. Let's see how active they are this year, or can they at least get more prospects in St. Paul.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

First of all, St. Paul should have a great pitching staff to start next year, as I don't see the Twins bringing any of the prospects to Minneapolis to start the year, Position players are not hard.  3 catchers if you do not trade Garver, Sano and Kirlloff at 1B (also Kirloff in the outfield), Polonco at 2B, or SS.  Gordon, Miranda, arraez and Donaldson (if not traded) at SS and 3B.  Lewis on the 40 man, but not in consideration to start, Palacios I might add as SS depth.  Buxton, Kepler, Rooker, Laurach (will probably expect him to start in St. Paul), Celastino and maybe a free agent depth outfielder, that gets me to 18 which is what I expect to have.  Only thing that would change if I were bowled over by an offer for Buxton or Polonco for what I felt was a pitcher with a #2 floor and other prospects.  You win with pitching.  Cleveland has been competitive with their good pitching (even without much hitting). 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The Twins were at a financial disadvantage in the latter days of the dome but they definitely weren't Tampa.

Brad Radke: 1995-2006
Torii Hunter: 1999-2007
Johan Santana: 2000-2007 (signed through 2008)
Michael Cuddyer: 2002-2011
Justin Morneau: 2003-2013 (signed extension at least two years before TF)

The Twins were a revolving door of players through a lot of the mid- to late-90s but that's typical of a bad team. Through the 80s, they retained many of their good players. Through the 2000s, they retained many of them at least one year beyond free agency, oftentimes more than one year.

Tampa doesn't even keep their guys until free agency.

Keep in mind that our owners were willing to contract and eliminate the twins at one point.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...