Prove It: Two Former Top Twins Prospects Fighting for 2025 Roster Openings

[DJL44]

19 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The problem with the 3 below average guys instead is that you've given yourself no shot at a high ceiling from the very beginning. You're handicapping yourself in the name of being able to survive being handicapped. I'd prefer to take the big swing and at least have the chance of finding big time success. All the Margot, Santana, Farmer trio does is improve your chances of not losing 100 games. Doesn't increase your chance of winning 100. I want the increased chance of winning 100 with the added risk of losing 100.

Miranda and Farmer are not equivalent defensively which is why I went with Goodrum. I agree that the Twins are trying to make 85 wins a sure thing and not trying to build a team that wins 100. With the expanded playoffs and a weak division there is little benefit to winning 100 games.

[LA Vikes Fan]

While I don't necessarily agree with your choice chpettit19, I think you accurately presented the choice. We could have signed a Hoskins type (assuming he would come here) at the expense of having a bench full of Miranda, Martin, Severino, Keirsey, Goodrum, Balazovic, etc. types at the end of the roster. Instead, the Twins spent the same money on Santana, Margot, and Farmer and is starting Santana and playing the other 2 quite a bit. I think the Twins strategy definitely raises the floor by giving you injury protection and proven performance, but it lowers the ceiling because you don't have the one big bat like Hoskins and you don't get the unexpected breakout of a young player. 

I think in this division it makes more sense to raise the floor but it's a close call. 90 wins should win this division; 87 probably will. Better to get that division win knowing that your bench will see limited time in the playoffs absent injury. I get it; it's the conservative approach that helps this year but not in 2025. Still, I have to wonder if we aren't selling ourselves a little short by not auditioning Miranda, Larnach, Lee, and Martin at 250-300 ABs apiece this year. Detroit is coming on and may be a real competitor next year.  We'll need those guys next year because Kepler, Santana and Margot will be gone unless we sign some more retreads next year (unlikely with the jump in payroll coming in 2025 for the current group). I'm more of a "let's go for it this year with Correa and Buxton healthy because next year isn't promised" guy but I can see the other side and it is tempting. Too late now but other similar opportunities may arise. 

[chpettit19]

9 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Miranda and Farmer are not equivalent defensively which is why I went with Goodrum. I agree that the Twins are trying to make 85 wins a sure thing and not trying to build a team that wins 100. With the expanded playoffs and a weak division there is little benefit to winning 100 games.

Generally speaking teams that win closer to 100 games have a better chance at winning a championship. I want a championship. Building for floor doesn't make me confident they'll get closer to that goal. And banking on your division being weak is the least impressive team building process I've ever heard of. I don't disagree that it's part of their thought process, and am not taking a shot at you, it's just the worst reasoning I can think of. Cleveland won 92 games in 2022. Chicago won 93 in 2021. Cleveland 93 in 2019 and 91 in 2018. None of that is to suggest I'm predicting anyone in the central wins 90 games in 2024. It does show that aiming for 85 wins because you're in a bad division can very quickly turn into winning 85 games and losing your division, though.

[h2oface]

TD still writing Kepler Obits. Must be 4 years running now........

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

That's the point of the top prospect. If Polanco can bring back a top 100 prospect he can certainly be paired with 1 (plus top 10-20 system guys) to get a real pitcher.

Sure, Polanco and Brooks Lee could have brought back a young, cost controlled pitcher with an upper rotation ceiling. Might have needed to toss in a guy like Festa to finish that deal for a guy like Luzardo. I don't favor that because I didn't feel the Twins had a lot of upside talent on the farm after trading a ton away for pitching over the past few years. It's become almost a revolving door. Falvey fails to develop pitching, Twins trade farm talent for short term control to solidify their mid/upper rotation.

[DocBauer]

I feel that Larnach has improved, but he's done so at such an incremental pace that he needs a big jump somehow, someway, to be considered any sort of lock for 2025 and beyond. But, IMO, he doesn't have to turn in to some 115OPS+ hitter to be valuable. Just...better than he is now. I can see him playing both OF corners and seeing time at DH next year against RHP. I can see him sharing LF with Martin as the primary even, who in turn shares some of CF with Buxton. Wallner goes to RF as the primary, of course. AK can also play a little corner OF, but I see hum as the primary 1B. The best young OF talent in the system is probably a year away.

So there's definitely opportunity for Larnach, even if it's as a useful rotation player. Can he seize his opportunity finally by taking a step forward this year?

I'm not 100% convinced Miranda is done at 3B. If his shoulder holds up, I can still see him being a fill in option there from time to time, but he's definitely, primarily, a 1B/DH going forward. Santana will be gone next year, AK and Julien...who still might play some 1B...are both LF. A return to form to his 2021-2022 level of production keeps Miranda in the Twins plans, and in the lineup most days. For now, his primary concern is Severino. 

If he's healthy and can outperform Severino, Miranda has a very good chance to be a fixture. But can he do those two things.

In shirt, yes, their is still opportunity for both Larnach and Miranda. Though I think Miranda is the safer bet of the two, at least for the long haul. 

[Mark G]

16 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

The biggest difference between these two and said first basemen was he was 22 and 23 and was established major league player by 24 and a MVP at 25, so not really at all comparable.

I guess I am one of those folks who don't consider a player who is 26 or 27 out of time.  Their ages don't mean anything to me, other than if it means they are slowing down to a point of being ineffective, so I believe it is comparable.  When we sign a 38 year old and give up on a 26 year old.......I guess I am just not smart enough to follow that, so I will leave it to much brighter minds than mine.  I just hope they aren't giving up on those 2; we could use them if they can figure things out.  

[tarheeltwinsfan]

23 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

It is only 4 games, but if you remove Lewis's 2 at bats. Margot leads the team in AVG, 2nd in OBP, 4th in SLG, and 3rd is OPS, compared with the part time 1B they signed for more, that 4 million doesn't look so bad?

But Margot only has 3 at bats and he can't bunt. :)

[tarheeltwinsfan]

21 hours ago, DJL44 said:

They got Margot in a trade, not as a free agent signing. I'm not sure what people expect for $4M. For that price you will get below average players. Average players get over $10M a season.

I guess $4 million just doesn't buy what it used to buy. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? 

[DJL44]

16 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Generally speaking teams that win closer to 100 games have a better chance at winning a championship. I want a championship. Building for floor doesn't make me confident they'll get closer to that goal. And banking on your division being weak is the least impressive team building process I've ever heard of. I don't disagree that it's part of their thought process, and am not taking a shot at you, it's just the worst reasoning I can think of. Cleveland won 92 games in 2022. Chicago won 93 in 2021. Cleveland 93 in 2019 and 91 in 2018. None of that is to suggest I'm predicting anyone in the central wins 90 games in 2024. It does show that aiming for 85 wins because you're in a bad division can very quickly turn into winning 85 games and losing your division, though.

They want to make sure Target Field is full in September. 85 wins does that. 100 losses means 400,000 fewer tickets sold.

I also think you're underselling the upside potential in their approach. They still have all the young prospects, they're just starting the season in AAA like last season with Wallner, Julien, etc. If the young players perform, they'll get promoted.

[chpettit19]

31 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

They want to make sure Target Field is full in September. 85 wins does that. 100 losses means 400,000 fewer tickets sold.

I also think you're underselling the upside potential in their approach. They still have all the young prospects, they're just starting the season in AAA like last season with Wallner, Julien, etc. If the young players perform, they'll get promoted.

Why don't they try to fill Target Field all season? Dave St Pete complains that fans don't show up and then they go out and build teams that struggle to stay above .500 until August. Why don't they try getting more fans all season by building a team with 100 win aspirations?

Will they? Wallner was performing and didn't get called up for good until Gallo went down for good. They had even better guys in AAA last year than they do this year and got to a whopping 87 wins in an historically bad division with this strategy. Because they won't move on from the below average depth at the major league level. They aren't going to DFA Margot or Santana or Farmer so it's all injury based promotions. Injuries will obviously happen, but waiting for them isn't really how you reach your potential, it's how you maintain your mediocre 85 win pace.

[Major League Ready]

24 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

They want to make sure Target Field is full in September. 85 wins does that. 100 losses means 400,000 fewer tickets sold.

I also think you're underselling the upside potential in their approach. They still have all the young prospects, they're just starting the season in AAA like last season with Wallner, Julien, etc. If the young players perform, they'll get promoted.

This is a great point.  The potential of those prospects is not gone.  Gallo got phased out last year.  Schoop got phased out in 2019.  We would all have liked it to be a little sooner with Gallo, but this approach supplies to upside and the floor.  Plus, you don't have Solano or MAT last year without this approach.  I support the investment in prospects more than most but balancing that approach makes sense.   Anything can happen IF you get to the playoffs as demonstrated by AZ last year.  Getting there often has it's merit.

[Major League Ready]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

Why don't they try to fill Target Field all season? Dave St Pete complains that fans don't show up and then they go out and build teams that struggle to stay above .500 until August. Why don't they try getting more fans all season by building a team with 100 win aspirations?

Will they? Wallner was performing and didn't get called up for good until Gallo went down for good. They had even better guys in AAA last year and got to a whopping 87 wins in an historically bad division with this strategy. Because they won't move on from the below average depth at the major league level. They aren't going to DFA Margot or Santana or Farmer so it's all injury based promotions. Injuries will obviously happen, but waiting for them isn't really how you reach your potential, it's how you maintain your mediocre 85 win pace.

You have been raving about the Twins cutting payroll after their best season in two decades and then you belittle their 87 win season.  Which is it?

[chpettit19]

32 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You have been raving about the Twins cutting payroll after their best season in two decades and then you belittle their 87 win season.  Which is it?

The playoff wins were the best part in 2 decades, not the 87 wins. And that 87 win team wasn't particularly close to a championship, which is what I've spent all offseason saying I wanted and said I wanted in this thread. And now we're talking about 85 wins which is worse than 87 by my math, but I'm not the numbers genius you are so maybe I'm wrong there. Have your firm confirm that and let me know. 

And my complaint has been about taking the wind out if their own sails and hurting ticket sales by cutting payroll and making the team worse. So my statement about them trying to fill the stadium all year by striving to improve upon an 87 win team sure seems to follow that logic. Glad I could help clear up your confusion. 

Oh, and the fact that an 87 win season was their best in 2 decades speaks to how terribly their strategy has worked. Thanks for pointing that out.

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

They want to make sure Target Field is full in September. 85 wins does that. 100 losses means 400,000 fewer tickets sold.

 

Wouldn't 100 wins do a better job of attracting fans?

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

They want to make sure Target Field is full in September. 85 wins does that. 100 losses means 400,000 fewer tickets sold.

I also think you're underselling the upside potential in their approach. They still have all the young prospects, they're just starting the season in AAA like last season with Wallner, Julien, etc. If the young players perform, they'll get promoted.

The Twins sold out zero games in September last year. Average attendance was 24k. Max attendance was 32k. Minimum was 18k. The Twins ranked 19th, 20th, 19th in attendance over the past 3 years. Not sure there's a lot of floor left to find as the attendance last year was similar to post contraction talk Metrodome years, but it was up slightly from 2022 (worst attendance since 2001)

The Colorado Rockies (59-103) average attendance was 32k last year.

Attendance does usually correlate with performance, but it doesn't need to. The Rockies do a great job getting people to come out to the game even if they stink. Dave St. Peter does not.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

The playoff wins were the best part in 2 decades, not the 87 wins. And that 87 win team wasn't particularly close to a championship, which is what I've spent all offseason saying I wanted and said I wanted in this thread. And now we're talking about 85 wins which is worse than 87 by my math, but I'm not the numbers genius you are so maybe I'm wrong there. Have your firm confirm that and let me know. 

And my complaint has been about taking the wind out if their own sails and hurting ticket sales by cutting payroll and making the team worse. So my statement about them trying to fill the stadium all year by striving to improve upon an 87 win team sure seems to follow that logic. Glad I could help clear up your confusion. 

Oh, and the fact that an 87 win season was their best in 2 decades speaks to how terribly their strategy has worked. Thanks for pointing that out.

They won 101 games in 2019 so no it was not their best season in 2 decades.   They happened to win a playoff series which is a far cry from saying it was their best team.  Great teams get beat in the early playoff rounds all the time.  Ask the 2023 Dodgers and Braves.

Then, you are going to use a projection in the first week of the season to say this team is worse than last year.   Were they projected to win 87 games last year?  I really don't remember but I thought the projections were 82-84.  BETMGM had them at 82.5 wins.

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

They won 101 games in 2019 so no it was not their best season in 2 decades.   They happened to win a playoff series which is a far cry from saying it was their best team.  Great teams get beat in the early playoff rounds all the time.  Ask the 2023 Dodgers and Braves.

Then, you are going to use a projection in the first week of the season to say this team is worse than last year.   Were they projected to win 87 games last year?  I really don't remember but I thought the projections were 82-84.  BETMGM had them at 82.5 wins.

Find me a quote where I called it their best team. And, as I've told you at least 100 times, my goal is to win a championship. So winning a playoff series is more important to me than regular season record, so, to me (doesn't have to be for you), it was their best season (notice the word season is different than the word team) in 2 decades. And then you can ask the fans which season they enjoyed the most over the last 2 decades and see if anyone else was more excited about the fact that they "happened to win a playoff series" in 2023 instead of the seasons where they won more regular season games, but had a record setting playoff losing streak. I'd bet you find a couple folks that agree with me.

I'm not using any projection at all. I was having a general conversation with another poster that didn't include any projection but was just using general numbers and you decided to jump in in an attempt to play some "gotchya!" game with me to catch me in a contradiction. That didn't work so now you're changing the conversation completely. Not interested in playing your game. Have a wonderful day.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Wouldn't 100 wins do a better job of attracting fans?

I'm not sure if it does compared to an 87 win team. Their attendance goes down as much as 500,000 fans when they're bad. If they're in a pennant race they get 10,000 more fans for each September game. If they're not then people watch Vikings training camp.

[RpR]

12 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Then, you are going to use a projection in the first week of the season to say this team is worse than last year.   Were they projected to win 87 games last year?  I really don't remember but I thought the projections were 82-84.  BETMGM had them at 82.5 wins.

Well the Twins were 14-15 in Spring Training last year, a LOT better than this year.

Oh yes, last year the dreaded Yankees were 13-18 in ST and had their worst year since 1992 so ST may mean some thing.

[RpR]

4 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I'm not sure if it does compared to an 87 win team. Their attendance goes down as much as 500,000 fans when they're bad. If they're in a pennant race they get 10,000 more fans for each September game. If they're not then people watch Vikings training camp.

That is wierd; the only Minn. team more disappointing than the Vikings has been the Gophers and they are so popular.

I used to be a football phanatic, but baseball is still the number one sport to me.

[nicksaviking]

57 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The Twins sold out zero games in September last year. Average attendance was 24k. Max attendance was 32k. Minimum was 18k. The Twins ranked 19th, 20th, 19th in attendance over the past 3 years. Not sure there's a lot of floor left to find as the attendance last year was similar to post contraction talk Metrodome years, but it was up slightly from 2022 (worst attendance since 2001)

The Colorado Rockies (59-103) average attendance was 32k last year.

Attendance does usually correlate with performance, but it doesn't need to. The Rockies do a great job getting people to come out to the game even if they stink. Dave St. Peter does not.

September attendance probably would have been better if they hadn't farted around for the first five months of the season. They weren't playing watchable baseball until the stretch run, and fans were skeptical because of it. Winning early and building hype will help attendance throughout the year.

The improved play also coincided with them pulling the plug on Gallo and Vazquez and let Wallner, Julien and Jeffers take full control. No one's going to buy tickets just to see Carlos Santana, Manuel Margot and Kyle Farmer, but they might if there are exciting new young players that people can dream of a future with.

Or you know, a big bat free agent. But we've heard about how that's not happening again any time soon.

[bean5302]

36 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

September attendance probably would have been better if they hadn't farted around for the first five months of the season. They weren't playing watchable baseball until the stretch run, and fans were skeptical because of it. Winning early and building hype will help attendance throughout the year.

The improved play also coincided with them pulling the plug on Gallo and Vazquez and let Wallner, Julien and Jeffers take full control. No one's going to buy tickets just to see Carlos Santana, Manuel Margot and Kyle Farmer, but they might if there are exciting new young players that people can dream of a future with.

Or you know, a big bat free agent. But we've heard about how that's not happening again any time soon.

I'd be really surprised if the Twins don't grab a front line starter or a bat (if needed) at the trade deadline. $30MM becomes $10MM pro-rated at the deadline.

[nicksaviking]

3 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I'd be really surprised if the Twins don't grab a front line starter or a bat (if needed) at the trade deadline. $30MM becomes $10MM pro-rated at the deadline.

I hope they get another top end pitcher, but the Twins haven't done well in that regard at the deadline like they have in the offseason.

Here's hoping the Marlins (0-7) are ready to start selling in early July. 

If not before.

[bean5302]

17 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I hope they get another top end pitcher, but the Twins haven't done well in that regard at the deadline like they have in the offseason.

Here's hoping the Marlins (0-7) are ready to start selling in early July. 

If not before.

Somebody will be selling, but the market will be inferno hot, I expect. The Marlins have Nick Gordon now so I don't think they'll be selling... LOL

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I'm not sure if it does compared to an 87 win team. Their attendance goes down as much as 500,000 fans when they're bad. If they're in a pennant race they get 10,000 more fans for each September game. If they're not then people watch Vikings training camp.

With all due respect, you are just pulling numbers put of thin air. As shown by ITF above.

Ignoring the fact there's 5 other months to consider besides just September, you're going to have to explain to me why 87 wins is the sweet spot to attract September fans, but 100 isn't better.

And for the record, let's assume 15 September home games. If they DID attract an extra 10000 per game, that's 150,000. Not 500,000.

[DJL44]

54 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

With all due respect, you are just pulling numbers put of thin air. As shown by ITF above.

Ignoring the fact there's 5 other months to consider besides just September, you're going to have to explain to me why 87 wins is the sweet spot to attract September fans, but 100 isn't better.

And for the record, let's assume 15 September home games. If they DID attract an extra 10000 per game, that's 150,000. Not 500,000.

Having a bad team tanks attendance starting around the trade deadline. 100 wins is definitely better than 87 wins for attendance but the returns are diminishing. I understand why they want to avoid downside more than they want to try for upside. Part of that is just human nature (loss aversion).

[tarheeltwinsfan]

On 4/4/2024 at 10:14 AM, chpettit19 said:

Why don't they try to fill Target Field all season? Dave St Pete complains that fans don't show up and then they go out and build teams that struggle to stay above .500 until August. Why don't they try getting more fans all season by building a team with 100 win aspirations?

Will they? Wallner was performing and didn't get called up for good until Gallo went down for good. They had even better guys in AAA last year than they do this year and got to a whopping 87 wins in an historically bad division with this strategy. Because they won't move on from the below average depth at the major league level. They aren't going to DFA Margot or Santana or Farmer so it's all injury based promotions. Injuries will obviously happen, but waiting for them isn't really how you reach your potential, it's how you maintain your mediocre 85 win pace.

You hit the nail on the head CH.  Post after post on TD during the off season ( plus Falvey) said that the Twins primarily needed another starting pitcher to try and mitigate the loss of Gray and Maeda. I would submit that the Twins be graded an "F" for failure to acquire one. Instead, millions were spent on other players at other positions and an injured 5th, at best, starter, who is now out for the entire season at a waste of $4,000,000. That $4,000, 000 combined with Santana's unnecessary ( How high on the "need" list was another first baseman?) $5,250,000 and Margot's ( how is this signing working out?) $4,000,000, add up to $13,250,000...which should have been spent on a good free agent SP.   

[DJL44]

13 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

add up to $13,250,000...which should have been spent on a good free agent SP.   

Try to find a good, free agent starting pitcher for 1 year $13.25M. Here's this list who signed for that (or less) this offseason:

Kyle Gibson

Lance Lynn

Luis Severino

Wade Miley

Jakob Junis

Martin Perez

James Paxton

Alex Wood

Are any of them better than Louie Varland?

Good free agent pitchers cost $20M+ a season over multiple seasons.

[USAFChief]

On 4/5/2024 at 10:17 AM, DJL44 said:

Are any of them better than Louie Varland?

 

Off the top of my head there is no world in which I'd bet Varland is better than Kyle Gibson. 

And it's not just Varland to consider. They're not going through the season on only five starters.