Why the Twins Must Keep Christian Vázquez for 2025

[Doctor Wu]

15 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

You keep Vazquez because Camargo was:

Called up April 13 and Sent Down April 22

then 

Called up July 12 and sent down July 25

then

Called up September 9 and sent down September 11

then

Called up September 26 and sent down September 27. 

During these times of 26 man roster assignment for Jair Camargo. He had 7 AB's. 

We can now call Camargo the "Yo-Yo Man".

[Doctor Wu]

1 hour ago, Karbo said:

Jeffers is not a starting caliber defensive catcher. He's not great at blocking pitches or framing and he's poor at throwing out runners. He's a decent hitter (usually) but his defense suffers.

Almost sounds like a description of Mitch Garver ... who didn't even hit .200 last season. 

[Riverbrian]

8 minutes ago, Doctor Wu said:

We can now call Camargo the "Yo-Yo Man".

Perfect for Camargo

I bought a Yo-Yo a couple of decades ago for my kids. 

They spun that thing maybe once and then it sat on the shelf untouched for the rest of it's existence. 

[JD-TWINS]

On 10/23/2024 at 9:57 AM, Cory Engelhardt said:

I'd go a step further; I'd even listen on Jeffers if it helped upgrade the team elsewhere. Love his bat, but pairing Vazquez's with another strong defensive catcher would be a way to upgrade the pitching staff in my opinion. 

I get liking Vazquez over Jeffers behind the plate!

Jeffers is such a head case at the plate that having some strong attachment to him because of his offensive upside is difficult…….he essentially had a poor 3.5 months at the plate  in ‘24…..,this doesn’t excite me in any way and I understand why floating him to help improve elsewhere may make some sense.

Camargo as an option seems unrealistic. It’s unfortunate, but he’s no better defender than Jeffers, with less experience handling a staff AND he’s not as good a hitter as Vazquez. Not really a good choice for ‘25 & maybe never a good choice.

I do not think though, that another strong defensive catcher helps the staff much at all - calling a good game and throwing guys out or blocking balls in the dirt don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

Jeffers getting it together (consistency) by maybe choking up all the time v. just with 2 strikes or some other detail with mental approach from new coaching voice/point of view would be nice. His defense getting better needs to come through effort! (practice smarter)

I don’t see any change in the catching duo in ‘24.

Radical thought, maybe impossible for both sides, how about extending Vazquez a year for a combined $14.5M? Get him to take $8M in ‘25 & $6.5M in ‘26? Completely crazy with his age - his bat? Is it worth the reduction of $2M in ‘25? 

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

...Why I believe that assessment is hard because the margins are incredibly thin. Why I believe that front offices, managers, coaches and scouts are able to silently kill careers based on pre-determinations on small margins that are often wrong. Just follow the travels of 2024 Camargo. 

Assessed Camargo good enough for a 40 man spot but not good enough to out play a .575 OPS...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Camargo has never been a good hitter, and he's never been a good graded defender. Camargo was MiLB depth roster filler with some long-shot ceiling, a toss in in the Kenta Maeda trade. Even 2023's campaign. While the triple slash might look shiny, Camargo's .259/.323/.503 OPS .826 line was only good for a wRC+ 100 in the hitter friendly AAA International League. It also came with a 32% K rate.

Camargo was considered a fringe 40 man guy, but Camargo was 23, the Twins had scarily thin MiLB depth at the position. If Camargo was at any other position or the Twins had any depth in the upper minors, Camargo doesn't get a 40 man spot. It was pure injury insurance against Jeffers or Vazquez going down for a month or two, no longer, no shorter.

I think you've convinced yourself Jair Camargo was viewed as more than roster filler or short/medium term emergency depth in a very thin position. Had Jeffers or Vazquez gone down with an injury which would have put them on the 60 day IL, the Twins would have acquired a different catcher almost immediately, IMHO. Camargo was not viewed as a legit backup as evidenced by the fact the Twins shielded him from any playing time as much as possible.

[Parfigliano]

On 10/23/2024 at 9:29 AM, tony&rodney said:

It might be best to assume (no matter the saying) a payroll of $120-140 million. Go from there.

When not if that's the payroll $10 million going to Vazquez is money that could be better spent on bullpen help.  

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Camargo has never been a good hitter, and he's never been a good graded defender. Camargo was MiLB depth roster filler with some long-shot ceiling, a toss in in the Kenta Maeda trade. Even 2023's campaign. While the triple slash might look shiny, Camargo's .259/.323/.503 OPS .826 line was only good for a wRC+ 100 in the hitter friendly AAA International League. It also came with a 32% K rate.

Camargo was considered a fringe 40 man guy, but Camargo was 23, the Twins had scarily thin MiLB depth at the position. If Camargo was at any other position or the Twins had any depth in the upper minors, Camargo doesn't get a 40 man spot. It was pure injury insurance against Jeffers or Vazquez going down for a month or two, no longer, no shorter.

I think you've convinced yourself Jair Camargo was viewed as more than roster filler or short/medium term emergency depth in a very thin position. Had Jeffers or Vazquez gone down with an injury which would have put them on the 60 day IL, the Twins would have acquired a different catcher almost immediately, IMHO. Camargo was not viewed as a legit backup as evidenced by the fact the Twins shielded him from any playing time as much as possible.

I'm not getting at anything other than Vazquez was obviously unchallenged for playing time if they are not willing to let Camargo try to clear an extremely low offensive bar.  

I'm not going to pretend that I know who Camargo is as a major league baseball player or even a AAA player because all I see are his stats. 

I'm saying that he is basically worthless if letting him try to out perform a .525 OPS would set the team back... I'm saying that he is basically worthless if the team is willing to intentionally let the .525 OPS set the team back playing every other day from game 1 to game 162 because this Camargo guy is going to OPS ,524 and you just can't have that.     

If what you are saying is true... He had no business taking up 40 man roster space last year and he certainly had no business taking up 26 man roster space for the tiny total of 7 AB's. If what you are saying is true... the front office ignored the catcher position because the catcher health we had is rare.  

Please don't believe that I'm defending Camargo. I haven't convinced myself of anything other than. If you got someone with a .525 OPS... you can't say... Eureka... we found our guy. Hold everyone else back... it simply can't be topped. If you can't let a player even try to clear that bar for fear of the carnage settling for simple .525 OPS carnage... get that player off the 26 man immediately and if he has no future in the sport of baseball... get him off the 40 man roster immediately. No one is claiming him. You won't lose him. 

If they were just going to sign Andrew Knizner when Jeffers or Vazquez gets hurt and Camargo was never an option to be #2. Just go get Andrew Knizner before Arizona does. What the hell do we need Camargo on the 40 man roster for? Why would he spend a second on the 26 man roster? He can't clear .525

Roster filler... That's what Camargo was? Well no wonder we collapsed with no place to turn. All eggs were in one basket. 

[bean5302]

8 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm not getting at anything other than Vazquez was obviously unchallenged for playing time if they are not willing to let Camargo try to clear an extremely low offensive bar.  

I'm not going to pretend that I know who Camargo is as a major league baseball player or even a AAA player because all I see are his stats. 

I'm saying that he is basically worthless if letting him try to out perform a .525 OPS would set the team back... I'm saying that he is basically worthless if the team is willing to intentionally let the .525 OPS set the team back playing every other day from game 1 to game 162 because this Camargo guy is going to OPS ,524 and you just can't have that.     

If what you are saying is true... He had no business taking up 40 man roster space last year and he certainly had no business taking up 26 man roster space for the tiny total of 7 AB's. If what you are saying is true... the front office ignored the catcher position because the catcher health we had is rare.  

Please don't believe that I'm defending Camargo. I haven't convinced myself of anything other than. If you got someone with a .525 OPS... you can't say... Eureka... we found our guy. Hold everyone else back... it simply can't be topped. If you can't let a player even try to clear that bar for fear of the carnage settling for simple .525 OPS carnage... get that player off the 26 man immediately and if he has no future in the sport of baseball... get him off the 40 man roster immediately. No one is claiming him. You won't lose him. 

If they were just going to sign Andrew Knizner when Jeffers or Vazquez gets hurt and Camargo was never an option to be #2. Just go get Andrew Knizner before Arizona does. What the hell do we need Camargo on the 40 man roster for? Why would he spend a second on the 26 man roster? He can't clear .525

Roster filler... That's what Camargo was? Well no wonder we collapsed with no place to turn. All eggs were in one basket. 

I just didn't understand what your argument was so I was seeking clarification.

Camargo wasn't worthless because I think the Twins felt he was a known commodity amounting to "not a horrible option for a few weeks if Vazquez or Jeffers gets hurt and he doesn't cost us really anything" when everybody else the Twins had in the minors was "OMG, if we lose Camargo to Rule 5 somehow we're really in dire straights so we'll have to sign somebody for more money we don't have or trade assets to acquire a depth guy we trust enough, but don't really want to play" 

Camargo provides cheap insurance against a relatively short term injury and saves money or prospects to acquire depth. Hopefully just MiLB roster filler, but in a pinch, better than a catastrophe. You're right about how poorly the front office planned for catcher development.

[Riverbrian]

19 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I just didn't understand what your argument was so I was seeking clarification.

Camargo wasn't worthless because I think the Twins felt he was a known commodity amounting to "not a horrible option for a few weeks if Vazquez or Jeffers gets hurt and he doesn't cost us really anything" when everybody else the Twins had in the minors was "OMG, if we lose Camargo to Rule 5 somehow we're really in dire straights so we'll have to sign somebody for more money we don't have or trade assets to acquire a depth guy we trust enough, but don't really want to play" 

Camargo provides cheap insurance against a relatively short term injury and saves money or prospects to acquire depth. Hopefully just MiLB roster filler, but in a pinch, better than a catastrophe. You're right about how poorly the front office planned for catcher development.

Gray is often times not understood in the black and white world we live in. As Mike Sixel says... It's a dial not a light switch. I'm stealing that from Mike and pretty soon I'll stop crediting him and claim it as my own. 😎

My black and white starts here. Terrible performance is what kills you. Competition for playing time is the only way to fix that. It doesn't always fix it but the alternative is driving around in something broken because you settled for a broken car.  

Who gets to compete for playing time... that's a whole bunch of grey area. I don't claim to know who but I can watch a guy OPS .575 and a guy on the 26 man sitting, watching it happen without opportunity and wonder... how bad is this guy who can't even get a sniff with .575 in front of him?

Front offices get it wrong often enough that I have a real problem with pre-determination and I've had enough watching and waiting for Logan Morrison types to be taken out of the lineup. These types are what kill you. It isn't the lack of Shohei's on your roster that bring you down. It's bad baseball that knocks you out of the playoffs with a double digit lead. Someone needs to push the players playing bad.     

Ultimately my point was... If Camargo only gets 7 AB's over 20 some games on the 26 man roster and the guy in front of him is solid with job security with a .575. They certainly can't trade Vazquez now and hand the job to Camargo in the off-season because the Twins have pre-determined the outcome that Vazquez is untouchable and made him untouchable by providing nobody in touching distance.  

[JD-TWINS]

19 hours ago, Parfigliano said:

When not if that's the payroll $10 million going to Vazquez is money that could be better spent on bullpen help.  

I do not think Vazquez salary can be moved.

 

PEN potential:

Varland - Alcala - Paddack - Sands - Jax - Duran

Topa - Stewart……health?

Blewett - rostered? - Henriquez

Funderburk - Headrick - Moran - Winder

Raya in September?

To me, Paddack can’t throw high innings and stay healthy nor effective. Moving someone to free $$ & then pay a different reliever something approaching Paddack’s salary isn’t worthwhile, to me, since Paddack is a known quantity within the organization.

[bean5302]

18 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

...Ultimately my point was... If Camargo only gets 7 AB's over 20 some games on the 26 man roster and the guy in front of him is solid with job security with a .575. They certainly can't trade Vazquez now and hand the job to Camargo in the off-season because the Twins have pre-determined the outcome that Vazquez is untouchable and made him untouchable by providing nobody in touching distance.  

100% agreement. It's part of the issue with all the "trade Vazquez" articles/posts.

I really wish the Twins would have given Farmer some time behind the dish this spring since he was drafted as a catcher, and he was starting games at catcher just a few years ago. It might have really changed the situation.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

100% agreement. It's part of the issue with all the "trade Vazquez" articles/posts.

I really wish the Twins would have given Farmer some time behind the dish this spring since he was drafted as a catcher, and he was starting games at catcher just a few years ago. It might have really changed the situation.

You and I clicked on something earlier. Catcher Development.

We agree that catcher development has been a problem with our club and the 30 million we will end up paying for Vazquez when it is all said and done is a prime example of why catcher development has been not just a problem but a significant problem.  

In 2024 - Jeffers and Vazquez each caught in 86 games last year. Cal Raleigh led the league in games caught with 135. Wilson Contreras led all catchers in AB's with 595 of them but that was 120 games caught and 35 games at the DH spot.

You are well researched so I know you know this. Catchers are not full time players... Even the best of the best are not full time players. They require frequent rest or maintenance days. A catcher catching 162 games isn't going to happen. 

Yet if you want to acquire one... they cost the same as a full time player capable of 162 games with decent production. From an offensive only standpoint they cost more because defense is obviously a big part of their equation. 

Therefore... Teams need to grow their own in order to avoid paying the cost to sign or trade for a good one or in the case of Vazquez... an average one at best. Average only because his defense brings him to average after you calculate the well below average of his bat. 

In consideration of the inflated catcher value across baseball... Teams need to grow their own so they can take advantage of the market, trade a good one they developed while the next one takes over.  

After 2023... It probably would have been smart to cash in on the excess value of Ryan Jeffers in the off-season and bring up the next young catcher to challenge the catcher we over paid for in Vazquez.

Of course the next young catcher didn't exist because the next young catcher couldn't be trusted to best a .575 OPS. Catcher development has been slow. If they can't develop catching from the 8th round... they best starting looking in the 2nd round and place more priority on the position... because Catchers are always over pays. If you are lucky enough to develop excess talent at the position you can turn one into a CF or SP with a phone call. If Jeffers and Vazquez are going to cover all the playing time and if Camargo was worth something. The pipeline is now clogged... if you had a pipeline which we don't.    

It is incredibly frustrating to me that we sit here October 2024 looking at the current catching situation with a diminished value Jeffers and a 10 Million Dollar AAV that we can't afford for an offensively struggling Vazquez locked in. Followed by a guy who the manager won't play and followed by a guy who has caught 9 games in AA and an upcoming Rule 5 40 man roster decision. 

If there is any good new out of this. The Twins are not alone in the catcher development department. Because the Twins are not alone... that is why the market value is inflated. 

  

[tony&rodney]

On 10/25/2024 at 11:18 AM, Riverbrian said:

The Twins are not alone in the catcher development department. Because the Twins are not alone... that is why the market value is inflated. 

 

Yes, the market value is high. Still, catcher is the most difficult and valuable position in baseball. So the Twins need to bite the bullet and make an attempt to trade for a young catcher even if it means losing a highly thought of player or prospect. Perhaps no team will trade a decent catching prospect but Harry Ford and Jeferson Quero are blocked in Seattle and Milwaukee and Boston needs starting pitching. Gambling time for Falvey.

[ashbury]

On 10/23/2024 at 10:42 AM, bean5302 said:

Objectively valuing Vazquez vs. his peers looks about like this:
Controlling run game - Below average    ....

I'm not a Vazquez woofer and I wish his contract weren't guaranteed another year.  And it doesn't look like your view of this one aspect weighs terribly heavily in the overall scheme. 

Still, I note that opposing teams attempted fewer stolen bases against the Twins than average.  Looking at Vazquez versus Jeffers seems pretty equal.  So, somehow the running game is controlled enough to where it's not an issue. 

CS% by itself doesn't tell more than a small part of the story - Salvador Perez threw out only 23% of the attempts against him this year, but the stolen base totals were nevertheless tiny because hardly any runners even tried against him.

Call Vazquez average to maybe a hair above average in this trait, and I don't think there's much else to quarrel with in your breakdown.

[Riverbrian]

10 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Yes, the market value is high. Still, catcher is the most difficult and valuable position in baseball. So the Twins need to bite the bullet and make an attempt to trade for a young catcher even if it means losing a highly thought of player or prospect. Perhaps no team will trade a decent catching prospect but Harry Ford and Jeferson Quero are blocked in Seattle and Milwaukee and Boston needs starting pitching. Gambling time for Falvey.

It's the recurring bill that comes due for not growing your own.

Fail to grow your own catcher who plays somewhere between 40 to 60% of the time. 

Leads to having to pay 30 million for an average catcher who plays 40 to 60% of the time. 

Make the determination that this 30 million dollar catcher with a .575 OPS can't be competed with and he keeps 40 to 60% of the playing time.  

Leads to providing no playing time while you burn 40 and 26 man space on a young catcher who won't play because .575 can't be competed with. 

Leads to 30 Million dollar catcher reaching the end of his contract. 

Leading to still failing to grow your own catcher because .575 can't be competed with or the developed catcher can't out play .575. 

Leading to signing another inflated contract for a player who plays 40 to 60% of the time or trade for some other teams developed catcher at an inflated price for a player who plays 40 to 60% of the time. 

Which leads to. 

[tony&rodney]

39 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Which leads to. 

.... trading someone like Lee or Lewis or Ryan or Ober or Lopez for someone like Quero or Teel. You can literally play missing an infielder or outfielder but you cannot play without a catcher. This is a situation or corner built by Falvey. Falvey needs to figure it out.

[umterp23]

On 10/24/2024 at 7:30 AM, Karbo said:

If the Twins had another catcher in the system they would be better off moving Jeffers from behind the plate to maybe 1st base? Jeffers is not a starting caliber defensive catcher. He's not great at blocking pitches or framing and he's poor at throwing out runners. He's a decent hitter (usually) but his defense suffers. Vasquez is a poor hitter for sure, but IMO you can give up some offense for defense at the catcher position.

Baseball Savant would say otherwise for being poor throwing out runners

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/leaderboard/catcher-throwing

Pitch framing  depends on a digital box and what umpire is behind the plate to get a call or not get a call. Irritating stat to debate but it's a stat people care about.  Different look by ESPN on catchers

https://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/fielding/_/seasontype/2/position/c/sort/gamesPlayed

Jeffers .169 CS % to Vazquez .159, so basically a wash

DWAR both 0.5

So, my point is depending on what stats we want to believe in and who does the calculating, narrative isn't one guy superior to the other or vice versa

Twins overspent on Vazquez for 3 years to address a need.  Can't move him based on money spent

 

 

[bean5302]

12 hours ago, ashbury said:

I'm not a Vazquez woofer and I wish his contract weren't guaranteed another year.  And it doesn't look like your view of this one aspect weighs terribly heavily in the overall scheme. 

Still, I note that opposing teams attempted fewer stolen bases against the Twins than average.  Looking at Vazquez versus Jeffers seems pretty equal.  So, somehow the running game is controlled enough to where it's not an issue. 

CS% by itself doesn't tell more than a small part of the story - Salvador Perez threw out only 23% of the attempts against him this year, but the stolen base totals were nevertheless tiny because hardly any runners even tried against him.

Call Vazquez average to maybe a hair above average in this trait, and I don't think there's much else to quarrel with in your breakdown.

Statcast ranks his "caught stealing" at -3 runs vs. average in 2024 for runners trying to steal 2B. A lot goes into whether or not teams attempt to steal bases, and the overall CS vs. SB, whether or not an attempt to throw was even made, etc. Vazquez's numbers are poor because his arm is very weak. His pop time and exchange is good to great, but his arm just doesn't have the juice, ranking 50th of 63 catchers in MLB rated by Statcast. 

[tony&rodney]

The Twins have two catchers and apparently nobody in the wings (no consideration to even using Camargo at all in his time in MLB). Meanwhile these two have been decent as a combo, splitting time and managing to hold their own while maintaining decent health. However, Vazquez doesn't hit and has aged and has another year at $10 million, while Jeffers has seemingly plateaued as a player. So it looks to most as if the Twins can just roll it back again with these two and look for solutions next year. This seems reactive with the potential for cratering to occur during the 2025 season.

I would propose the team become more proactive in acquiring their next catcher. This may not turn out as well as the last two years of Jeffers and Vazquez being available and stable as catchers, but it seems like a good time to attempt a change. Falvey has his work cut out for himself but I would think he is on the clock and more open to possibilities than he has been in the past.

[ashbury]

10 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

It's the recurring bill that comes due for not growing your own.

Failure Tax.  (On my less charitable days, Stupidity Tax.)

[ashbury]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Statcast ranks his "caught stealing" at -3 runs vs. average in 2024 for runners trying to steal 2B. A lot goes into whether or not teams attempt to steal bases, and the overall CS vs. SB, whether or not an attempt to throw was even made, etc. Vazquez's numbers are poor because his arm is very weak. His pop time and exchange is good to great, but his arm just doesn't have the juice, ranking 50th of 63 catchers in MLB rated by Statcast. 

I was responding to a view of "Controlling run game - Below average".  Since the Twins as a whole are almost exactly average in the AL at controlling the running game*, and since Vazquez and Jeffers have highly comparable baserunner stats, I find it hard to call either of them below average. 

I like a deeper dive as well as the next math geek, but not when the pieces don't add up to the sum that we plainly see in the actual record.  The purpose of analytics is to reconcile the record, not alter it.  But now "below average" is yet another hill you want to die on for some reason.

The Twins' control of the running game was not below average in 2024.  If you say Vazquez was, then you're in the curious position of saying Jeffers was above average at it.

 

* maybe even a little better than average - this is in comparison only to their AL peers, whereas across the majors they have fewer than average SB attempts against them, in large part because the 3 teams who try it the most are all in the NL.  When in doubt I take a conservative view, but one could make a case for better than I said.

[bean5302]

16 hours ago, ashbury said:

... But now "below average" is yet another hill you want to die on for some reason...

I thought -4 runs below MLB average was "below average" based on my understanding of math. Apparently, you want to die on the hill that -4 is probably above average. I'm pretty confident in my position.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

I thought -4 runs below MLB average was "below average" based on my understanding of math. Apparently, you want to die on the hill that -4 is probably above average. I'm pretty confident in my position.

Analytics should explain reality, not be mistaken for the reality. I'm not discussing it further.  SB are SB.

[DJL44]

Catcher is one position where teams have been very hesitant to grab players from Japan, mostly due to communication issues. There are a few MLB caliber catchers playing in Japan. Giving Takuya Kai or Tomoya Mori a shot at catcher would be interesting. I'm surprised the Dodgers haven't done it since they have two Japanese pitchers on the roster.