Twins Land Former Top Prospect Diego Cartaya in Trade With Dodgers

[Riverbrian]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm probably considered a "sbrnerd" or "data boy," but I love intangibles. Said I believe in them in this thread. They're important. They boost skills. They were actually discussed quite frequently and very positively in every analytics job I had. Nobody "hated" them. They may have wished they could measure them, but they didn't hate them nor deny their existence. Like you said, a guy needs to be able to play first, though. Otherwise, they're just a coach. 

I do struggle with the idea of people outside the clubhouse/organization having too strong of opinions on intangibles and player personalities, though. We can gather a little bit of info from interviews and what the media tell us, but we're not in the clubhouse. It's why I personally stick to stats as much as I can. I can't tell you what the interpersonal relationships are in the clubhouse. There is actually at least one poster on here who can speak to things a little due to a personal relationship to a player on the Twins roster, but, to my knowledge, none of the rest of us know any of them personally. 

People are always welcome to disagree, and this is a hard to define subject that's easy to disagree on. But, for me, if you can't define/describe that player's intangibles beyond using the word intangibles, or show where their intangibles are improving the performance of the team you haven't convinced me of anything. If the team performs worse with you and your intangibles on the field than the guy who replaces you then I don't really care about your intangibles. I just want the Twins to win. And what gives the Twins the best chance to win are the guys who perform best on the field. 

Manuel Margot can bring a whole wheel barrel of intangibles with him to the plate to pinch hit, but if he goes 0-30 doing it that wheel barrel doesn't impress me and I still don't want him on the team. 

Exactly. How do we know who has intangibles? How do we know who doesn't have intangibles.

Even if we knew who has intangibles... hopefully a manager and his coaches have fingers on the pulse of this intangible meter. 

Yet, I wonder... Even with your finger on the pulse of it... How can the manager and his coaches connect those dots and explain to others exactly how many wins those intangibles create? 

Discussion of intangibles on this website is like discussing Bigfoot. 

 

 

[bean5302]

13 hours ago, TaterTot said:

 

Clubhouse issues? I wasn’t aware of any clubhouse issues with Royce Lewis, seems like a nice guy to me.

Lewis didn't take kindly to public comments by Correa towards the end of last year about some players not working hard enough. Lewis was also outwardly critical of being pushed to play 2B by Baldelli.

It paints the picture of a very disgruntled ballplayer, but honestly, I think Lewis was spot on.

[Mike Sixel]

13 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

Sbrnerds hate intangibles mainly because they can't be measured.  Data boys hate anything they can't measure, often to their detriment.  Teams and coaches love them.  But both agree that the player has to be able to play first.

But today, 100+ posts.

I can't really see that this does anything for the 2025 squad.  It feels as simple as a former top prospect catcher, available for a song, to a team with jack nothing in the minor league catching ranks.  We've talked many times about the lack of anyone who can catch in the organization and this just makes sense from that standpoint.  

 

Name calling. The best way to make a point!

[Rigby]

21 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

You don't like Christian Vazquez and make good points to support your claims. However, much like Brock and his rants on Kepler, a host of people calling for Julien to quit baseball or get cut, or the opposite approach where people believe Lewis is MVP material, it seems almost personal. I guess I can't think of getting so up or down on any MLB player that is largely just holding their job. I must confess that the use of Martin Maldonado seemed bewildering to me, but then I recalled how much I preferred an actual catcher behind the plate when I pitched as opposed to a hitter who dropped everything and blocked nothing.

Are you lefthanded? Every avenue explored I suppose.....

[Craig Arko]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Discussion of intangibles on this website is like discussing Bigfoot. 

 

 

Ah, Harry. The new DH.

[Jocko87]

48 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Name calling. The best way to make a point!

As a card carrying founding member of the group, we use terms most normies 😉aren’t allowed.  

[twinfan]

Back problems are a death sentence for a catcher. Make him a first baseman or DH and maybe his offense will take off. Otherwise, it's a wasted deal. Don't hope for anything as a catcher.

[stringer bell]

2 hours ago, twinfan said:

Back problems are a death sentence for a catcher. Make him a first baseman or DH and maybe his offense will take off. Otherwise, it's a wasted deal. Don't hope for anything as a catcher.

“Back problems” is pretty nebulous. I would hope the Twins did their due diligence in looking at Cartaya. OTOH, 23 is pretty young to show up with back problems. 

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

Doesn't it take catchers a while to develop? Dodgers seem to have given up him a little early. Not necessarily sure that this means Vazquez is gone. I think it's an example of taking a flier on a once elite prospect at a position that could use an infusion of talent throughout the minor league system.

[TopGunn#22]

Good point Twins Fan in NJ.  Once again it points to the absolute wealth the Dodgers have in their farm system, especially when it comes to catchers.  Now, to a high degree it may just be the "Dodger Bounce" that prospects get, the predictable overhype.  L.A. has been living on that since 1969 when they drafted Buckner, Cey, Garvey and Bobby Valentine.  

So there's a very real possibility that Cartaya is 95% hype.  It's hard to contain the Dodger prospect hype machine once it gets rolling.

But the Twins literally have ZERO catching prospects in their farm system.  If they did, we would have at least heard about one or two that "Twins Insiders" discuss those that have a real chance.  This is a deal that is a pure lottery ticket but is worth the minimal price we paid for the ticket.  It's also why they sent a LH RP out for Mickey Gasper, a resource that every major league team is desperate for.  Boston bought a lottery ticket with Jovanni Moran.  Good for them.  Maybe it works out.

I'm glad WE were the team that ended up with Cartaya.  If it works out it will be a shrewd deal made by Falvey/Zoll whether they are still in their present positions or long gone from Minnesota.   

[gil4]

On 1/9/2025 at 12:43 PM, Riverbrian said:

Vazquez is a pretty darn low offensive bar. If Cartaya can't hit... Oh Well... The other guy can't either. 

Hopefully we can get someone else to pay Vazquez $10M to not hit so we can pay someone $800K to do the same. 

[gil4]

On 1/10/2025 at 9:39 AM, Riverbrian said:

Exactly. How do we know who has intangibles? How do we know who doesn't have intangibles.

Discussion of intangibles on this website is like discussing Bigfoot. 

The supposed sightings of intangibles here tend to be as credible as those of bigfoot.  It's usually not as bad as the Moneyball ugly girlfriend discussion, but it's close.

The one area where it tends to be useful is on the value of defense at various positions.  Even that might not be intangibles, but the stats that make it tangible are less accessible or less understandable for average fans.

[jorgenswest]

On 1/10/2025 at 4:16 PM, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Doesn't it take catchers a while to develop? Dodgers seem to have given up him a little early. Not necessarily sure that this means Vazquez is gone. I think it's an example of taking a flier on a once elite prospect at a position that could use an infusion of talent throughout the minor league system.

It does. That is the challenge of an international signing of a catcher at 16. By the time they are 21 they need to be on the 40 or open to rule 5. By the time they are 24 they are out of options. Cartaya has one option left. The Dodgers already have three other catchers on the 40 and one that is ahead of him in Rushing. A team contending for a pennant is going to need that 40 man spot for someone who will contribute to the 2025 team.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, gil4 said:

Hopefully we can get someone else to pay Vazquez $10M to not hit so we can pay someone $800K to do the same. 

I was shopping for a blender the other day. I was at the blender store talking with the blender salesman. 

He offered me one that wouldn't blend anything at all for $44.49. 

He also offered me another one that also wouldn't blend anything at all for $8.49

I'm no dummy... I bought that $8.49 model. 

[Riverbrian]

42 minutes ago, gil4 said:

The supposed sightings of intangibles here tend to be as credible as those of bigfoot.  It's usually not as bad as the Moneyball ugly girlfriend discussion, but it's close.

The one area where it tends to be useful is on the value of defense at various positions.  Even that might not be intangibles, but the stats that make it tangible are less accessible or less understandable for average fans.

My wife said she saw a bigfoot the other day on the way to work. 

I asked her how she knew it was on it's way to work.  

[stringer bell]

I don't think obtaining Cartaya was solely a 2026 move. I think there's a decent chance that he and Camargo (perhaps Gasper) are in a competition for a third catcher role. Odds are that one of Jeffers or Vázquez suffers a disabling injury in 2025 and I don't believe the Twins were comfortable with what they had in Camargo in 2024. 

[USAFChief]

13 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I was shopping for a blender the other day. I was at the blender store talking with the blender salesman. 

He offered me one that wouldn't blend anything at all for $44.49. 

He also offered me another one that also wouldn't blend anything at all for $8.49

I'm no dummy... I bought that $8.49 model. 

You seem to have forgotten you already purchased the $44.49 blender two years ago. If you bought the $8.49 model, you now have two blenders that don't blend.

You need to get on eBay and dump the $44.49 model. You might be able to get $8.49 for it.

[ashbury]

24 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

You seem to have forgotten you already purchased the $44.49 blender two years ago. If you bought the $8.49 model, you now have two blenders that don't blend.

You need to get on eBay and dump the $44.49 model. You might be able to get $8.49 for it.

[Riverbrian]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

You seem to have forgotten you already purchased the $44.49 blender two years ago. If you bought the $8.49 model, you now have two blenders that don't blend.

You need to get on eBay and dump the $44.49 model. You might be able to get $8.49 for it.

I'm trying eBay. The people I've spoken with seem insistent on it being able to blend. 

So now... I'm trying to sell it as a flower pot. 

[Taildragger8791]

On 1/9/2025 at 2:16 PM, Mike Sixel said:

It's a lottery ticket. Who cares? Also, by all the pitchers you mean Lopez and Ryan? Duran?

I didn't say "all the pitchers". I said "all the elbow issues", as in the multiple times we've traded for or acquired guys with suspect arms and had it blow up immediately or after a year.

I get that it's a lottery ticket but it's still a 40-man roster spot and with Vazquez likely outgoing and the physical toll that catchers take on, there's a fair chance he'd be counted on at some point. I don't get worked up about the 3rd-4th catcher, but I still thought it worth pointing out that a persistent back injury is a big concern that seems glossed over here.

[gil4]

On 1/11/2025 at 8:19 PM, Riverbrian said:

I was shopping for a blender the other day. I was at the blender store talking with the blender salesman. 

He offered me one that wouldn't blend anything at all for $44.49. 

He also offered me another one that also wouldn't blend anything at all for $8.49

I'm no dummy... I bought that $8.49 model. 

Unfortunately, the law says you must have something in the blender spot on the counter.

[gil4]

On 1/12/2025 at 10:06 AM, USAFChief said:

You seem to have forgotten you already purchased the $44.49 blender two years ago. If you bought the $8.49 model, you now have two blenders that don't blend.

You need to get on eBay and dump the $44.49 model. You might be able to get $8.49 for it.

We're going to try to get $15 for it. It used to blend about 10 years ago and we are hoping someone will remember that and take a chance that they can get it to work again.

The 8.49 model has never blended and is not likely to do so in the future.