NEWS: Twins Agree to Sign Infielder Ty France

[KirbyDome89]

29 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Yep.  They are thin, thin, thin.  They're already at a point they probably have to keep one of Lee, Julien, or Martin despite no evidence they have bats that contribute at the moment.  I don't like to trust Spring Training numbers but this year it looks like they will have to.

One bit of evidence that they know they are thin: the 40-man currently carries 19 position players and 21 pitchers, when normally they prefer 18/22 and sometimes go with 17/23.  They are just hoping a larger number of players will mean that someone comes through.

Ditto, I think the only time I was in favor was during those dark mid 2010s years when fringe roster decisions were just shuffling deck chairs. It's kinda pathetic that a few weeks facing AAAA pitching might be enough for France to lock down a roster spot. 

[NYCTK]

14 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

The 2023 playoffs I'll give you. In 2023 and 2024 the two are separated by less than 50 innings. Over 2 full seasons. Youre just arguing without showing any facts to back-up your statements. Game 1 start to Jeffers.  Game 2 start to Vasquez. for 162 games. Yeah. I'm sorry to question your overwhelming knowledge of the game.

If one of the catchers is clearly the top of the depth chart, how is it ridiculous to point out the other guy is second? If you want to be pedantic and say 'actually he's 1b'...ok. He's still the #2 catcher. 

[NYCTK]

16 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Joey Gallo?

Emilio Pagan?

Andrelton Simmons?

0.5 WAR 

1.0 WAR 

1.5 WAR 

These aren't really disasters, and unless you can point to players that were blocked because of these decent players, you're kind of proving my point. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

15 minutes ago, stringer bell said:

I don't see many scenarios where France stands in the way of a prospect or even Miranda for that matter. I do see Bader taking up playing time that might have gone to Martin or Keirsey Jr., but I don't know if either of those guys is considered even a prospect. Later on this year, it is possible that having Bader keeps Rodriguez in St. Paul rather than playing outfield regularly with the Twins.

I think the "blocking," angle with these signings is being overplayed and/or misrepresented (not by you) The larger issue is that Bader or France won't be given a roster spot to sit on the bench. You're locking yourself into a high risk, low reward player(s) who have no options, zero upside and no future with the club in the hopes they bounce back and outperform what's already in house.

[nicksaviking]

26 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

0.5 WAR 

1.0 WAR 

1.5 WAR 

These aren't really disasters, and unless you can point to players that were blocked because of these decent players, you're kind of proving my point. 

 

WAR is such a terrible and useless stat.

Michael Taylor had a !!!.543!!! OPS last year and had a .9 WAR. There is no amount of defense that could ever make that level of incompetence at the plate a net positive.

[KirbyDome89]

50 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

0.5 WAR 

1.0 WAR 

1.5 WAR 

These aren't really disasters, and unless you can point to players that were blocked because of these decent players, you're kind of proving my point. 

 

Gallo: .163/.288/.374 with a 45% K rate and a -1.5 WPA from May 1st onward.

Pagan: 1.052 OPS against in high leverage, .850 OPS against with runners on base, -1 WPA as the designated closer

Simmons: terrible offensively all season, cratered entirely in the 2nd half of 2021 when he posted a .488 OPS 

Blocking is irrelevant, continuing to sink innings into bad players is poor enough strategy to make these signings disasters.   

[NYCTK]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

WAR is such a terrible and useless stat.

Michael Taylor had a !!!.543!!! OPS last year and had a .9 WAR. There is no amount of defense that could ever make that level of incompetence at the plate a net positive.

OK. I don't agree that's it's useless, but it's clearly a shorthanded way of conveying a player's value. We can go through the specifics if you'd like.

I know everyone hates Joey Gallo, but he did have a 300 OBP and 440 SLG while playing decent defense at 4 different positions so it's not difficult to understand why it portrays him as a positive value player, despite that massive K rate being no fun to watch. And did he really block anyone? Larnach a little bit, but Larnach was in his third season in the majors and wasn't performing. Wallner a little bit, but Wallner was an everyday starter the entirety of the second half essentially, so how much was he blocked? 

Pagan pitched 130 innings with a 1.149 WHIP so it's not hard to see value there. 

And Simmons is perhaps the best defensive SS in history, so it's not to imagine value there. And who was HE blocking? Nick Gordon? 

If we're being rational, Manuel Margot similarly wasn't really truly blocking anyone either, even if I do feel bad that Keirsey didn't get a true big league opportunity. I think we all agree that he deserved it more than Margot. But are we supposed to believe that they would have kept Margot over a player like Jenkins had he shown he was ready for a chance in the show? 

So, no I'm not at all worried about this front office holding onto a valuable major leaguer longer than the curmudgeon armchair GMs of Twins Daily would personally like.  

 

[NYCTK]

14 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Gallo: .163/.288/.374 with a 45% K rate and a -1.5 WPA from May 1st onward.

Pagan: 1.052 OPS against in high leverage, .850 OPS against with runners on base, -1 WPA as the designated closer

Simmons: terrible offensively all season, cratered entirely in the 2nd half of 2021 when he posted a .488 OPS 

Blocking is irrelevant, continuing to sink innings into bad players is poor enough strategy to make these signings disasters.   

Instead they should have played Nick Gordon... 

[KirbyDome89]

7 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Instead they should have played Nick Gordon... 

The sunk cost fallacy is real...

[chpettit19]

4 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Clever, if the Mets didn't replace him with a near identical archetype, as the starting CF no less. 

But not everyone can be as picky and choosey as those high and mighty Twins. 

If Siri is starting that means Taylor is the 4th OFer there. The same Taylor that beat out Bader and took his job last year. You're making our point for us as the Mets actively traded for a guy who isn't very good because they thought Bader wasn't even good enough to be their 2nd CFer because Taylor had already beaten him out.

 

3 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

Because he's not the #2 catcher. When a team has only 2 catchers, and they're as close to 50-50 as you can get. And I concur with your last sentence.  Spared me having to type that.

Come on now, Jeffers caught 4 more outs than Vazquez last year. What more do you want to see before you say Vazquez is clearly the #2? 2 entire innings of separation?!

[NYCTK]

6 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The sunk cost fallacy is real...

Are you under the impression that a team should play bad players instead of better players just because they're cheaper? 

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If Siri is starting that means Taylor is the 4th OFer there. The same Taylor that beat out Bader and took his job last year. You're making our point for us.

Oh no. The Twins hired the player that ended the season as the valuable 4th OF for arguably the second best team in the league. What a terrible turn of events! 

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Come on now, Jeffers caught 4 more outs than Vazquez last year. What more do you want to see before you say Vazquez is clearly the #2? 2 entire innings of separation?!

Let's say the Twins didn't completely choke...who do you think was going to start more in the playoffs? 2023 hints towards the answer! 

[chpettit19]

13 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Oh no. The Twins hired the player that ended the season as the valuable 4th OF for arguably the second best team in the league. What a terrible turn of events! 

Let's say the Twins didn't completely choke...who do you think was going to start more in the playoffs? 2023 hints towards the answer! 

That team didn't think he was good enough. That team actively trying to win the world series said "you're not good enough to even be our backup" based on firsthand knowledge of the player and I'm supposed to be excited about that?

I think the Twins would've continued the every other game catcher situation. If Jeffers was so clearly the number 1 why wouldn't they have played him more down the stretch while they were in the middle of tanking? We don't need to go back to 2023 to see what they'd do when the chips were down in 2024 and the season was on the line. We watched it in real time. The Twins played 28 games in September with their season on the line. Ryan Jeffers caught 14 of those games. I'm pretty sure you can figure out the math there, but I'll do it for you anyways, Christian Vazquez caught the exact same number of 14 games while the season crumbled before their eyes. They got into must win games and they continued to split the catching duties 50/50. 2023 doesn't hint towards anything. We watched what they'd do when the chips were down and they were playing must win games. They kept going 50/50.

[Schmoeman5]

21 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If Siri is starting that means Taylor is the 4th OFer there. The same Taylor that beat out Bader and took his job last year. You're making our point for us as the Mets actively traded for a guy who isn't very good because they thought Bader wasn't even good enough to be their 2nd CFer because Taylor had already beaten him out.

 

Come on now, Jeffers caught 4 more outs than Vazquez last year. What more do you want to see before you say Vazquez is clearly the #2? 2 entire innings of separation?!

Coming from you I'll gladly accept that.😅

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

That team didn't think he was good enough. That team actively trying to win the world series said "you're not good enough to even be our backup" based on firsthand knowledge of the player and I'm supposed to be excited about that?

If your barometer is "is this player good enough to be on the Steve Cohen Mets" then you should be hating on about 2/3 of the Twins. 

[chpettit19]

Just now, NYCTK said:

If your barometer is "is this player good enough to be on the Steve Cohen Mets" then you should be hating on about 2/3 of the Twins. 

I'm not hating on any player on any team. I am hating on team/FO strategy that continues to bring in players that don't raise the ceiling on the team in the name of making sure the floor doesn't fall away. We want the front office to take chances on guys who can raise the ceiling instead of stockpiling guys who just "won't be terrible." 

We're just going round and round at this point. I explained to you what I mean by "floor setting" players in another thread. I'm not going to do it again. You want to make it all about Bader while we continue to tell you it's about the overall strategy. I think we should all be upset that the standards in the Twins' front office are so much lower than those in the Mets'. We want the team to upgrade on their potentially average but not likely more than average players, not just add more potentially average but not likely more than average players. You like Bader. Nobody is telling you not to. I think we've all acknowledged that he's likely going to be an overall average player. We want more. We want the Twins to raise the bar like Steve Cohen has done. Again, you're proving our point.

[NYCTK]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not hating on any player on any team. I am hating on team/FO strategy that continues to bring in players that don't raise the ceiling on the team in the name of making sure the floor doesn't fall away. We want the front office to take chances on guys who can raise the ceiling instead of stockpiling guys who just "won't be terrible." 

We're just going round and round at this point. I explained to you what I mean by "floor setting" players in another thread. I'm not going to do it again. You want to make it all about Bader while we continue to tell you it's about the overall strategy. I think we should all be upset that the standards in the Twins' front office are so much lower than those in the Mets'. We want the team to upgrade on their potentially average but not likely more than average players, not just add more potentially average but not likely more than average players. You like Bader. Nobody is telling you not to. I think we've all acknowledged that he's likely going to be an overall average player. We want more. We want the Twins to raise the bar like Steve Cohen has done. Again, you're proving our point.

I also want the Twins to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. I have been hating on the Pohalds, Falveys, and Rocco my entire time here. 

I'm just not so deranged enough to think that improving the team is bad actually. 

[nicksaviking]

25 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I also want the Twins to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. I have been hating on the Pohalds, Falveys, and Rocco my entire time here. 

I'm just not so deranged enough to think that improving the team is bad actually. 

****Moderator Note****

More personal attacks are going to result in infractions.

Also, you don't get to claim this as a fact only true to your side of the argument and tell everyone else have to accept it.

WE DO NOT THINK THESE BAD BASEBALL PLAYERS IMPROVE THE TEAM. 

Feel free to disagree that they are bad. Don't disagree that we also want to improve the team.

[Riverbrian]

13 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I also want the Twins to spend hundreds of millions of dollars.

That's not going to happen. So what could the Twins do instead? 

I know your next post is going to disappoint me but c'mon... you are getting close to understanding what Chia Pet is saying.  

[chpettit19]

44 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I also want the Twins to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. I have been hating on the Pohalds, Falveys, and Rocco my entire time here. 

I'm just not so deranged enough to think that improving the team is bad actually. 

I don't believe these moves made the Twins meaningfully better. And I don't care about any marginal improvement. Marginal improvement doesn't get them any closer to a world series and that's what I want. They need to develop the marginal guys and quit paying millions for them. Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next. 

I'm not asking for hundreds of millions. That isn't realistic. I'm asking for better strategies with the 140-145 they have. I don't believe these veteran signings improve the Twins team in the pursuit of a championship. And the pursuit of a championship is what I care about. You're welcome to disagree with any or all of that. But every argument we've made has been reasonable and defended well.

[KirbyDome89]

50 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Are you under the impression that a team should play bad players instead of better players just because they're cheaper? 

Not even close....

Don't marry yourself to underperforming players you hope don't continue the trend because you're terrified that cheaper guys with options might underperform. 

[NYCTK]

18 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't believe these moves made the Twins meaningfully better. And I don't care about any marginal improvement. Marginal improvement doesn't get them any closer to a world series and that's what I want. They need to develop the marginal guys and quit paying millions for them. Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next. 

I'm not asking for hundreds of millions. That isn't realistic. I'm asking for better strategies with the 140-145 they have. I don't believe these veteran signings improve the Twins team in the pursuit of a championship. And the pursuit of a championship is what I care about. You're welcome to disagree with any or all of that. But every argument we've made has been reasonable and defended well.

If you're not making marginal improvements, nor spending big money, you're rebuilding. 

[NYCTK]

14 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Not even close....

Don't marry yourself to underperforming players you hope don't continue the trend because you're terrified that cheaper guys with options might underperform. 

When those cheaper guys are Nick Gordon, DaShawn Keirsey and Austin Martin it becomes entirely reasonable to stick with the underperforming guys. 

[NYCTK]

25 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

They need to develop the marginal guys and quit paying millions for them.

Agreed. 

How does that help this year? 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Agreed. 

How does that help this year? 

"Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next."

Stop deleting all the parts of my posts you don't like and read the context and answers I've already provided.

[NYCTK]

Just now, chpettit19 said:

"Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next."

Stop deleting all the parts of my posts you don't like and read the context and answers I've already provided.

Oh. So a rebuild. 

 

[NYCTK]

Look man. I'm not opposed to a rebuild. But don't think for a second that your desire to just let the kids play in order to see what you got and gain experience isn't a rebuild by a different name. 

A rebuild of one year is still a rebuild. 

[stringer bell]

46 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't believe these moves made the Twins meaningfully better. And I don't care about any marginal improvement. Marginal improvement doesn't get them any closer to a world series and that's what I want. They need to develop the marginal guys and quit paying millions for them. Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next. 

I'm not asking for hundreds of millions. That isn't realistic. I'm asking for better strategies with the 140-145 they have. I don't believe these veteran signings improve the Twins team in the pursuit of a championship. And the pursuit of a championship is what I care about. You're welcome to disagree with any or all of that. But every argument we've made has been reasonable and defended well.

So, your big picture view is that the club provides the role players, back end starters and low leverage relievers from their system and if they spend money it should be on premium free agents and extensions? As a general plan, I really like that, but it seems that a lot of teams spend on marginal players every year, including the high dollar Yankees, Red Sox and Braves.

I think a case can be made that the Twins don't have people in their system to handle the roles that Coulombe, Bader and France might fill. However, I also think a case can be made that what the players offer is pretty marginal and not worth the expense or roster filling.

I keep going back to 2023 thinking "where would the Twins have been without Taylor, Solano and Farmer"--the same type of moves as adding Bader and France. It seems to me that on balance adding veteran players can be helpful, but there's no guarantees. In 2024, Santana was fine, but Farmer was disappointing and Margot was close to a disaster. The right guys need to be added.

Back to Ty France. Given that Miranda hasn't been able to be a good player for an entire season and given the options behind Miranda, yeah they need to raise the floor there. He's getting pretty close to a pre-arb contract without a guarantee of making the squad so they held the line and won't have a lot invested in case France continues to be below replacement level. Still, I'm tired of seeing bat-only guys come in and get 400 plate appearances and playing a lot in the field. 

 

[stringer bell]

7 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Look man. I'm not opposed to a rebuild. But don't think for a second that your desire to just let the kids play in order to see what you got and gain experience isn't a rebuild by a different name. 

A rebuild of one year is still a rebuild. 

It's probably a topic for another thread, but having 30-year-old Carlos Correa and 31-year-old Byron Buxton around for a rebuild, even if you can make it for one year (I doubt it) doesn't make sense. Also, the Twins have what? two more years of Lopez, Ryan, Ober heading their rotation. I don't think you rebuild when you have that as the top of your rotation.

 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, NYCTK said:

Look man. I'm not opposed to a rebuild. But don't think for a second that your desire to just let the kids play in order to see what you got and gain experience isn't a rebuild by a different name. 

A rebuild of one year is still a rebuild. 

The Twins won 82 games last year. You've spent all offseason saying they're going to be below .500 this year. You've admitted these signings don't make them good. Me saying I'll risk 79 wins is not a rebuild. In fact, it's better than you've spent months saying they'll do. Especially not the way I've described my strategy multiple times to you. A rebuild would include trading away the known talented players. My strategy is to add another talented player instead of the collection of average players they have collected instead and let the kids learn in the smaller roles.

And, as we keep saying over and over and over this isn't a one year thing. They do this every year which has made it a multi-year middle of the road team because they've made it so there's always a need for the next 4-10 mil 1 year vet. Which is why we don't like the strategy.

[RpR]

😫

21 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

"Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next."

Stop deleting all the parts of my posts you don't like and read the context and answers I've already provided.

More likely 77-80-81-76-85 back to the seventies where they were in a semi-continuous rebuilding.😫