Twins Add Catching Depth with Early Offseason Swap

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, DJL44 said:

If they trade Jeffers, they'll be trading Ryan and Lopez and possibly Buxton. Then they just need a couple guys who can play defense. Jackson can catch and throw so he fills that need.

Sure, but I don't think that's the plan in the least. I have said since the trade deadline that I don't think this is a rebuild. I think they legitimately plan to try to compete this year. And this trade does nothing to suggest anything else to me.

And if they're trading all those guys and truly doing a rebuild then why trade for anyone? Eeles is very unlikely to be a useful big leaguer, but if you're going all in on a rebuild you keep all your prospects. You don't risk losing anyone with 6 years of control for a guy with 3 because the 6 is more important than the backup catcher in a tanked season. If all they're trying to do is fill 2 roles with guys who can catch, they'd have claimed Rortvedt for cheaper and run with Cardenas, Pereda, or whoever else. You don't trade away controlled assets to fill any need whatsoever if you're trading Jeffers, Ryan, Lopez, and possibly Buxton.

[DJL44]

5 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

But when you look at the trade deeper, as in Jackson for Vazquez, Jackson replacing Vazquez. The team that finished 2025 just got worse. I know Vazquez gets zero love on this site but he made the Twins a better team than Jackson at this point. 

I will take 30-year-old Alex Jackson over 35-year-old Christian Vazquez in 2026.

[shimrod]

Has the FO said anything to indicate he's a backup? Jeffers replacement is also a possibility. 

I understand the minimal track record says backup only but I think folks are underestimating just how low ownership wants the payroll. 

[DJL44]

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

And if they're trading all those guys and truly doing a rebuild then why trade for anyone? 

If they're trading those guys, they'll be trading for a lot of new players. That's the whole point.

Someone needs to sit behind the plate, catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher. If they put Gasper back there, they can add an extra run of ERA to all the pitchers and they won't have any relievers to trade at the deadline. Even in a rebuild year, they should be trying to pump-and-dump relievers in July.

[rv78]

19 minutes ago, JBK said:

For this FO, it's all about the $$$$

If that is the case, then they don't bring in a backup catcher for $1.8M. You sign Rortvedt or play Pereda for league minimum. It looks more like a salary dump for the Orioles than anything and they found their sucker in Falvey to accomplish it. 

1st Gallo, then Gasper, now Jackson. Falvey just can't get enough guys that hit below .200 to satisify his hunger of ineptness.

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

If they're trading those guys, they'll be trading for a lot of new players. That's the whole point.

Someone needs to sit behind the plate, catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher. If they put Gasper back there, they can add an extra run of ERA to all the pitchers and they won't have any relievers to trade at the deadline. Even in a rebuild year, they should be trying to pump-and-dump relievers in July.

I understand someone needs to sit behind the plate, it's why I said they'd have claimed Rortvedt if that was the plan. You don't give up control years when you're rebuilding. I didn't write Gasper in my post for a reason. They have legitimate catchers on the roster already. People want them to trade for a young, MLB-ready one if they trade all those guys. Alex Jackson doesn't fit into that strategy. You don't trade for 30-year-old, 3 years of control Alex Jackson if you're truly rebuilding. You just don't. You claim the similar, younger, cheaper player off waivers and pair him with young guys like Cardenas after maybe starting the year with Pereda. But you don't give up guys, no matter how low they are on the prospect ranking, with 6 years of control for a guy with 3 years of control if you're planning to trade your 3 best players and your starting catcher.

You asked why I thought it suggested they weren't moving Jeffers. This is why. If all they care about is putting 2 guys behind the plate who can help pitchers, Alex Jackson isn't the move. Alex Jackson is the move if you're keeping Jeffers and just need a backup you think is better than in house guys which matters because you're trying to win MLB games in 2026.

[DJL44]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

They have legitimate catchers on the roster already.

They do not. Pereda can't hang onto the ball. Cardenas is one guy and they need at least two of them. I suppose they could pick up two waiver wire catchers and save $1M but their payroll is already below $90M and headed for $45M if they trade Lopez, Buxton, Ryan and Jeffers.

I hope the plan is to try to compete in 2026. The division is wide open, especially if the Tigers trade off Skubal.

[Rosterman]

I was surprised the Twins didn't clain Ben Rortbedt when he was released. Ben's .152 average is jsut behind Alex's .153. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, DJL44 said:

They do not. Pereda can't hang onto the ball. Cardenas is one guy and they need at least two of them. I suppose they could pick up two waiver wire catchers and save $1M but their payroll is already below $90M and headed for $45M if they trade Lopez, Buxton, Ryan and Jeffers.

I hope the plan is to try to compete in 2026. The division is wide open, especially if the Tigers trade off Skubal.

I legitimately don't understand what you're arguing anymore. I stated that I think this trade is a sign they have no intention of trading Jeffers. You said you didn't understand why it suggested that so I answered you. You added that trading Jeffers would mean they're trading Lopez, Ryan, and possibly Buxton so I expanded on the idea and said this trade makes even less sense if they're trading all those guys.

This is now the 3rd time I've mentioned claiming Rortvedt if their plan was to just have 2 guys who can catch the ball and help the pitchers. Cardenas is one and Rortvedt is another. That's 2 by my count. If they were planning on trading Jeffers because they've actually gone with a full rebuild plan, that is by far the more likely route they'd have gone, and it's the smarter route for that situation. That is why my answer to your question of why this trade suggests they aren't trading Jeffers is because it doesn't make sense to trade for Alex freaking Jackson and then trade Jeffers. 

I think you're going to get your hope. It's been my belief the entire time that they plan to try to compete this year. I just don't think it's a good idea. I think all they're going to do is make the needed rebuild worse and slower.

[tony&rodney]

We are hoping against hope that the front office is competent. They must be or they wouldn't have those jobs. Then again, we could spend the rest of the winter discussing people who pulled down big paychecks in important jobs who didn't have a clue what they were doing but liked their job and the independence and freedom they had in their position. Is it possible there is anyone connected with the Twins that is .... shall we say less than proficient in their position? I doubt it because from the very top on down they all earned everything. 

If we use some reasoning or shards of logic it does seem like this trade may indicate a will to compete. Will they? Oof. First Jackson has to beat out the big trade return from last year, Mickey Gasper. Now, because one makes more money, so we must conclude that that player is better so Gasper toils in St. Paul while Jackson unexpectedly wins the triple crown as a Twin. Right? We should be patient. This is a big trade, bringing a catcher. We already decided that Clemens and Julien are fine at first base. What were the other needs? Oh, the bullpen where Orze and Topa join Funderburk and Sands to hold down the back end of the bullpen while others, previously mentioned in an interview with Falvey can fill the front of the bullpen. Now if the Twins can just find a right-handed hitting outfielder, the team will be set.

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I have said since the trade deadline that I don't think this is a rebuild. I think they legitimately plan to try to compete this year.

Gutting an entire bullpen is a weird way of showing you want to compete the following year.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

And if they're trading all those guys and truly doing a rebuild then why trade for anyone?

Because we still need to fill out a team and the organization has absolutely nothing of substance at catcher.

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Gutting an entire bullpen is a weird way of showing you want to compete the following year.

Because we still need to fill out a team and the organization has absolutely nothing of substance at catcher.

I didn't say it was a good plan. In fact, I've been saying for months that I hate the plan. But bullpens are incredibly volatile and is the part of the team most teams feel is easiest to rebuild while also carrying excess value at the deadline. If this was a true rebuild, they'd trade Jeffers this offseason, at least 1 of the starters this offseason, and at least 1 more by the deadline. I don't think they'll do any of that. Because I think Falvey means it when he says he's trying to build around the pieces here, including Lopez, Ryan, Jeffers, and Buxton. That is not a rebuild. That is trying to win now and in the future. And I think it's a terrible plan.

That second sentence doesn't answer the real question. Why trade controllable assets to fill roles on a tanking/rebuilding team? Who cares about substance when you're not trying to win? I don't know why you guys continue to delete out the vast majority of my posts when you respond. I have mentioned Ben Rortvedt 4 times now. That is the move you make if you're rebuilding. You claim a cheaper, younger player without trading any asset, no matter how unlikely it is that the traded asset is a useful piece in the future. There is a whole free agent market full of catchers in the Alex Jackson/Ben Rortvedt tier of players. Go sign any of them without trading a controllable piece. The question wasn't "why add" it was "why trade." There's a massive difference. 

You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest it's clearly a rebuild and then suggest they should be trading for "substance" for 2026. That isn't how a rebuild works. A true rebuild doesn't care 1 gosh darn bit about the 2026 results. It gets rid of every valuable short-term piece while adding as many possible long-term pieces as possible. You don't trade the possible long-term pieces (no matter how likely they are to be real pieces) for the short-term piece because you don't care about the short term. You don't trade for guys, you sign dumpster dive players.

[Wedman13]

4 hours ago, bunsen82 said:

So the options for the backup C for next year - were Pereda or signing someone or in this case trading for one.  Jackson seems to be in the mold of Clemens .  Great at AAA - struggled at MLB level  until last year- but had a decent stats for this year,  .7 WAR.     So I don't feel the synopsis above is quite fair.  Yes it was 100 at bats,  small sample size,  but .220/.290/.763  slash line which is much better than we got from Vazquez.   

For a player we picked up for a minor league contract who is blocked in our system -  it is actually a pretty decent move- if not a sexy one.  Its a solid flip for depth than now allows Pereda to be the 3rd option which gives us pretty decent depth for next year.   

This post nailed it.

there are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with the Twins, this isn't one.  Geez, from some of the posts I've read you would think we traded Jenkins and Emma for him,

[Vanimal46]

6 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If this was a true rebuild, they'd trade Jeffers this offseason, at least 1 of the starters this offseason, and at least 1 more by the deadline.

They will probably do just that. 

6 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I have mentioned Ben Rortvedt 4 times now.

This is the same regime that let him go in the first place. A crazy thought is they probably don’t view him highly. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Vanimal46 said:

They will probably do just that. 

This is the same regime that let him go in the first place. A crazy thought is they probably don’t view him highly. 

What suggests they're going to do that? And, if that's the plan, why trade for Jackson? Again, they don't need to think highly of Rortvedt to understand that trading a controllable asset for Jackson is a worse plan than claiming Rortvedt if they have no intention of competing in 2026 and are going to trade Jeffers and 2 starting pitchers by the deadline. And I find it very hard to believe that they don't think highly of Rortvedt's glove. Which is all they should care about if they're truly rebuilding. They didn't get Jackson for his long-term upside with the bat.

You seem convinced this is a rebuild. I've been saying since the deadline that it doesn't look like one to me. They traded expiring deals and bullpen pieces while keeping every position player and starter with control. That isn't how you rebuild. I will take the under on 3 of the combination of Jeffers, Ryan, Lopez, and Ober being traded by August 1st, 2026.

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Getting a viable MLB backup C for a former lottery ticket minor league FA signing is a win in my book.

Is that what they're getting though? This looks like the C equivalent of Kody Clemens; nice couple weeks after coming up in July buoyed what was otherwise another unremarkable (even by C standards) offensive campaign. 

[KirbyDome89]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

If you look at Jackson's AAA stats - .242/.323/.517 for an .840 OPS - it makes his 2025 MLB line of .220/.290/.473 look sustainable. An .840 OPS in AAA is higher than Eeles (.790) and Keirsey (.811) and neither of them can play adequate defense behind the plate.

 

Keirsey was unplayable. That's an insanely low bar to clear. Idk how Jackson's K rate in the mid 30s (I'm probably being too generous here) is sustainable. 

[Vanimal46]

10 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Is that what they're getting though? This looks like the C equivalent of Kody Clemens; nice couple weeks after coming up in July buoyed what was otherwise another unremarkable (even by C standards) offensive campaign. 

Who knows but I find it impossible to get worked up over this trade. 

[KirbyDome89]

2 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Who knows but I find it impossible to get worked up over this trade. 

Idc about Eeles. I do care about locking a subpar performer into a roster spot. 

[The Great Hambino]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I understand someone needs to sit behind the plate, it's why I said they'd have claimed Rortvedt if that was the plan. You don't give up control years when you're rebuilding. I didn't write Gasper in my post for a reason. They have legitimate catchers on the roster already. People want them to trade for a young, MLB-ready one if they trade all those guys. Alex Jackson doesn't fit into that strategy. You don't trade for 30-year-old, 3 years of control Alex Jackson if you're truly rebuilding. You just don't. You claim the similar, younger, cheaper player off waivers and pair him with young guys like Cardenas after maybe starting the year with Pereda. But you don't give up guys, no matter how low they are on the prospect ranking, with 6 years of control for a guy with 3 years of control if you're planning to trade your 3 best players and your starting catcher.

You asked why I thought it suggested they weren't moving Jeffers. This is why. If all they care about is putting 2 guys behind the plate who can help pitchers, Alex Jackson isn't the move. Alex Jackson is the move if you're keeping Jeffers and just need a backup you think is better than in house guys which matters because you're trying to win MLB games in 2026.

I get what you're saying on the years of control piece, but I don't think it's all that relevant in this instance where neither player is going to be with the organization in three years anyway.  So the real cost is in what you're paying Jackson beyond the league minimum.  And if they think that it will be easier to evaluate and support their young pitchers with him as opposed to Rortvedt or Pareda or whomever else could be in his place - which arguably has value beyond wins and losses - then it's not much of a cost.  I don't know if I fully agree with that, but I understand the logic. Without options, it's effectively a one year deal anyway.

So to me, it doesn't really tip their hand as to the direction they're going.  By that logic, attaching Dobnak to the Paddack trade was proof they're cutting salary to the bone because they chose take a lesser prospect to avoid paying his buyout.  No reason to do that if you're not trying to cut costs everywhere you can.  But both trades are too low-wattage to really dictate where they're going.  What it tells me is they don't think Cardenas is ready to support a staff in a reserve role, don't think Pareda is a viable option at all beyond necessary organizational depth, and don't think Eeles is an asset of any kind.  It's a low enough cost that they could cut bait with Jackson at any time if they think Cardenas becomes ready to fill that role. 

Related, I read that the Dodgers had come to terms with Rortvedt for $1.25MM before getting DFA'd.  Does this mean that any team claiming him on waivers is is picking his contract up at that number?  In other words, Rortvedt wouldn't have been available for the minimum unless he cleared waivers, which he didn't?

[DJL44]

8 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Idk how Jackson's K rate in the mid 30s (I'm probably being too generous here) is sustainable. 

I'm pretty sure he can continue to strike out over 30% of the time.

I think they're hoping exactly for another Kody Clemens - low batting average but can hit one over the fence every so often. Kody Clemens career .206/.263/.403 batting line would actually be perfectly fine for a decent fielding catcher. James McCann just got $3M to be that guy. Not really adequate for a first baseman.

[sweetmusicviola16]

7 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Idc about Eeles. I do care about locking a subpar performer into a roster spot. 

This is how I feel as well. Trading Eeles for Jackson is a ho hum shrug your shoulders and get on with the day kind of trade. But we all know that Jackson was just acquired to be one of the 26 guys on the 2026 Twins. This doesn't improve your team. We just put another guy on the team who's "subpar."

[KirbyDome89]

Just now, DJL44 said:

I'm pretty sure he can continue to strike out over 30% of the time.

I think they're hoping exactly for another Kody Clemens - low batting average but can hit one over the fence every so often. Kody Clemens career .206/.263/.403 batting line would actually be perfectly fine for a decent fielding catcher. James McCann just got $3M to be that guy. Not really adequate for a first baseman.

Sure, you can K 35% of the time, but if you're gonna OPS in the high 500s/low 600s that's going to drag your team down offensively. 

Clemens was terrible outside of May last season. Similarly, Jackson clustered some XBHs during a 2 week span in what was a very SSS overall. He was pretty much the same hitter production-wise pre and post that 11 game stretch. Begging for a repeat hot streak from an otherwise poor hitter seems like poor strategy to me, especially if you're planning on giving him 250-300 PAs. 

[chpettit19]

31 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I get what you're saying on the years of control piece, but I don't think it's all that relevant in this instance where neither player is going to be with the organization in three years anyway.  So the real cost is in what you're paying Jackson beyond the league minimum.  And if they think that it will be easier to evaluate and support their young pitchers with him as opposed to Rortvedt or Pareda or whomever else could be in his place - which arguably has value beyond wins and losses - then it's not much of a cost.  I don't know if I fully agree with that, but I understand the logic. Without options, it's effectively a one year deal anyway.

So to me, it doesn't really tip their hand as to the direction they're going.  By that logic, attaching Dobnak to the Paddack trade was proof they're cutting salary to the bone because they chose take a lesser prospect to avoid paying his buyout.  No reason to do that if you're not trying to cut costs everywhere you can.  But both trades are too low-wattage to really dictate where they're going.  What it tells me is they don't think Cardenas is ready to support a staff in a reserve role, don't think Pareda is a viable option at all beyond necessary organizational depth, and don't think Eeles is an asset of any kind.  It's a low enough cost that they could cut bait with Jackson at any time if they think Cardenas becomes ready to fill that role. 

Related, I read that the Dodgers had come to terms with Rortvedt for $1.25MM before getting DFA'd.  Does this mean that any team claiming him on waivers is is picking his contract up at that number?  In other words, Rortvedt wouldn't have been available for the minimum unless he cleared waivers, which he didn't?

Rortvedt wasn't available at the minimum, he's just cheaper than Jackson and didn't require a trade.

I don't think Eeles is some super likely MLB piece, but why trade any possible MLB player with 6 years of control when you can sign or claim a Jackson level catcher at any point for 1 to 2 mil? Or, as others are suggesting, if it's true that this is a full rebuild and they're looking at dumping not only Jeffers' salary but also the salaries of a starting pitcher or 2 they shouldn't be worried about spending 4 mil on whatever glove only FA catchers they want. Making the trades people are suggesting means they're dropping the payroll down to the 70 mil range. I can't imagine even the Pohlads would be so cheap as to say "you need to trade for Alex Jackson because we need to make sure we don't touch 80 mil with the payroll after trading the rest of the controllable vets."

This isn't the end of the world, and value wise it's a fine trade. But I think it very much suggests they aren't truly rebuilding and really aren't looking to move anymore MLB pieces for prospects. I believe Falvey is telling the truth when he says he wants to build around the pieces they have. And it makes sense since there's only so many bad seasons he can survive, even with the Pohlads in charge. He has to be nervous about job security for a true rebuild. I think the Twins are trying to win this year and I think that's why they traded for Alex Jackson instead of claiming Rortvedt or signing any random glove only catcher. And they aren't going to try to compete without Jeffers. It's why I think this trade is a sign Jeffers is staying.

[IndyTwinsFan]

35 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Who knows but I find it impossible to get worked up over this trade. 

I agree with the 2nd part of your comment.  This trade just isn't significant enough in any way to get very worked up over.

As they say, it is what it is, and nothing more.

[bunsen82]

Most likely he is the backup, and I am surprised how many are dismissing this years stats.  We also can’t rule out he is part of a bigger deal like IKF. 

[Woof Bronzer]

 

40 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Who knows but I find it impossible to get worked up over this trade. 

It's less the trade than the signal.  The "plan" is coming into focus:  try to somehow improve an underperforming team without investing more in the roster and magically compete for the division.  Take one of the 5 worst teams in MLB, sign a couple scrap heap relievers and depth pieces in January/February after all the free agency dust has settled, and viola!  AL Central champs.

This was the same plan last offseason, with a significantly better core roster, and it failed miserably.  Basically, the plan is: do the same thing all over again and expect different results.  

I'm resigned to being bad next year.  I just want it to mean something, to lead to bigger and better things like the young Twins teams in the early 80s.  Trying to eek out a couple extra wins in 2026 by hanging onto Jeffers (and eventually maybe losing him for nothing) is a dumb strategy in my opinion.  

[tony&rodney]

This is Year 10 of the falvey experience. Who is the one player who is a bonafide experienced starting position player? It's Byron Buxton, drafted in 2012. I'm real hopeful that all of Connor Prielipp, Walker Jenkins, Kaelen Culpepper, and Emmanuel Rodriguez rank among the top seven rookies in the American League in 2026. Hope is all I got.

[The Great Hambino]

10 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Rortvedt wasn't available at the minimum, he's just cheaper than Jackson and didn't require a trade.

I don't think Eeles is some super likely MLB piece, but why trade any possible MLB player with 6 years of control when you can sign or claim a Jackson level catcher at any point for 1 to 2 mil? Or, as others are suggesting, if it's true that this is a full rebuild and they're looking at dumping not only Jeffers' salary but also the salaries of a starting pitcher or 2 they shouldn't be worried about spending 4 mil on whatever glove only FA catchers they want. Making the trades people are suggesting means they're dropping the payroll down to the 70 mil range. I can't imagine even the Pohlads would be so cheap as to say "you need to trade for Alex Jackson because we need to make sure we don't touch 80 mil with the payroll after trading the rest of the controllable vets."

This isn't the end of the world, and value wise it's a fine trade. But I think it very much suggests they aren't truly rebuilding and really aren't looking to move anymore MLB pieces for prospects. I believe Falvey is telling the truth when he says he wants to build around the pieces they have. And it makes sense since there's only so many bad seasons he can survive, even with the Pohlads in charge. He has to be nervous about job security for a true rebuild. I think the Twins are trying to win this year and I think that's why they traded for Alex Jackson instead of claiming Rortvedt or signing any random glove only catcher. And they aren't going to try to compete without Jeffers. It's why I think this trade is a sign Jeffers is staying.

I think it's more likely than not that Jeffers is retained at least through Opening Day.  The move is just too low-wattage to truly be driving decisions in any direction.  Just like attaching Dobnak's buyout to the Paddack trade (the only purpose of that was to pass the burden of his buyout off onto Detroit) wasn't proof that they're cutting costs as much as possible.  They are not meaningfully worse off if they do ultimately decide to sell off anything of value in a true rebuild.  If anything, it's a treading water move that doesn't preclude them from going in whatever direction ownership dictates with their budget.

I also wonder if catcher might be a unique position in that it can aid in the development of others on the team (young pitchers in this case), which could potentially add value even if you're not caring about wins and losses.  Most positions are kinda doing their own thing for the most part, but if they think Jackson is in a better position to do that then Rortvedt, Pareda, or anyone else available in the dumpster, then I can see that as plausible.  I hadn't heard of Jackson before today so I have no idea if this is true, or if this is another miscalculation in player evaluation, but I think it could make some sense.  I don't know if I'd feel the same way if they'd made the same kind of move for a 1B, for instance

[KirbyDome89]

19 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

Most likely he is the backup, and I am surprised how many are dismissing this years stats.  We also can’t rule out he is part of a bigger deal like IKF. 

Again, he had a 2 week stretch where he "racked up," some XBHs last season. He only had 100ish PAs; that mini streak carried his season. He turns 30 in a few weeks, he has 440 career PAs and 420 of those are well below average offensively, even for a C. Vazquez would've seen 250-300 PAs last year as an absolute black hole. in the lineup This club wants to split time evenly at C. 

A bigger deal like IKF? Which salary are they trying to dump now?