Twins Add Catching Depth with Early Offseason Swap

[sweetmusicviola16]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

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

I would not. Vazquez was overpaid for 3 years as a Twin, and that's the responsibility of Falvey. But he was far better than even in a downturn than Jackson has proven to be. Vazquez has proven that he can catch in the ML on a rotating basis, Jackson has not. I'm not advocating the return of Christian nor disappointed that his tenure is over. But replacing Vazquez with Jackson made this team even worse. Now we get to watch Gasper and Jackson share the backup C role while they hit .125. Not good. Everybody knows that a guy getting paid 1.8mil for the Twins will stay and will play no matter how poorly the results are.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

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

Right? He either works, or doesn't. But you spent no money and Eeles to find out. Pretty low risk opportunity.

I like this deal as a decent short term risk until their minor league catchers are ready.

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

I would not. Vazquez was overpaid for 3 years as a Twin, and that's the responsibility of Falvey. But he was far better than even in a downturn than Jackson has proven to be. Vazquez has proven that he can catch in the ML on a rotating basis, Jackson has not. I'm not advocating the return of Christian nor disappointed that his tenure is over. But replacing Vazquez with Jackson made this team even worse. Now we get to watch Gasper and Jackson share the backup C role while they hit .125. Not good. Everybody knows that a guy getting paid 1.8mil for the Twins will stay and will play no matter how poorly the results are.

Vazquez was one of the worst hitters in all of baseball last year. This team is not worse off, and is likely better. 

[chpettit19]

12 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

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

I agree it's low wattage in the sense that he's not a good player and doesn't move the needle in any meaningful way, but I disagree that it doesn't mean anything. The Dobnak trade didn't necessarily mean they're cutting the payroll to nothing but guys making 4 mil or less, but it absolutely was a sign that they're drastically cutting payroll, and the financial side of things became the most important part of their team building in the near term. You don't include him if the payroll isn't a serious concern or the priority. This being a "treading water" trade doesn't make me feel any better about it. It's bad roster management to give up a controllable piece for a guy with no options if you're just trying to tread water. You can sign an Alex Jackson type at any point of the offseason. Or claim them. They passed on claiming a glove only guy.

What would lead them to believe that about Jackson? I don't disagree that catcher is a unique position in this way, but it's not like he's a Martin Maldonado/Christian Vazquez type vet with a track record of being good with pitching staffs. Rortvedt has more run as a glove only, specialist in MLB with the Yankees, Rays, and Dodgers all trusting him with their pitching staffs while they try to compete. I'm not saying that that isn't part of the equation or it's not possible that it's what they're thinking, but I'd love to hear the explanation for why they'd think so highly of Jackson to lead their pitching staff even if they move Jeffers.

Again, I'm not saying this is some seismic move or dooming the team, but I do think it says something about their plans. There is simply no reason whatsoever to trade for a guy with no discernable advantage in leading a young pitching staff nor future upside at this point of the offseason if you're leaning true rebuild. Falvey has earned every bit of the fan distrust he gets, but I think dismissing his claims of wanting to compete and build around the current roster is a mistake. I think those are his true intentions and it's what he'll push for unless the Pohlads demand he trades the starters or Jeffers or Buxton demands out. And it's what not trading anything but expiring deals and pen pieces suggest. It's what bringing back Roden, Outman, Bradley, and Abel suggest. If you're doing a true rebuild you bring back the highest upside guys you can, not guys that are MLB ready with lower upsides or bounce back candidates that have already reached and struggled in the majors. I've said from the beginning that people are misreading the deadline and mislabeling that as the start of a rebuild. And nothing they've done since has changed my view. This may not be a flashing billboard sized sign of what they're doing, but I don't think it's nothing either. Dobnak's inclusion meant something and so does this trade. The payroll is absolutely a concern to where every couple mil matters and they brought Jackson in because they plan to have him backup Jeffers as they try to compete in 2026. I just don't think you trade for a guy with as little track record as him if you're considering having him be a vital role in a rebuild. If you want a guy who can lead a young staff through the ups and downs of a rebuild I just don't believe you're looking at Alex Jackson and saying "this is our guy."

[sweetmusicviola16]

And Larnach is tendered. I'm quite surprised by that.

[DJL44]

11 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Vazquez was one of the worst hitters in all of baseball last year. This team is not worse off, and is likely better. 

Plus, Vazquez is likely to be worse next season. 

[Twinsrtheworst]

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Judging the trade from just a pure value perspective, it makes sense. Eeles isn't likely a major league player, even if he does get a stint or 2 eventually. He's not some major piece being moved. But if this is all you're looking for in a backup catcher, why not just claim Rortvedt and be done with it? Younger (slightly) and cheaper (slightly) and didn't have to give up any other asset. 

Is the MLB team better today than yesterday? Maybe. By an ever so slight margin. What's the point of that? That's my question. What is the goal with this deal? It's not for long-term improvement. It suggests heavily, in my opinion, that they plan to keep Jeffers and either try to deal him at the deadline or just let him walk for absolutely nothing after the season. What's the goal with that?

The Twins trying to live in both worlds feels like such a massive mistake. Trying to win now instead of diving headfirst into a rebuild has been my fear since the deadline. Pick a route and go all in on it. Continuing this "if this is the year player x and y and z and 1 and 2 and 3 and * and ^ and ! all finally figure it out, we're going to be great!" feels like such an awful plan. It's what they've been running with for years and it's why they continue to struggle. Go get as many high upside prospects with years and years of control as you can and hope a handful hit. There isn't enough talent on this team. I don't get the point of this trade.

I believe the point of this trade is to hold on wait for it…. bring in a back up catcher. Nothing more, nothing less.  It’s just a back up catcher.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't think Eeles is some super likely MLB piece, but why trade any possible MLB player with 6 years of control

I don't think Eeles really has 6 years of control. He has 3 years of control 2027-29 while he still has options and then you cut him to make room for someone else.

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I don't think Eeles really has 6 years of control. He has 3 years of control 2027-29 while he still has options and then you cut him to make room for someone else.

Sure, super possible result. And I could make a more than reasonable argument along these lines that Alex Jackson has 0 years of control because he should be cut to make room for someone else. 

[weitz41]

I feel like it's a good use of a 40-man spot. Sorry to see Keirsey get DFA'd But the OF depth made it likely no matter who was added. Would have preferd a trade for Susac from the A's

[Permanent Twins Fan]

Well, at least this means that we won't be forced to watch Pareda and Gaspar try to fill in as the backup catcher behind Jeffers.  If Jackson manages to solidify himself, and performs, I wouldn't be surprised if he is kept on for next year, if they do not extend or resign Jeffers. There is some upside here, and 1.8 million is not an unreasonable sum, for a back up catcher. It is a bit sad to see Eeles go, but he was not likely to ever debut with the Twins. It's a salary dump for the Orioles, and it fills a need for the Twins.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

8 hours ago, LambchoP said:

Don't like it. Backup catcher with a career .150 BA and a 37 percent K rate? And we're going to pay him 1.8 million?! I'd rather they let Perada take a chance. Plus we had to give up Eeles who could have been a valuable backup or utility guy. With our lack of depth at SS we probably shouldn't have gotten rid of Eeles. Not a good trade imo....

In addition to losing Eeles, we may lose Keirsey, who had to be removed from the 40 man roster, by being DFA'ed. For a strikeout prone, back up catcher with a .153 batting average. that seems a poor deal to me.

[D.C Twins]

But can he pitch in relief?!?!

[Blyleven2011]

5 hours ago, rv78 said:

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.

And I t seems like he is always over paying for these types  , as some say 1.8 million for a hitter that bats 150  , Gasper i wouldn't even pay the minimum but you have too ...

[D.C Twins]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

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.

Trading Eales and paying 1.8mil is the equivalent of just picking which back up you want for an absolutely forgettable price.....there is absolutely nothing here revealing of long-term plans

[DJL44]

35 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

In addition to losing Eeles, we may lose Keirsey, who had to be removed from the 40 man roster, by being DFA'ed. For a strikeout prone, back up catcher with a .153 batting average. that seems a poor deal to me.

Losing Keirsey is addition by subtraction. 

[Hubie29]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Right? He either works, or doesn't. But you spent no money and Eeles to find out. Pretty low risk opportunity.

I like this deal as a decent short term risk until their minor league catchers are ready.

And then you wonder why apathy is rampant in Twins town when a deal like this is considered a short term fix. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, D.C Twins said:

Trading Eales and paying 1.8mil is the equivalent of just picking which back up you want for an absolutely forgettable price.....there is absolutely nothing here revealing of long-term plans

If he is their preferred "backup" that speaks to bigger plans. The Twins haven't done "backup" catchers since 2018 when they first paired Jason Castro and Mitch Garver, I don't get why people keep calling him a backup. Unless they think it's revealing that the Twins plan to change their catching philosophy in a pretty big way.

Every move is revealing. Or the front office is completely and utterly incompetent and just making random moves with no larger plan whatsoever in place to have the moves fit together in a meaningful way. There's plenty of people that would make that argument about Falvey. But trading away guys who have legit chances of making the majors and still have 6 years of control is absolutely telling. The only discussion is about what it's telling us.

 

[TJSweens]

Best of all, it means Christian Vazquez won't be coming back 

[Mike Sixel]

42 minutes ago, Hubie29 said:

And then you wonder why apathy is rampant in Twins town when a deal like this is considered a short term fix. 

I mean, I didn't think they can compete this year, so this deal is fine. It blocks no one with a bad between t. 

[DocBauer]

Despite this being a possible/probable low wattage move, there's a lot to unpack here for me.

Truth is I had never even heard of Alex Jackson until today. Or if I had, he's been quickly forgotten. BUT,  from what I have read and heard, he's actually a very good defensive catcher with a good arm, and obviously a good deal of ML experience. (As a ML rostered backup). Those are positives. He was a former 1st round pick meaning he at least HAD potential. His MILB numbers are actually quite solid, despite him never translating those numbers to MLB. While his .220 AVG with Baltimore might be unsustainable...we'll see...with quality defense, experience, occasional flashes of power, he fills the bill of a solid backup catcher if he can hit .200-ish. Do you realize how low the offensive bar actually is for a backup catcher at the ML level?

I'm OK with Jackson in a vacuum. What I have a hard time with is the $1.8M when they might have grabbed McCann for about $4M as a better bat to fill the same role. Does another $2.2M on an even better veteran really blow up the budget that's in Falvey's head right now? 

And then there is trading Eeles for him. Coming off his knee surgery, he wasn't as effective in 2025 as he was in 2024. He still faces rather long odds of being a solid ML player, even in a reserve role, despite his speed, great eye, and "scrappiness". But I have very little idea who's even filling the Saints 2026 INF WITH Eeles being kept! Eeles at least filled a role for St Paul and had the POTENTIAL to be a depth option. And that's what Baltimore is sort of betting on I'd guess.

1] This tells me Jeffers is going to catch 100-110 games in 2026. I know Jeffers wants that. And it makes sense to me. Jackson makes some sense from his positives as the #2. Personally, I'm hoping for an extension for Jeffers to bridge the gap until Diaw, Tait, and others like Jiminez are ready. That also makes sense to me.

2] This tells me Falvey isn't blowing smoke when he literally doesn't know the 2026 payroll yet. So he's trying to keep his moves as smart and cheap as he can for now. Jackson does that.

3] As @chpettit19pointed out, why not just keep Eeles for depth and just sign the LH Rortvedt instead? No offense to Jackson, but that actually makes more sense to me.

4] The FA catching market is pretty shallow, but not completely dry. I still have a hard time believing $ wouldnt have been better spent adding another $1.5-2M for McCann as the #2 wouldn't make more sense coming off injury but still having a nice rebound 2025.

5] We can say Pereda is the #3 guy, but a couple months of additional AAA time, Cardenas might be the true #3. There is ZERO reason to keep BOTH Pareda AND Gasper on the 40 man. Either, or both, should be gone soon. With Cardenas and Winkel in St Paul, you can almost certainly sign Either, or someone else, to also play some catcher for the Saints.

I don't hate this move. I just would have spent a little more on someone like McCann as the #2, or signed Rortvedt instead of trading Eeles and removing a POSSIBLE depth piece that at LEAST helped flesh out your AAA roster.

Just a lot of moving parts that make sense, and don't make sense to me. But if Jackson's defense is as good as reports say, I again say hitting around .200 as an actual #2 and not some quasi-platoon option, he's fine in that role.

At the end of the day, bullpen additions and 1B are of FAR greater importance than angst over Jackson or a loss of a long shot prospect like Eeles.

I just would have done this differently. 

[bunsen82]

4 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

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?

It’s that you can use a piece for another. He may not be the end game.  He has a little more value than Eeles. We sure do seem to like to ignore hot stretches in this forum.  

[DJL44]

C Reese McGuire was non-tendered by the Cubs.

[tony&rodney]

Can't recall offhand, but when was the last time the Twins cut a guy they traded for and swallowed the million or whatever before June or even at the close of Spring Training? This seems important.

 

[Jim H]

I can't get very worked up about this trade. Jackson isn't going to make the Twins much better or much worst than any other backup or platoon catcher readily available. I do believe Falvey is trying to be competitive in 2026. It also seems pretty clear that he doesn't believe that all the young guys from the system and acquired recently are really ready to contribute yet. So, the "core" he had assembled is getting one more chance. It explains why most of the older not quite elite not quite prospect any more, were acquired. He wanted to add to his core and compete in 2026.

I don't have much confidence this strategy will work. But giving the next wave of prospects a little more time to marinate in the minors is not necessarily a bad idea. Maybe the Twins will find some keepers from this group that can contribute to the next wave when they have developed enough to be a real core. Maybe they will find some tradeable players that could bring in some more potential core guys.

The problem for me, is this not a rebuild, seems so disjointed. It is hard to see the path from this group to a real contending team that could compete for a world series. 

[MGX]

17 hours ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

But he was far better than even in a downturn than Jackson has proven to be

In 3 seasons with the Twins Vazquez posted an OPS+ of 64, 60 & 52, absolutely horrible. His first two seasons his defense was good, but last season even that fell off.

No way should they have brought Vazquez back. They traded for Jackson to be a backup C, he's been solid defensively & showed signs of improvement at the plate last season. All of that at a lower salary than what Vazquez will likely get.

For what it is, a backup Catcher, it's a good trade.  

[D.C Twins]

16 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

If he is their preferred "backup" that speaks to bigger plans. The Twins haven't done "backup" catchers since 2018 when they first paired Jason Castro and Mitch Garver, I don't get why people keep calling him a backup. Unless they think it's revealing that the Twins plan to change their catching philosophy in a pretty big way.

Every move is revealing. Or the front office is completely and utterly incompetent and just making random moves with no larger plan whatsoever in place to have the moves fit together in a meaningful way. There's plenty of people that would make that argument about Falvey. But trading away guys who have legit chances of making the majors and still have 6 years of control is absolutely telling. The only discussion is about what it's telling us.

 

I guess you and I have different evaluations of Eales long term prospects and what 1.8 million means to an MLB franchise even as low as the Twins.... which is ok!

[sweetmusicviola16]

33 minutes ago, MGX said:

In 3 seasons with the Twins Vazquez posted an OPS+ of 64, 60 & 52, absolutely horrible. His first two seasons his defense was good, but last season even that fell off.

No way should they have brought Vazquez back. They traded for Jackson to be a backup C, he's been solid defensively & showed signs of improvement at the plate last. All of that at a lower salary than what Vazquez will likely get.

For what it is, a backup Catcher, it's a good trade.  

Yeah we got a backup catcher when with Jeffers we need a tandem catcher. Jackson is a backup. As for Vazquez and the trade I've said all along that the swap they made is a good swap. I for one have never advocated for bringing Vazquez back. But as for Vazquez's salary for 2026 it would surprise me if he can find anyone to give him over 3mil. A low non guaranteed with a ST invite is more likely. He may well get less than the 1.8 that Jackson will be playing for.

[MGX]

16 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

Yeah we got a backup catcher when with Jeffers we need a tandem catcher. Jackson is a backup. As for Vazquez and the trade I've said all along that the swap they made is a good swap. I for one have never advocated for bringing Vazquez back. But as for Vazquez's salary for 2026 it would surprise me if he can find anyone to give him over 3mil. A low non guaranteed with a ST invite is more likely. He may well get less than the 1.8 that Jackson will be playing for.

I could see it being more of a platoon situation with Jackson playing vs LHP which would free up Jeffers to play 1B/DH vs LHP. Either way Jackson likely won't get more than a couple hundred PA's. You may be right on Vazquez, he just doesn't offer much going forward. 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

15 hours ago, TJSweens said:

Best of all, it means Christian Vazquez won't be coming back 

I'd much rather have Vazquez than Jackson. Vazquez has proven he is a major league catcher, Jackson has not. Vazquez knows most of the Twins pitchers, their pluses and minuses...Jackson does not. Vazquez already has the respect of the pitching coach and the pitching staff, Jackson does not. Catching is so much more than being a good hitter, which neither of these catchers is. Would you trade Jackson for Eeles and Vazquez? I would.