Austin Voth Latest To Get Chance In Twins' Bullpen

[Steve Drumwright]

 

 

The next man up in the Minnesota Twins' bullpen shuffle is Austin Voth.

The right-hander had his contract selected from Triple-A St. Paul on Tuesday, with the Twins sending right-hander Cody Laweryson down to St. Paul.

Voth was designated for assignment by the Toronto Blue Jays, then latched on with the Twins on a minor-league contract on June 4. Voth made two appearances and pitched six innings for the Jays, giving up six runs on eight hits and five walks with just one strikeout. In three appearances at St. Paul, Voth surrendered nine runs (eight earned) on 14 hits with six walks and 17 strikeouts. Voth originally signed a minor-league contract with the Chicago White Sox this offseason before being released late in spring training.

Laweryson has pitched in 16 innings over 14 games, posting a 5.06 ERA (4.97 FIP) with seven walks and 18 strikeouts.

 

 

View full rumor

[Mike Sixel]

So, Lawrence part two? What does Raya need to do, exactly?

[Danchat]

I guess they wanted someone who can mop up about 3 innings and be DFA'd later (he has no options)? Odd move, and even stranger is Voth's career the past couple years - he was a decent reliever in 2024 for Seattle, but then played for a Japanese league team in 2025 and came back stateside this year to be a starter at AAA. Huh. 

[Linus]

Those numbers in St Paul are a little bleak 

[ziggy]

18 minutes ago, Linus said:

Those numbers in St Paul are a little bleak 

How on earth did those numbers warrant a call up to the big league club?

[AceWrigley]

He's a warm body that can chuck a baseball for multiple innings.

[mnfireman]

Why is it that other teams can throw nobodies against the Twins and look like Cy Young winners? Maybe the Twins turn to get lucky.....

[lecroy24fan]

So in essence they traded SWR for Voth.

[DocBauer]

I don't get it. Laweryson wasooking pretty good earlier in the season before his injury. It seeems.lime he was a little hit and cold since he came back, but I thought he was looking more like his old self lately

And Voth offers what exactly?

[thelanges5]

6 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

I don't get it. Laweryson wasooking pretty good earlier in the season before his injury. It seeems.lime he was a little hit and cold since he came back, but I thought he was looking more like his old self lately

And Voth offers what exactly?

Innings. Rojas is only stretched out enough to do two or three. Paredes just pitched and Adams may be the other guy that can do multiple innings.

[ziggy]

23 minutes ago, thelanges5 said:

Innings. Rojas is only stretched out enough to do two or three. Paredes just pitched and Adams may be the other guy that can do multiple innings.

ok, so he goes 3 or 4 innings and gets DFA'ed tomorrow. Heck of a way to make a living.

[Jim H]

54 minutes ago, ziggy said:

ok, so he goes 3 or 4 innings and gets DFA'ed tomorrow. Heck of a way to make a living.

Yes, this.  Some of this is caused by all the injuries. Some it Is caused by the trade off of relievers last summer. Some it is likely the lack pitching talent in the system. But a lot it is the limitations imposed by the 26 man roster and 40 man. You can't carry enough pitchers on 40 man to cover all situations. Nobody wants to lose a real prospect. So this is what you get. 

This is bad for everybody. Players shouldn't be subject to the constant churn this is causing. Fans shouldn't have to watch a guy who right now might be the 40th best pitcher in the Twins system. I wish MLB would look at this a little more closely when they redo the CBA.

[DocBauer]

3 hours ago, thelanges5 said:

Innings. Rojas is only stretched out enough to do two or three. Paredes just pitched and Adams may be the other guy that can do multiple innings.

Good call. I admit I hadn't stopped to consider we needed SOMEONE to fill the middle innings Tuesday.

[DocBauer]

1 hour ago, Jim H said:

Yes, this.  Some of this is caused by all the injuries. Some it Is caused by the trade off of relievers last summer. Some it is likely the lack pitching talent in the system. But a lot it is the limitations imposed by the 26 man roster and 40 man. You can't carry enough pitchers on 40 man to cover all situations. Nobody wants to lose a real prospect. So this is what you get. 

This is bad for everybody. Players shouldn't be subject to the constant churn this is causing. Fans shouldn't have to watch a guy who right now might be the 40th best pitcher in the Twins system. I wish MLB would look at this a little more closely when they redo the CBA.

I agree totally.

I don't want to penalize players from having the freedom to move about for better opportunities in their careers. But I wonder if a 45 man roster would make a little more sense. Perhaps there should be a tweak in how many options a player has in their career, or maybe after signing with a new team said player gets an additional option? Maybe they would gain said option if they haven't been on a 40 man for X number of seasons? I'm just spitballing off the top of my head. 

Personally, I really liked the 28 man roster we had during the covid season. The game has changed over the decades, but other than moving to a 26 man roster, there's been little change over the years in regard to rosters. 

[lecroy24fan]

If the CBA has a provision added to limit player moves teams will be short players, specifically pitchers, constantly in the current system. It makes a lot more sense to keep throwing darts as opposed to being forced to send the same ****** pitcher out there endlessly. They did the right thing by limiting the number of times a player can be called up and optioned back over a season (5 times). However one thing they should do is limit the amount of times a played can be DFA'd by a team, he elects to be a free agent, and then the next days signs back with that team and is selected a day later again. I'd call it the Carlos Carrasco Rule. 

[tony&rodney]

4 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

I agree totally.

I don't want to penalize players from having the freedom to move about for better opportunities in their careers. But I wonder if a 45 man roster would make a little more sense. Perhaps there should be a tweak in how many options a player has in their career, or maybe after signing with a new team said player gets an additional option? Maybe they would gain said option if they haven't been on a 40 man for X number of seasons? I'm just spitballing off the top of my head. 

Personally, I really liked the 28 man roster we had during the covid season. The game has changed over the decades, but other than moving to a 26 man roster, there's been little change over the years in regard to rosters. 

Larger rosters would benefit the teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, etc. 40 person rosters are fine and they should go back to 25 person active rosters with 12 pitcher maximum. The game would change in a positive manner as clubs were forced to manage their pitchers and reduce maximum velocity in every inning.

[lecroy24fan]

Just now, DocBauer said:

Personally, I really liked the 28 man roster we had during the covid season. The game has changed over the decades, but other than moving to a 26 man roster, there's been little change over the years in regard to rosters. 

I will continue to advocate for a 30 man roster, even knowing the owners will never go for paying 4 more players an mlb salary. 25 or 26 players active for a game. 14 pitcher maximum but on game day only 10 can be pitchers, maybe 11. You would leave off your 4 SP that aren't pitching that day. This would help have fewer DFA's and call ups/send downs due to needing a long man. 

But I'd be fine at 28 too. With no inactives. Also would like to see September rosters expanded again.

[DocBauer]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

Larger rosters would benefit the teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, etc. 40 person rosters are fine and they should go back to 25 person active rosters with 12 pitcher maximum. The game would change in a positive manner as clubs were forced to manage their pitchers and reduce maximum velocity in every inning.

I was spitballing in regard to a larger than 40 man roster simply to allow more fringe players to not go through so many DFA situations. Not sure that is the way to proceed, just an idea. 

But I absolutely disagree with a 25 man roster. The idea of FORCEING teams to just FORCE pitchers to throw 100 pitches and stay in the game for 7 innings plus is a pipe dream based on how baseball "used to be". Despite amazing velocities that we see today...88-90mph was excellent 40yrs ago...and tremendous breaking stuff, hitters today are not only bigger and faster and more athletic, but they have better scouting and actual IPads in the dugout to watch their AB and see what they did and what the pitcher is throwing!.

In today's game of athletic change, if we actually restricted the roster as you proposed, the game would become a bit of a farce where we'd see games of 14-12 consistently. NFL type of scores.

And speaking of the NFL, there was a time where they played with a 40 man roster. The game was ground and pound. If you were hurt, you still played no matter what. While I DESPISE a 53 man roster but only being able to PLAY 45 on game day...just SILLY and makes no sense...they have adjusted roster size, and even come up with rules regarding ups and downs from the practice squad to fill out their game day roster.

The NFL game has recognized changes in their game, even if I don't like how they manage game day.

But like it or not. MLB has also changed. Again, you just aren't going to see SP dominate, generally speaking, the way they used to. 

Even before the full time DH happened, you USED to have a 10-11 man staff. The AL had a DH. A NL club had a special PH. That still left 14 or sometimes 15 position players for depth and possible platoons.

Sorry, and you may yearn for the way the game was played a couple decades ago, but it's just not the way the game is played today. The NFL hasn't been ground and pound for decades now. And MLB is no longer a collection of 2 or 3 200+ IP SP and a handful of guys who finished games.

I am a HUGE believer that the owners and players need to pull their heads out of their collective and stubborn AZZ's and establish some sort of mutual profit sharing, similar to the NFL if not exactly, for the betterment of the GAME. SOME sort of ceiling and floor just makes sense. FORCE owners who are making $ off the teat of MLB to spend more, which profits the lower level earning players, or makes those lousy owners more ready to sell their teams.

How pissed might you be as an owner of the Yankees, or the Dodgers, sending $M's to a team that isn't even trying but is pocketing $?

BALANCE is going to be an issue that is that keeps MLB healthy, or die a slow death.

But wishing the game itself to be played the way it was 30 years ago just isn't going to happen. Power PLAYS. The SB is starting to come back. But the art of pitching has changed. Can you imagine some of today's hitters facing off against most of the arms throwing in the 70's, 80's, and even the 90's? They would RAKE!

I'm not picking on you. I'm simply pointing out how all sports, including MLB has really changed over the years. And it's not going back, even with rule changes are making it a bit more exciting. But FEWER players or pitchers will only elevate fewer moves, less depth, and weekend softball types of scores. And I don't think any of us want to see that.