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. 

[Whitey333]

Add Voth to the long list of pitchers the Twins have exhumed from the MLB pitchers cemetery.  Terrible to play a game on nationally televised game o ly to be a throw away game. After Voth is DFAd to the cemetery due do diligence and conduct an autopsy.  Lets find out what they have that appeals to the Twins franchise.  Then get rid of whatever it is.  Please

[Coach JT]

I keep saying the same thing, again and again. These are valuable innings for younger players. Stop bringing up retreads …. The only thing we want to see is prospects getting innings . They better draft non stop pitchers in this next draft . Forget the previous plan and go for every pitcher available. 

[tony&rodney]

8 hours ago, DocBauer said:

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. 

Why does the message sound like a football fan who also follows some baseball wants to compare the two? I don't think that was your intent.

You are correct in your point about change - it happens. 

The last few days the Dodgers rolled out two pitchers who make a living by changing speeds and displaying excellent command and control of each of their pitches. The focus on pitching ability delivered clean outings of length. The focus on velocity or pitchers incapable of showing full command and control of their pitches mostly results in short outings. Development of command and control remains important. It is why Greg Maddux (back a few years) and Joe Ryan (today) were or are excellent pitchers. An increase in roster size would disproportionally help the wealthier teams. Part of baseball is the starting pitcher going 5-7+ innings. Adding numerous pitchers would just mean more pitching changes and a race for high velocity arms to go 1-2 innings each. We can make our guesses about where the game of baseball goes by 2030, but I struggle to see improved parity or a better more interesting game resulting from larger rosters. However, the nature of thoughts is that people have differences thus there are bound to be disagreements, which is fine. Comparisons to other sports don't make any sense to me at all, but it is good if it does for others. 

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

20 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

What does Raya need to do, exactly?

Wait one day, apparently. 

[ashbury]

14 hours ago, Coach JT said:

I keep saying the same thing, again and again. These are valuable innings for younger players. Stop bringing up retreads …. The only thing we want to see is prospects getting innings . They better draft non stop pitchers in this next draft . Forget the previous plan and go for every pitcher available. 

This subject came up a day or two ago and it prompted me to revisit the 2021 draft where the Angels did exactly what you suggested.  It's still early perhaps, but so far the "haul" is two serviceable 26-year old relievers.

If the Twins try this I hope they execute better.

[jaimedude]

To show how desperate teams are for live arms, Justin Lawrence was claimed by Nationals, and would not be shocked if Christian Roa he of 11 days Twins career get's claimed again. 

[DocBauer]

On 6/24/2026 at 8:47 AM, tony&rodney said:

Why does the message sound like a football fan who also follows some baseball wants to compare the two? I don't think that was your intent.

You are correct in your point about change - it happens. 

The last few days the Dodgers rolled out two pitchers who make a living by changing speeds and displaying excellent command and control of each of their pitches. The focus on pitching ability delivered clean outings of length. The focus on velocity or pitchers incapable of showing full command and control of their pitches mostly results in short outings. Development of command and control remains important. It is why Greg Maddux (back a few years) and Joe Ryan (today) were or are excellent pitchers. An increase in roster size would disproportionally help the wealthier teams. Part of baseball is the starting pitcher going 5-7+ innings. Adding numerous pitchers would just mean more pitching changes and a race for high velocity arms to go 1-2 innings each. We can make our guesses about where the game of baseball goes by 2030, but I struggle to see improved parity or a better more interesting game resulting from larger rosters. However, the nature of thoughts is that people have differences thus there are bound to be disagreements, which is fine. Comparisons to other sports don't make any sense to me at all, but it is good if it does for others. 

I see what you are saying. And I don't totally disagree.

I think there is a MASSIVE problem financially in MLB that is really restricting BALANCE. And it can only be addressed by powers beyond us as fans. 

But I still have to disagree with the roster situation. Even with the Dodgers, for example, had 2 more spots to fill with quality players, the Twins could also fill those spots. That's a FO issue.

Does that make a difference? Maybe. And maybe not. But I hesitate to use the Dodgers or the Yankees, or anyone else as an example. They, and others, are at the TOP of the ML feeding frenzy for talent. And that does need to change for balance of the game.

The beauty of MLB is how things change game to game. Despite the Twins losing all 3 games, they were SO CLOSE to winning 2 of those games. But my idea of an expanded roster is simply to allow teams to have more depth than playing shuttle games with their roster.

I politely disagree on comparing rosters to other professional leagues. I think an expanded roster allows better depth and balance. And I'm tired of injuries restricting things like brief appearances for players who are DFA the next day. 

I also despise the NFL for having a 53 man roster but only allowing 45 to play. WTH does that accomplish? It's just ridiculous. But at least they HAVE increased their roster size and have created crazy rules about their PS squads and promotions. 

And MAYBE the Dodgers would have had ONE more player or pitcher that would have made a difference in this last series. Or MAYBE the Twins would have had ONE more player or pitcher to make a difference. 

Honestly, I'm not sure i care, especially for ONE series. I just think the the way the game has changed the last few years, I just think it would be better served with an expanded roster. 

I just think it's time to FINALLY acknowledge that the game isn't the same as it was 20--30yrs ago. Bullpens matter more. Platoons here and there matter more. MAYBE, it's better for a smartly run team to have more options to build the most competitive team possible?

But maybe you're right. Maybe subtle changes like an expanded roster only benefits the POWER teams. But I DO LIKE a smart team that might take advantage and build a better, more balanced team.

While I'm no longer as big of an NFL than I used to be, the one thing I admire is the balance of payroll that means SMART teams make good things happen.

Without major changes in MLB, even smart teams are going to have a hard time competing. I just like an expanded roster for the smaller market teams to have the ability to balance their roster better. Again, I'm just tired of roster restrictions seeing churn and burn.

But I respect your opinion and don't disagree that we have different perspectives. 😀

[ashbury]

Voth chose free agency over St Paul.  Good luck to him; hope he finds the better situation he believes is out there for him.