Do the Twins Need a Full-Time Designated Hitter in 2027?

[Matthew Taylor]

Free agency is officially underway, and before long, the first wave of signings will begin to shape the landscape of the 2027 season. For the Minnesota Twins, there are plenty of questions to answer as they look to improve a roster that finished well short of their goals in 2026. One of those questions is whether the Twins need to find a full-time designated hitter.

The Twins have a hole in their lineup following the (presumed) departure of Josh Bell, whose mutual option was declined by Minnesota on Saturday. Bell had a strong season for the Twins in 2026, leading the team with 96 RBIs and establishing himself as one of the team's best clutch hitters. With runners in scoring position, Bell posted a .998 OPS, providing the kind of production that Minnesota desperately needed in the middle of its lineup.

Although Bell was originally signed to play first base, he was quickly relieved of his defensive duties and became the Twins' full-time designated hitter for the majority of the season. Bell started 129 games at DH in 2026, marking the first time a Twins player had started more than 100 games at the position since Nelson Cruz in 2019. Over the past seven seasons, Minnesota has generally employed one of two strategies with the designated hitter spot: either signing a full-time DH like Cruz or Bell, or using the position to cycle players through the lineup and give them occasional breaks from the field.

The latter strategy was particularly evident in 2023, when the Twins attempted to use the DH spot to keep Byron Buxton healthy. Buxton appeared as the designated hitter in 80 games that season, but the strategy didn't exactly work as planned. He struggled with injuries and played in just 85 games overall. Still, the idea of keeping Buxton's bat in the lineup while limiting his defensive workload remains an appealing option for Minnesota as it looks ahead to 2027.

With Bell now a free agent, the Twins have a decision to make. Do they bring Bell back, or find another free agent who can provide the kind of power production that he brought to the lineup? Or do they once again revert to the strategy of using the designated hitter spot to rotate players through the lineup and provide additional flexibility?

There are certainly arguments for signing a full-time designated hitter. For a team like the Twins (that is, one that has struggled to find consistent middle-of-the-order bats capable of doing damage), the DH spot represents one of the most affordable ways to add legitimate power to the lineup. Designated hitters posted the second-highest OPS by position in 2026, making it clear that the position can be a valuable source of offensive production. In Bell's case, the Twins were able to add an above-average hitter to their lineup for just $7 million. That's a pretty affordable way to add pop to a team that gave over 1,500 plate appearances to the combination of Royce Lewis, Victor Caratini, Austin Martin and Ryan Kreidler.

On the other hand, there's certainly an argument for not committing to a full-time designated hitter heading into 2027. The most obvious benefit is the opportunity to keep Buxton fresh. While using him as a DH didn't prevent injuries in 2023, there's still value in limiting the miles on his legs by keeping him out of the field from time to time. Buxton remains one of the best players in baseball when healthy, and finding ways to keep his bat in the lineup without requiring him to play center field every day could be a worthwhile strategy. He might not even be capable of playing center regularly in 2027, and the Twins have to incorporate that possibility into their plans.

The other major consideration is the Twins' glut of outfielders. Between Walker Jenkins, Buxton, Luke Keaschall, Emmanuel Rodriguez and Alan Roden, Minnesota has several young players who could benefit from regular opportunities in the lineup. Having the DH spot available to get as many of those players into the lineup as possible would certainly be a benefit. It's not as if the Twins have so many dominant bats that they don't need a designated hitter. Rather, they're in a somewhat unusual position, with several outfielders reaching the age where they need opportunities in the major leagues. For a team trying to manage the development of several young players, having one of those players sitting on the bench or playing in St. Paul simply because there isn't room in the lineup doesn't make much sense from a roster-management standpoint. If the Twins don't trade any of their outfielders, leaving the DH spot open may be the most reasonable way to get them all meaningful playing time.

Neither approach is unequivocally wrong, and the decision may come down to what the Twins believe their roster needs most. If they can find an affordable power bat who can provide the kind of production Bell brought to the lineup, there is a strong argument for making that investment. But if the team believes its young outfielders are ready to contribute and wants to maximize its flexibility, leaving the DH spot open could be the better option.

What do you think? Should the Twins look to sign Josh Bell or another full-time designated hitter for the 2027 season, or should they leave the spot open and use it to cycle players through the lineup? Leave a comment below and start the conversation!

Image courtesy of Kelley L Cox-Imagn Images

View full article

[Permanent Twins Fan]

No. Definitely do not have a full-time DH. At this point they have 4 or 5 outfielders. Cycling them through the DH spot would be more effective than another Josh Bell. Unless you can find a Nelson Cruz type, which you won't, don't get a full time DH.

[Riverbrian]

NO

The DH position should be used for additional playing time to accommodate the talented depth that the organization needs to staff the roster with... in order to build a roster for 162 games. And it was Tom Pohlad who stated correctly that last years roster was not built for 162 games. A DH and Role Players is going to repeat 2026 all over again. 

You will need the DH spot in order to stop your dependence on Role Players. 

Unless they are bringing in a King Kong Bat for the DH position like a Nelson Cruz. The Answer is NO. 

Josh Bell is a fine hitter... He is not a King Kong Bat.  

Instead of carrying a one-dimensional slugger who locks down the DH spot, a flexible roster allows an organization to carry multiple high-upside utility players or young prospects. It ensures that when an inevitable injury occurs, or a young player has an OPS of .400, the drop-off in production is minimized because the bench players have been getting regular at-bats. 

If you are going to staff your roster with talent. Staff your roster with talent and use the DH to make it work. 

 

 

[Trov]

I personally believe having a full time DH, if you can have a good one, is better than the rotating through guys giving them a semi day off.  The reason I say that is historically, position players do not do well doing the fill in at DH and hits much better when a fielder, where full time DH's know how to deal with the mental part of not playing defense.  It can be hard spending 2 to 3 innings just sitting and thinking about your last at-bat or next.  Getting used to that I believe can help hitting.  

I am not saying they need to go out and get one, but can use someone they have in house.  I know most teams hate putting a guy into the "DH" roll early in career, but I see no reason not too if they are a good hitter but a negative in the field. 

[Riverbrian]

11 minutes ago, Trov said:

I personally believe having a full time DH, if you can have a good one, is better than the rotating through guys giving them a semi day off.  The reason I say that is historically, position players do not do well doing the fill in at DH and hits much better when a fielder, where full time DH's know how to deal with the mental part of not playing defense.  It can be hard spending 2 to 3 innings just sitting and thinking about your last at-bat or next.  Getting used to that I believe can help hitting.  

I am not saying they need to go out and get one, but can use someone they have in house.  I know most teams hate putting a guy into the "DH" roll early in career, but I see no reason not too if they are a good hitter but a negative in the field. 

The DH spot can be a rotation and an opportunity to use the DH that makes the most sense out of the defensive choices. If you have Keaschall, Emma, Buxton and Jenkins in the lineup. Keaschall would be the natural choice to DH for that game. 

I'm not sure about the "DH Penalty". There is evidence that there is a DH penalty. However, That's collective involving many players over a long period of time. It doesn't address individual's where some are fine and some are not.

You would also have to factor in that sometimes players play DH due to injury and the injury can effect (or affect) performance at the DH position. 

Regardless... the DH penalty wouldn't be strong enough to be a problem in the small sample size of one game. 

[umterp23]

Buxton will take majority of his at bats at DH position coming off another surgery/injury year. Twins will be cautious with him again. I don’t think he is a good DH option though. No to full time DH. 

[DJL44]

If they’re intent on having a full time DH they should sign Seiya Suzuki. I have seen 4 years, $100M as the estimated cost.

[Twins GFP]

16 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

The DH spot can be a rotation and an opportunity to use the DH that makes the most sense out of the defensive choices. If you have Keaschall, Emma, Buxton and Jenkins in the lineup. Keaschall would be the natural choice to DH for that game. 

I'm not sure about the "DH Penalty". There is evidence that there is a DH penalty. However, That's collective involving many players over a long period of time. It doesn't address individual's where some are fine and some are not.

You would also have to factor in that sometimes players play DH due to injury and the injury can effect (or affect) performance at the DH position. 

Regardless... the DH penalty wouldn't be strong enough to be a problem in the small sample size of one game. 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think it goes deeper.  Players should know their own mental makeup enough to determine whether they can handle the DH role. That should be communicated to the coaching staff. (If they can't handle it and don't communicate it, it will become apparent soon enough). This is important when using the rotational DH approach. It is easy for fans to  say "rotate the extra outfielders through the DH", but if a couple can't handle it, it won't work. Buxton has spoken many times on how hard it is for him to DH.

In theory, rotating players through the DH makes sense. In practice, not so black-and-white.

[Riverbrian]

10 minutes ago, Twins GFP said:

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think it goes deeper.  Players should know their own mental makeup enough to determine whether they can handle the DH role. That should be communicated to the coaching staff. (If they can't handle it and don't communicate it, it will become apparent soon enough). This is important when using the rotational DH approach. It is easy for fans to  say "rotate the extra outfielders through the DH", but if a couple can't handle it, it won't work. Buxton has spoken many times on how hard it is for him to DH.

In theory, rotating players through the DH makes sense. In practice, not so black-and-white.

I agree and I am a naturally resistant to any form of black and white because the truth is almost always in the middle. We can't use collective stats to make a blanket decision on DH rotation. They have to be individual decisions with the individual players.

If a player truly struggles at it. You either avoid the situation by choosing someone else to serve as DH for that game or you continue to expose him to it until it isn't such a drain or mental stumbling block.   

The question is... What kind of damage is done in an individual game with one individual.

It probably isn't significant for one individual game. Buxton for example had an OPS of .829 when playing CF and a .741 when in the DH spot. His numbers suggest that he does better as a CF. But, it's not like he can't perform at the DH spot and sometimes... the manager just may want to get him off his feet for a game. I'm willing to bet that a .741 OPS contains a 3 for 4 game in there somewhere.  

[Cory Engelhardt]

Not with the current roster make up.

If they start trading outfielders, then I can see it.

That said, I hope they do add someone who can be a strong hitter AND can play defense. I don’t want more players added that can’t play defense as well

[Riverbrian]

Just preparing everyone for the possibility of a full time DH already in house. 

Trevor Larnach is his name. 

[Twins GFP]

21 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I agree and I am a naturally resistant to any form of black and white because the truth is almost always in the middle. We can't use collective stats to make a blanket decision on DH rotation. They have to be individual decisions with the individual players.

If a player truly struggles at it. You either avoid the situation by choosing someone else to serve as DH for that game or you continue to expose him to it until it isn't such a drain or mental stumbling block.   

The question is... What kind of damage is done in an individual game with one individual.

It probably isn't significant for one individual game. Buxton for example had an OPS of .829 when playing CF and a .741 when in the DH spot. His numbers suggest that he does better as a CF. But, it's not like he can't perform at the DH spot and sometimes... the manager just may want to get him off his feet for a game. I'm willing to bet that a .741 OPS contains a 3 for 4 game in there somewhere.  

Buxton DHing 3-4 times a year is not gonna kill you, but there is enough history to know that you are getting a lesser version of him when he DH's. If the Twins go through their roster and determine that enough players can't adequately DH, the "occasional DH" problem becomes cumulative. This is where the Twins should determine if that cumulative DH penalty is strong enough that bringing in a full-time DH (and the reduced rotational flexibility) makes sense.

IMO - I don't know if there are any professional DH's out there that bat well enough and land in the Twins price range. I think Josh Bell was signed to play 1B and when they found out how bad he was defensively, they had to move him to DH. He had a decent season, but you don't sign a full-time DH for a 106 OPS+. 


 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Twins GFP said:

Buxton DHing 3-4 times a year is not gonna kill you, but there is enough history to know that you are getting a lesser version of him when he DH's. If the Twins go through their roster and determine that enough players can't adequately DH, the "occasional DH" problem becomes cumulative. This is where the Twins should determine if that cumulative DH penalty is strong enough that bringing in a full-time DH (and the reduced rotational flexibility) makes sense.

IMO - I don't know if there are any professional DH's out there that bat well enough and land in the Twins price range. I think Josh Bell was signed to play 1B and when they found out how bad he was defensively, they had to move him to DH. He had a decent season, but you don't sign a full-time DH for a 106 OPS+. 


 

 

I think we are on the same page... We are just separated by the price of the potential toll to drive on that interstate. 

It may have changed in spring training. However... based on utilization in the beginning of the season. It sure looked like Bell at DH with Clemens/Caratini doing the platoon dance at 1B.

When the off-season plans fell apart or started to crack. Bell started picking up more 1B out of necessity. Clemens started hitting against left handers out of necessity and Caratini eventually became the everyday catcher out of necessity due to the injury to Ryan Jeffers. 

To take that further... Keaschall was moved to the OF out of necessity, Lee was moved to 3B out of necessity. Clemens to 2B out of necessity. Lewis to 1B out of necessity. Gray and Kriedler were our SS's out of necessity. 

None of these necessities... were part of the off-season planning. It was an extraordinary amount of moves out of necessity that all deviated from the original off-season plan. 

It's why... I'm a broken record about the critical importance to staff the roster to the hilt.

Stop with the specialists... such as DH or platoon players or pinch runners. A full time DH removes the flexibility to address the unforeseen necessities that happen every single year. 

The "DH specialist" is a luxury modern MLB rosters cannot afford, because unexpected injuries or terrible play will always rewrite the script.

[Ricky Vaughn]

As to Buxton. He has given the same answer every time it was asked. I hate DHing. 

[Major League Ready]

20 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Just preparing everyone for the possibility of a full time DH already in house. 

Trevor Larnach is his name. 

I sure hope not.  He is not nearly a big enough bat to be kept as a DH.  You might be right, this sounds like something the Twins would do.

[Riverbrian]

I want a clean slate for the sake of this next wave that has hit our shores. 

Larnach is a dirty slate and I will defend Larnach until the cows come home.

It certainly can't be ruled out for a team that has declared to go for it. Larnach will make sense in the way they have done things much like Larnach may make sense for a team like the Padres who is trying to rebuild a bit. 

 

    

[Andy MacPhail]

Although, I'd love to have a Cruz type, who has embraced DHing & is very productive; with players like Buxton more than likely have time there, IMO, Twins won't look for a DH. Frankly, I don't like Buxton playing DH, because he doesn't have the hang of it & he plays so much better overall playing in the field.

I'd also state that the Twins were in the top 10 teams all year in runs scores, even when many of the top starters were disappointing, especially the 2nd half. HRs are not the problem, if properly coached we can do much better with the team we have, The biggest problem is defense & we still need help in the BP, That is where our focus should be.

[Patzky]

2 hours ago, Trov said:

I personally believe having a full time DH, if you can have a good one, is better than the rotating through guys giving them a semi day off.  The reason I say that is historically, position players do not do well doing the fill in at DH and hits much better when a fielder, where full time DH's know how to deal with the mental part of not playing defense.  It can be hard spending 2 to 3 innings just sitting and thinking about your last at-bat or next.  Getting used to that I believe can help hitting.  

I am not saying they need to go out and get one, but can use someone they have in house.  I know most teams hate putting a guy into the "DH" roll early in career, but I see no reason not too if they are a good hitter but a negative in the field. 

The eyeball test says Buxton doesn't hit well when he's not playing in the field. The logic test say that if you have four you outfielders who you want to get maximum plate appearances from, you rotate them into the DH slot. Now you have either a DH who sits or Buck in the field (where he ostensibly is focused, that is, hits better.) So having the DH doesn't make sense to me.  And I'm a Josh Bell fan. 

 

Now having a great number of role players who are good but not very good takes us back to the roster problem we have always had. You don't want another case of an Alex Jackson who takes up space. 

If you're going to do without the production of a Josh Bell you had best have a good plan to get at least similar production from a parade of backup outfielders and infielders. I'm thinking it's where a Keaschall or Winokur would come into play. Rather than a Larnach or backup catcher as simulated hitter.

 

 

[DJL44]

“With runners in scoring position, Bell posted a .998 OPS“

A number I am certain he won’t repeat in 2027.

[Cris E]

The DH lets you put one more bat on the field than positioning allows. So the best use is to place your players where they best belong on defense and take the best remaining bat and stick him at DH. 

If you sign a Big Stick Who Can't Play Defense then he's going to be the DH by design.

If you have a bunch of parts and you're still assembling your roster, then things will be more fluid and you have to make decisions. This is more or less the Twins of this decade (2026 Josh Bell notwithstanding.)

They still have a couple gaps, at C or 1B for example, but at most places there are finally more hitters than positions this winter which is a big change. Pending the Jeffers outcome, there are no AAA fillers hanging around because we don't have a varsity player or real prospect at the position. 

This year they need to settle C, then 1B/2B, and then sort out an outfield rotation.  What comes of this is likely Keaschall at DH most of the time when all of Emma, BB and Walter are healthy.  I hope they add Jeffers to lock down C, but if they don't I would hope they sign a Bauers or Lowe to force more competition at 1B/2B. Otherwise that's going to be Clemens and Lewis by default, and "Lewis by default" has not worked as well as "Lewis coming back from St Paul" or "Lewis fighting back from injury."   Without some external fire he's not the same player.