Key Minnesota Twins Who Are Out of Minor-League Options This Spring

10 hours ago, USAFChief said:

A "prospect like Austin Martin?"

 

The guy with the .749 career MiLB OPS. 14 career MiLB HRs? soon turning 25? That guy?

For the record, that's over 100 points below Garlick's career MiLB OPS.

 

 

Yep That Guy. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same guy. I'm not sure... The guy I'm talking about has a career .750 OPS in the minors.  

Just to make sure. 

The guy drafted 5th overall in the 2020 draft out of Vanderbilt. The scouting report from Baseball America said he "has some of the best pure hitting ability in the class, with eye popping bat speed, excellent contact ability and impressive plate discipline as well". 

The guy we got back in the trade for Jose Berrios. The guy that we gave a 40 man spot to protect from the vultures. The guy who still has a 40 man spot after all the 40 man roster horse trading that takes place. 

The guy who went from a .683 OPS in AA to a .791 up a level in St. Paul. It's too bad that baseball is not linear because his .108 OPS increase from AA to AAA would rise to .899 in the bigs. 😁 

The guy with a .857 OPS against Right handers in St. Paul last year and a .626 against left handers. 

The guy with his future in front of him, who doesn't need to have his development handicapped by a front office trying to strip mine him so we can strip mine other young baseball players. 

I'll admit that I've never driven one of those Austin Martin cars made in Britain but I'm willing to test drive it. 

14 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Then someone will be screwed over because they won't be getting enough playing time.

As of now there is no evidence at all Lee will be better than Farmer, Martin will be better than Margot or Miranda will be better than Santana. If one of them is one of the best 50 players in AAA they can make a move. Until then, they need to earn a roster spot.

This discussion is probably in need of some straightening out because in order to make our points it has gotten into a realm of something that will never ever ever happen because the 26 man roster will not reach the point of healthy and kicking ass enmasse. I'll take responsibility for that. So Let's get things back to a more sensible level. 

The article is about players who can and can't be sent down due to options remaining or not having options. There are a group of us who are very nervous about the lower priced vet who can't be sent down and we question the value of what we will get production wise in comparison to what the younger player with options will provide production wise. We are wondering out loud if it would have made sense to combine the millions of dollars being spent on average to below average vets on expiring deals and spending that money on someone with more talent. One big player and a 720K guy as opposed to two average vets. I'm not sure how many are in this group but I agreed with Jorgenswest when he expressed this and I believe Nicksaviking and Chia Pet are also in this group based on things they have type. 

From what I'm gathering from your comments. Your primary fear is that a young future starter will be given a roster spot and waste away on the bench so you much more comfortable with Santana and Margot taking up bench space. 

I am 100% opposed to giving any player a 26 man roster spot based on the reasoning that you are OK with them sitting on the bench. I get what you are saying and I am stretching the meaning of what you are saying but not needing to play someone isn't a sensible reason to roster someone in consideration that there are only 26 roster spots.  

There are lot of people in your group who like to choose 9 players and clear the dance floor for them by picking up 4 lesser players so those 9 starters can play 161 games. I will never ever join that group. I have never seen a group of nine players not only stay healthy all year but also not have one or two or three of that chosen group of 9 completely lay a performance egg. Players 10, 11, 12 and 13 (however they are labelled) are going to be needed for much more than a guy who is on the roster because you are OK with them sitting should be needed. Stop looking for lesser players is what I suggest doing. Stop looking for bench players... I'd quit calling them bench players altogether.

The way it needs to work is: Bench players are players who earn bench time because they are playing bad. If your bench player is playing good... why should he be on the bench.   

When Royce Lewis gets hurt and the time comes to call up Brooks Lee. Brooks is going to play... if he performs well... He should stay and keep playing. If Royce returns and Brooks is performing... there will be some player on the 26 man roster who is not performing and Brooks can replace that player so he doesn't go back down and the manager will figure out how to get the playing time to all deserving. If Brooks isn't performing... Uber him over to St. Paul and let him continue his development. There should be absolutely no concern at all about having too many players who need playing time. Guys with options can always be sent back down. 

It's the player who can't be sent down, that keeps getting fed playing time despite long extended slumps that I worry about. Santana and Margot taking up valuable real estate and struggling. If Santana plays like Solano did last year. I got no problem with Santana... If Santana plays like Joey Gallo did last year and the Twins keep him on the roster all the way to the very end... I got a major problem with that. Nicksaviking has a list on this thread of players that the Twins hung on to and shouldn't have.

The Twins have shown that they will be hang on to the 8 million dollar mistake and doing that again is my biggest fear.    

42 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

No, your bench player should be on the bench because he can do something better than one of your starters. Margot is a good fit for the roster because he hits lefties better than Wallner and plays better defense. There is no sense having Larnach on the roster, even if he may be a marginally better choice than Margot because, unlike with Margot, there will be no matchup situation where you prefer Larnach over Wallner. Bench players complement the starters. If your bench player is bad, why is he on the roster at all?

To become successful in the major leagues takes many at-bats and repetitions to make the necessary adjustments. I would rather have a veteran on the bench who has made those adjustments already and needs fewer reps to maintain his level of performance. A young prospect on the bench will take a long time to make those adjustments because they are not getting the repetitions they need to develop.

OK Fair Enough. 

Then they are not Bench Players they are starters against left handers. However, I am willing to place a bet right now that your bench of Farmer, Margot and Santana will each receive more plate appearances against right handers and probably by a significant margin. 

You say you would rather have a veteran on the bench than a young prospect because they are battle tested and they have made the adjustments, faced all there is to face. .I agree with you on that 100 percent on that... With one rather large condition. The Veteran must be able to take all that they learned and display it on the field when put in the lineup. This brings us back to the post from Jorgenswest that started it all. It brings us back to the topic of this thread... it bring us back to the post made by Nicksaviking that lists all of the veteran players who have been through it all and did a terrible job, couldn't be sent down and become something for the team to over come because the team didn't release them. 

Jorgenswest floated the possibility that the team would be better with Polanco and 720,000K player than they are with Santana and Margot. It's debatable but I side with Jorgenswest. 

I'm having a difficult time with the whole "no options" scenario, as if it's new or some serious, crippling detriment to the club. But I also think part of the conversation being a little convoluted here is we're just covering so much ground. 

1} Right or wrong...your opinion... the FO wants to have the best, most complete roster it can to begin the season with depth available. That depth can come from various sources, but generally speaking, they want a veteran guy, a proven guy, to fill part of that roster and have younger players in reserve. Now, some of those younger players don't necessarily have to be on the 40 man to begin the season as things change over the course of a season. In this case, for example, Margot is on the club vs Martin at this time. Again, right or wrong, Margot is a nice, solid, proven player and Martin is a good looking prospect who had a nice 2023 but it was for a THIRD of a season. The Twins would rather have him playing every day at AAA, getting reps, working on his game, and have the more proven Margot in his role. Were the Twins not in a legitimate, competitive window, perhaps they would handle some of this differently. Were Martin given a shot instead of acquiring Margot, and failed, and needed to be send down, then who's your replacement? Another prospect? That's not how the FO wants to begin the season, at least while in contention. 

Again, right or wrong, this is their philosophy. 

2} I am with Brian in that a 13 man team should always be built to be the best over all 13 man player roster it can be. And I believe the term "bench" is a pretty loose description, especially for MLB, but it's just accepted as part of the vernacular, even if not truly accurate. While it's true that most teams have a central 7-9 guys who are good enough, talented enough, productive enough to be in the lineup just about every day, the 4-6 are still very valuable. Or they'd better be. Guys need days off. Sometimes you want better matchups. And not only do you want and need the best overall 13 man roster you can, but you're going to need another 6 guys plus at different times of the season when players get hurt. It happens, and it happens every year. Refer back to point #1 on how the Twins and the FO generally seem to feel about that part of the equation. BECAUSE of the fact that you will always need more than 13 guys, there's always going to be opportunity during the season for the prospects to get their shot. Depending on how they perform, and who goes down next, this can sometimes allow for a player to stay up regardless, but can also lead them to being sent down for a time until the next opportunity. But let's move on to point #3...

3} On last year's 2023 team, Vazquez, Farmer, Gallo, Polanco, and Taylor had no options remaining. This was also true of some "lesser optimum" players like Garlick, for example. and previously mentioned. So from 2023 to 2024 the Twins haven't, in any way that I can find except maybe for a couple pen arms, suddenly changed the complexion of their team from having more players with options than having  fewer or none. And most of the guys that DID have options last season, are still with the club now and still have options. So there really is no change in suddenly being restricted in 2024 in a way that didn't exist in 2023. 

4} There is a difference between WANTING something and the REALITY of something. What I mean is, I WANT  the Twins to have no injuries for the entire season so the best 26 can be out there all year long. But that's not going to happen. I WANT Martin instead of Margot in the OF and playing a lot and doing great. And I WANT Miranda to be 100% healthy and swinging a strong bat at 1B/DH/some 3B, and having no need for Santana having to have been signed since we have the younger player doing great.  Why have Farmer at all? I WANT Lee instead, ready to go and roll.

I, like many/most of us all/ WANT things like that to happen. But some guys just aren't ready yet, even if close, or are hurt. And the job of the FO is to put together the best team for opening day that they can, with a versatile roster, and depth available. Should the Twins do all that I dream about and WANT, and things don't go well, then what? 

I absolutely, 100% agree that the FO is sometimes so overly risk adverse that they will hold on to players longer than logic would appear that they should. Gallo has now become the poster child for this situation, but the issue is not exclusive to him alone. But if we examine 2023 pretty closely, we saw Lewis getting his shot when healthy. We saw Julien come up, go down, and come back up and stick. We saw the same thing from Wallner, even though his timetable was probably delayed somewhat longer than it should have been. Ober had no business being in AAA to begin the season. But it was a situation where the Twins had the veteran depth to start him there and bring him up as soon as opportunity presented itself, just like with the position players. And he was up very soon. Varland was right behind him, and is more or less in the same position this year as Ober last year. Martin and Lee...and others...are going to make rookie appearances with the Twins this year. And they might go down, and back up again. Or, things might happen in such a way that they are up for good.

These things tend to work out very organically. Tell me a season in which a talented youngster DIDN'T get his shot at some point? Again, we can argue about the FO holding on to veteran options too long, but even then, the kids DO get their shot. Personally, as excited as I am for Lee, and Martin, Severino, Festa, Canterino, and others to make their debuts and make their marks, I'd rather work them in naturally instead of just committing  to them DAY ONE and then wondering what to do if they are hurt themselves, or just aren't ready and need to be sent down for a re-set of some kind. 

But saying the Twins are in some restrictive or tough position because they have some veteran ballplayers on their roster that don't have any remaining options is a hard stretch, IMO. 

On 3/2/2024 at 12:32 PM, DJL44 said:

I'm with you that the Twins are pretty slow to make adjustments. That tells me they're relying on the stats too heavily. It takes a bunch of time to gain statistical confidence in a player's poor performance. The players actually get more reps in practice than they do in the games and good coaches should be able to tell if a player is struggling to perform in practice. If bat speed is poor or they can't recognize a breaking ball anymore AND someone is tearing up AAA then it's time to cut them loose. Part of the reason the Twins have kept players past their expiration date is there wasn't anyone obviously ready to replace them in the minors.

We agree but we might be coming from opposite directions. I think in the case of a struggling vet keeping his job... they would have to ignore stats to justify it. 

I get it... it's a long season of peaks and valleys... if a player valleys out of the gate there just might be peaks to come. 

I haven't been shy admitting that I would have cut Gallo and Kepler in June. In the case of Gallo I was right but in the case of Kepler I was wrong. Kepler was one of the best hitters in baseball after the all-star break.  

Regardless we do agree. I think the Twins have been too patient with struggling vets on expiring deals.