Let's Not Overlook the Value of Christian Vázquez

2 hours ago, old nurse said:

If a part time catcher makes the choices that makes the starting pitchers 0.25 war better they are worth their 10 million dollar contract. As much as people have tried to forget, one shouldn’t ever forget that Doumit scrunch the strike zone so much that Glen Perkins said he felt that he had to pitch to a strike zone the size of a postage stamp when Doumit was catching. 

This is a great point. Unlike any other position on the field, the catcher plays a critical role in making the pitching effective. The Twins had great pitching last year and none of us really knows how much of that was due to Jeffers, how much to Vazquez, and how much independent of catching.

I am "meh" about keeping Vázquez. I do believe he's a sound defensive catcher and that his hitting numbers should trend up a bit, but I don't think he's worth $20M to the Twins in the next two years. The key is that one or both of the two catchers will probably suffer a disabling injury in the coming year, meaning more time for the "other" catcher as well as for the third catcher (Camargo). Would the Twins be all right with Austin Hedges starting 100 games behind the plate? I don't think so. Maybe someone like Caratini would be all right in the alternate catcher role (lifetime .684 OPS, .711 last year), plus he's a switch hitter. From what I can see, he's decent defensively.

1 hour ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

Has anybody looked at pitching statistics for Vasquez's starts vs Jeffer's starts? 

Yes, but those numbers for 2023 don't support the narrative people seem to want:

Jeffers ERA: 3.61

Vazquez ERA: 4.09

3 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

Thanks Nick great article. I have been venomously against trading Vazquez for all the reasons that you've stated above. But I'd like to add another one that people have so conviently forgotten, and that is Vazquez had the lion's share of facing RHPs at least to begin the season. Which could have kept Vazquez from really finding his groove from the start & helped Jeffers to find his.

IMO sitting Vazquez during the PS, was more wanting Jeffers to have the spot light & prove to everyone that their betting the farm on Jeffers was warranted. IMO choosing Jeffers was not an inteligent decision, it was a bias & wrong one. Vazquez has a lot of post season experience at the highest level where a player like that shifts it to another gear & help the Twins further advance, Ryan was lost. The roles should have been switched but I'd give Jeffers some ABs to get his feet wet not in a situation where he'd drown. 

 

I might be missing something...but how did the Twins "bet the farm" on Jeffers?

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

I would trade him for a good prospect, assuming they then sign another, less expensive, catcher.

That team with the good prospect - why wouldn't they sign the other, less expensive catcher, and save themselves the prospect?

If the answer is that the other, less expensive catcher is worse than Vazquez, well, maybe that is 10 million good reasons to keep him after all.

3 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Really spot on article. Frankly I am puzzled why Rocco failed to play Vasquez any, any during the Twins playoff games. In my opinion, by his 2023 defensive play and his handling of the pitchers, Vasquez had more than earned the right to start a game or 2 in the playoffs, especially against the Astros, his former team from the previous season.  He is a veteran leader, who was told, by Rocco's actions, that he was not good enough. And keep in mind, he does have 2 World Series rings. 

I really think this is what it will come down to.  He may be asking for a trade too. We saw the player usage really neck down to the obvious choices in the post season but I was still surprised he didn’t get any run at all. It seems to point to them having less faith in all the areas discussed in the article and comments which is surprising.  Were he the obvious player they were not going to shed payroll on I’d be arguing for all those intangibles myself.  The team showed their hand a bit in the playoffs I think.  

I’d still keep him though, for all the reasons mentioned. Making it all year with just 2 catchers again is very unlikely, I was pulling for a minor league contract for a Sandy Leon last spring.  It’s just a horrible position to be short on depth and we all know how much they love depth.
 

19 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Yes, but those numbers for 2023 don't support the narrative people seem to want:

Jeffers ERA: 3.61

Vazquez ERA: 4.09

 

How much of Jeffers improvement was Vazquez mentoring him? Also impossible for us to know.

1 hour ago, jmlease1 said:

I think Vazquez will bounce back at the plate somewhat (and I suspect other teams would agree with that) so with his superior defense he still has some value and certainly could be worth the $10M he's due for 2024. The real question on dealing him comes down to two things for me: how confident are you that Jeffers can stay healthy enough to catch 100+ games, and how ready do you think Camargo is to not only handle the position defensively, but also hold his own at the plate.

If the team feels strongly about Camargo's readiness to play in MLB (including handling full-time catching duties in case of an injury), then looking to move on from Vazquez is reasonable, especially if there's a decent deal out there. It would make it easier to hang on to Polanco, and they could add a catcher to hang out in AAA if injuries strike.

I suspect right now the Twins are pushing Farmer, Polanco, and Vazquez out there to see what kind of market there is as they look to cut some payroll and stabilize the rotation. Without knowing how highly they think of Camargo, it's hard to know who serious they are about moving Vazquez. It's also hard to know what the market is for him: he was so awful on offense last season that even with his defense if he doesn't bounce back he's worth very little, and certainly not $10M.

Camargo has a solid reputation behind the plate and he's been a quality bat at multiple levels, so last season at AAA isn't just an International League-fueled fluke. It's an interesting question.

This is right and applies to Polanco and Kepler as well as to Vasquez. In a perfect world we would keep all three AND get a #2/3 SP in FA -very unlikely given the prices - or through a trade - also unlikely since giving up one of the 3 is likely part of the trade price unless we want to give up multiple young options (not happening). We have replacements for all 3 guys, but all those replacements carry risk. We simply don't have enough information on the potential trade return to know if trading Vasquez is smart, dumb, or simply a calculated risk.  

Still, it's fun to speculate. I think all 3 of those guys plus everyone else on the roster not a SP or named Duran, Correa, Buxton or Lewis is out there being shopped right now. Frankly, they should be. This roster is good but has needs and some surplusage in the IF in particular.  We aren't willing to pay the inflated SP prices except maybe for a Seth Lugo type so any improvement will have to come via a trade. And any trade will mean someone we'd rather keep will be gone. 

I think getting a solid young mid-rotation starter with upside is the #1 priority (think Bryce Miller, Bryan Woo,  Edward Cabrerra, etc.). If that means trading Vasquez, Polanco , Kepler, or even Wallner, Julien or Kirilloff alone or as part of a package, we got to do it.  Trading Polanco and Wallner almost gets you Woo or Miller and a reliever like Justin Topa (according to BTV). So does trading Kirilloff and Wallner, and maybe throwing in a Vasquez and paying half of his salary gets that over the top. Polanco and Kirilloff gets you Edward Cabrera. There are endless permutations. We have to be willing to do make this kind of a move if we want to upgrade the starting pitching. I don't think anyone should be untouchable other than Lewis, Lopez, Ryan, Ober, Correa, Lee, and Duran. The key unknown is what we can get back and it's starting pitching we want and need. Anyone else should be available to trade for that. 

3 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

They traded away their #1 catcher  Garver, their future #1 Rortvedt and not drafting any decent catching prospects. Not leaving any competition for their hand picked backup catcher. It's make or break with Jeffers. I don't like the odds.

I'd not consider Garver or Rortvedt #1 catchers in my opinion.  Ones a DH..ones a oft injured backup at best.  Jeffers is and was the best of those 3...as always just my opinion.

15 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I don't understand the question......I said what I'd do, not anything about other teams and stuff. If there isn't a team willing to deal value for him, for whatever reason, then I don't trade him. Nothing more or less. I would 100% expect the less expensive guy to be worse than Vazquez, but the return to make up for that in other ways.....

I was offering a reason why your scenario probably wouldn't play out.

I would trade Francis Peguero to the Orioles for Kyle Bradish.  It's what I'd do.  If the Orioles aren't willing then never mind - I'll turn attention to Tanner Bibee, maybe by offering Balazovic.

24 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

How much of Jeffers improvement was Vazquez mentoring him? Also impossible for us to know.

Catchers ERA has been studied to death over the decades, with no one finding that it's a repeatable statistic that reliably indicates the skill for the position.  There are too many factors lying beneath the surface, such as quality of opponent, or simply how to factor in when a pitcher with a good track record comes to the mound with no feel for his curveball the first three innings that day.  Since catching tandems don't stay together for many seasons in a row, apples-to-apples comparisons are rare just on that basis alone.

Using poorer ERA as evidence for superior talent due to mentoring is a new one, however. 

25 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Using poorer ERA as evidence for superior talent due to mentoring is a new one, however. 

I'm not sure what this means. I certainly didn't say that. I thought the concept of an accomplished veteran helping a talented youngster put things together would be pretty universally understood. My bad. I did say it was impossible for us to know which would indicate I was pointing away from any statistic. Your comment was merely an opportunity to tag along with.