Twins Add Catching Depth with Early Offseason Swap

And Larnach is tendered. I'm quite surprised by that.

11 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Vazquez was one of the worst hitters in all of baseball last year. This team is not worse off, and is likely better. 

Plus, Vazquez is likely to be worse next season. 

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't think Eeles is some super likely MLB piece, but why trade any possible MLB player with 6 years of control

I don't think Eeles really has 6 years of control. He has 3 years of control 2027-29 while he still has options and then you cut him to make room for someone else.

I feel like it's a good use of a 40-man spot. Sorry to see Keirsey get DFA'd But the OF depth made it likely no matter who was added. Would have preferd a trade for Susac from the A's

Well, at least this means that we won't be forced to watch Pareda and Gaspar try to fill in as the backup catcher behind Jeffers.  If Jackson manages to solidify himself, and performs, I wouldn't be surprised if he is kept on for next year, if they do not extend or resign Jeffers. There is some upside here, and 1.8 million is not an unreasonable sum, for a back up catcher. It is a bit sad to see Eeles go, but he was not likely to ever debut with the Twins. It's a salary dump for the Orioles, and it fills a need for the Twins.

But can he pitch in relief?!?!

5 hours ago, rv78 said:

If that is the case, then they don't bring in a backup catcher for $1.8M. You sign Rortvedt or play Pereda for league minimum. It looks more like a salary dump for the Orioles than anything and they found their sucker in Falvey to accomplish it. 

1st Gallo, then Gasper, now Jackson. Falvey just can't get enough guys that hit below .200 to satisify his hunger of ineptness.

And I t seems like he is always over paying for these types  , as some say 1.8 million for a hitter that bats 150  , Gasper i wouldn't even pay the minimum but you have too ...

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I didn't say it was a good plan. In fact, I've been saying for months that I hate the plan. But bullpens are incredibly volatile and is the part of the team most teams feel is easiest to rebuild while also carrying excess value at the deadline. If this was a true rebuild, they'd trade Jeffers this offseason, at least 1 of the starters this offseason, and at least 1 more by the deadline. I don't think they'll do any of that. Because I think Falvey means it when he says he's trying to build around the pieces here, including Lopez, Ryan, Jeffers, and Buxton. That is not a rebuild. That is trying to win now and in the future. And I think it's a terrible plan.

That second sentence doesn't answer the real question. Why trade controllable assets to fill roles on a tanking/rebuilding team? Who cares about substance when you're not trying to win? I don't know why you guys continue to delete out the vast majority of my posts when you respond. I have mentioned Ben Rortvedt 4 times now. That is the move you make if you're rebuilding. You claim a cheaper, younger player without trading any asset, no matter how unlikely it is that the traded asset is a useful piece in the future. There is a whole free agent market full of catchers in the Alex Jackson/Ben Rortvedt tier of players. Go sign any of them without trading a controllable piece. The question wasn't "why add" it was "why trade." There's a massive difference. 

You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest it's clearly a rebuild and then suggest they should be trading for "substance" for 2026. That isn't how a rebuild works. A true rebuild doesn't care 1 gosh darn bit about the 2026 results. It gets rid of every valuable short-term piece while adding as many possible long-term pieces as possible. You don't trade the possible long-term pieces (no matter how likely they are to be real pieces) for the short-term piece because you don't care about the short term. You don't trade for guys, you sign dumpster dive players.

Trading Eales and paying 1.8mil is the equivalent of just picking which back up you want for an absolutely forgettable price.....there is absolutely nothing here revealing of long-term plans

35 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

In addition to losing Eeles, we may lose Keirsey, who had to be removed from the 40 man roster, by being DFA'ed. For a strikeout prone, back up catcher with a .153 batting average. that seems a poor deal to me.

Losing Keirsey is addition by subtraction. 

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Right? He either works, or doesn't. But you spent no money and Eeles to find out. Pretty low risk opportunity.

I like this deal as a decent short term risk until their minor league catchers are ready.

And then you wonder why apathy is rampant in Twins town when a deal like this is considered a short term fix. 

Best of all, it means Christian Vazquez won't be coming back 

4 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Again, he had a 2 week stretch where he "racked up," some XBHs last season. He only had 100ish PAs; that mini streak carried his season. He turns 30 in a few weeks, he has 440 career PAs and 420 of those are well below average offensively, even for a C. Vazquez would've seen 250-300 PAs last year as an absolute black hole. in the lineup This club wants to split time evenly at C. 

A bigger deal like IKF? Which salary are they trying to dump now?

It’s that you can use a piece for another. He may not be the end game.  He has a little more value than Eeles. We sure do seem to like to ignore hot stretches in this forum.  

C Reese McGuire was non-tendered by the Cubs.

Can't recall offhand, but when was the last time the Twins cut a guy they traded for and swallowed the million or whatever before June or even at the close of Spring Training? This seems important.

I can't get very worked up about this trade. Jackson isn't going to make the Twins much better or much worst than any other backup or platoon catcher readily available. I do believe Falvey is trying to be competitive in 2026. It also seems pretty clear that he doesn't believe that all the young guys from the system and acquired recently are really ready to contribute yet. So, the "core" he had assembled is getting one more chance. It explains why most of the older not quite elite not quite prospect any more, were acquired. He wanted to add to his core and compete in 2026.

I don't have much confidence this strategy will work. But giving the next wave of prospects a little more time to marinate in the minors is not necessarily a bad idea. Maybe the Twins will find some keepers from this group that can contribute to the next wave when they have developed enough to be a real core. Maybe they will find some tradeable players that could bring in some more potential core guys.

The problem for me, is this not a rebuild, seems so disjointed. It is hard to see the path from this group to a real contending team that could compete for a world series. 

17 hours ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

But he was far better than even in a downturn than Jackson has proven to be

In 3 seasons with the Twins Vazquez posted an OPS+ of 64, 60 & 52, absolutely horrible. His first two seasons his defense was good, but last season even that fell off.

No way should they have brought Vazquez back. They traded for Jackson to be a backup C, he's been solid defensively & showed signs of improvement at the plate last season. All of that at a lower salary than what Vazquez will likely get.

For what it is, a backup Catcher, it's a good trade.  

16 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

If he is their preferred "backup" that speaks to bigger plans. The Twins haven't done "backup" catchers since 2018 when they first paired Jason Castro and Mitch Garver, I don't get why people keep calling him a backup. Unless they think it's revealing that the Twins plan to change their catching philosophy in a pretty big way.

Every move is revealing. Or the front office is completely and utterly incompetent and just making random moves with no larger plan whatsoever in place to have the moves fit together in a meaningful way. There's plenty of people that would make that argument about Falvey. But trading away guys who have legit chances of making the majors and still have 6 years of control is absolutely telling. The only discussion is about what it's telling us.

 

I guess you and I have different evaluations of Eales long term prospects and what 1.8 million means to an MLB franchise even as low as the Twins.... which is ok!

33 minutes ago, MGX said:

In 3 seasons with the Twins Vazquez posted an OPS+ of 64, 60 & 52, absolutely horrible. His first two seasons his defense was good, but last season even that fell off.

No way should they have brought Vazquez back. They traded for Jackson to be a backup C, he's been solid defensively & showed signs of improvement at the plate last. All of that at a lower salary than what Vazquez will likely get.

For what it is, a backup Catcher, it's a good trade.  

Yeah we got a backup catcher when with Jeffers we need a tandem catcher. Jackson is a backup. As for Vazquez and the trade I've said all along that the swap they made is a good swap. I for one have never advocated for bringing Vazquez back. But as for Vazquez's salary for 2026 it would surprise me if he can find anyone to give him over 3mil. A low non guaranteed with a ST invite is more likely. He may well get less than the 1.8 that Jackson will be playing for.

16 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

Yeah we got a backup catcher when with Jeffers we need a tandem catcher. Jackson is a backup. As for Vazquez and the trade I've said all along that the swap they made is a good swap. I for one have never advocated for bringing Vazquez back. But as for Vazquez's salary for 2026 it would surprise me if he can find anyone to give him over 3mil. A low non guaranteed with a ST invite is more likely. He may well get less than the 1.8 that Jackson will be playing for.

I could see it being more of a platoon situation with Jackson playing vs LHP which would free up Jeffers to play 1B/DH vs LHP. Either way Jackson likely won't get more than a couple hundred PA's. You may be right on Vazquez, he just doesn't offer much going forward.