Riverbrian

No they can't shake up their catching corps. If they are able to trade Vazquez... they most likely have to eat some money or include prospect value to amke it happen. I don't believe they can put the full 10 million in their pocket. If they trade Vazquez and get some money to spend. Let's say 7 million to spend. They will have to spend that 7 million to get someone decent because CATCHERS COST A LOT. If they all of sudden say... we will take that 7 million and spend it elsewhere... that's great. I could get behind that but I have one big problem with that scenerio. Here's the problem. Camargo is all of sudden the guy. The same guy who sat for 20 plus games and couldn't get a sniff of the lineup card while Vazquez was deemed not replaceable while compiling an OPS of .575. Camargo couldn't clear that low bar without damaging the Twins chances to win last year but this year he won't be a drain on the teams chances to win ball games for some reason. Trading Vazquez to install Camargo would be a bunch of bull crap based on how they handled catching last year. Yet... Here Camargo is... once again taking up 40 man roster space as the primary option and the Twins have already told everyone that they don't think he can improve a .575 OPS hitting catcher draining 10 million out of severely depleted funds. . So... to answer the question. No the Twins are not ready to shake up their catching corps. They were too busy locking in to the current catching corps.

I think this off-season will be about as boring as it could possibly get or It will be a breath taking juggling of personal. Due to assumed financial limitations... I don't think it will be anything in between. If I had to place a bet... I would bet on as boring as it could possibly get.

I like what you say about development not being in a straight line. I agree one thousand percent. I hate the AAAA tag. I get what it means but like you said development isn't in a straight line. There is no reason that age 27 means spoiled. Coaches don't stop working with you at age 27, you can find that adjustment that unlocks something at any time. Development isn't linear... however,,, the CBA imposed timelines are linear in regards to how long you can develop someone before advancement is required... like 40 man placement, 3 options yada yada. My point that I'm trying so hard to make everyone see and I know that I'm failing with some. It's not that we lost Rooker. IT'S WHO WE KEPT INSTEAD. Who we kept makes it X amount easier to lose someone like Rooker. I get the attempts at justification being made by many... however the responses afterwards "Oh Well... It Happens". "Who could have seen this coming"... "we had a Log Jam"... don't see it. Letting a Rooker type talent get away for no value sucks especially for an organization that can't survive without development... especially for an organization that can't afford to sign a ROOKER type talent via free agency. It sucks but it happens to all teams... maybe not Rooker large but assessment mistakes happen to all teams. However... it's not the main problem that is hurting our development. The development problem is the players that we kept instead. Getting absolutely no development out of multiple rosters spots. Players that are out of baseball today taking up roster spots yesterday. Rooker destroying baseballs in Oakland is the BILL COME DUE for Garlick, Astudillo and Celestino taking up roster space instead. I don't care who among us could predict what Rooker was going to become. I'm telling everyone that the FRONT OFFICES can't predict it and if they can't predict it... why are they locking into below average? Garlick, Astudillo, Celestino... Specialists just prevent you from locating someone better. I've been saying this for years. Rosters spots are limited by the CBA. There is a large pile of players on a non linear development course crashing into linear timelines outlined in the CBA. Yet Right Now... the Twins front office is combing through spreadsheets trying to find another Margot... to dip Wallner, Larnach and Julien into cement... dip them into cement to ensure that their will always require a Margot type and ensure that their value to a team or trade value to other teams will never exceed Joc Pederson. Only to rinse and repeat with Erod and Jenkins in the future. I can make a reservation at this same restaurant right now for three years in the future. Twinsdaily can repeat the "Oh Well It Happens" discussion in 2027 when someone else that we gave away is in an all star game in a different uniform. Rooker strikeout rates? Was that the issue? Maybe... who knows but I have an argument against that. That argument is just one year later... The Twins signed Joey Gallo. Who has done nothing but demonstrate a high propensity of striking out. Spent 10 million on him knowing he would strike out a high rate. Gallo kept his spot all year. Who'd we lose because we kept Gallo all year. I don't know but because Gallo kept his spot all year... the odds increase that we lost someone.

With respect I ask. When did he lose that shine? What caused him to lose that shine? He hit a home run every 14 AB's in the minors. Did a .688 OPS in 189 Major League AB's cause the shine loss? Please don't take my questions the wrong way. I am curious. He's been labelled as AAAA and such by others.

As usual Mr. Chia Pet. You see it. Others who simply say... Oh well it happens don't see it.

Rooker was part of the Royce Lewis draft class in 2017. That was the very first draft with Falvey and Lavine at the helm.

The Twins are not going to sign Juan Soto. We all know that... we should all know that by now. The new owner most likely is going to be more of the same. We don't have the luxury of filling roster spots with top level free agents.,, we have never had that luxury. Correa signing with us is pretty rare thing in the history of this franchise. Big picture. Development is the only way that this franchise survives year after year. It isn't going to survive just patching holes with Margot and Kyle Garlick for a year and then finding the next Margot and Kyle Garlick to replace them the following year. We are not going to sign Juan Soto... we have to develop Juan Soto. Rooker isn't Juan Soto but he was a better hitter last year then anybody on our 2024 roster. This is the bill you pay when you choose Kyle Garlick for a specialist role. Franchise sustaining development is going to be much harder to accomplish when Wallner and Larnach are strip mined for parts instead of fully developed. Franchise sustaining development is going to be much harder to accomplish when Margot and Garlick types are needed to take additional roster spots so you can strip mine Wallner, Larnach and Julien for parts. I was for the Paddack Rogers trade when the trade was made. Actually... in all honestly... I was excited about it. Acquiring Starting pitching is expensive and I saw a starting pitcher as more valuable than a bullpen arm because of the potential to throw 3 times as many innings. I saw Paddack... liked the deal. Rooker... I had no idea what he would become... how could I? If the Twins are not going to utilize Rooker... might as well let him go. However, in hindsight, If the Twins knew what Rooker was going to become what he became. Would they have included him in the deal? They would not have. Why would they? Rooker would return more in a trade today than any of the pieces in this deal combined. Misses happen. The Twins obviously missed and they obviously didn't know. It happens. Who they kept instead is the development problem.

When Camargo was added to the 26 man roster, sat on the bench for over 20 games while he watched Vazquez OPS under .600 every other day. Any threat to Vazquez playing time was neutralized by the decision makers. Camargo was not allowed to compete. The decision makers predetermined the outcome, Many don't see the big deal. Many justify it. I say it's a big deal. It is opportunity robbed for the purpose of locking in terrible performance. It is this type of thing that lets a Rooker gets away. Rooker Nah? We got Garlick for this specialist role and because we got Garlick taking up a roster spot. We have no room for Rooker. Oh well... we missed out on Rooker... What a shame... It happens... There was simply no room. The people who don't see this sort of thing are often talking about Log Jams on this website. I often hear of log jams but I have never seen one. I just see a bunch of predetermination that doesn't work out as planned. Many don't see the big deal if we add a Margot to the roster so Wallner doesn't have to face left handers. It's a big deal. Margot isn't good... Wallner doesn't fully develop and you don't have room for a Rooker who it turns out can hit both left handers and right handers. All teams miss... Predetermination, not allowing competition, keeping Margot for the entire year, committing roster spots to specialists is how the other players are killed off due to lack of opportunity. The People who make these predeterminations are good at their jobs but they are the same ones who chose Garlick and Celestino who are both out of baseball two years later over one of the best hitters in baseball two years later.

40 Man Pressure was the mechanism. The Twins were adding Paddack and Pagan to the 40 man and only losing Rogers in the deal. Someone from the Twins 40 man would need to be added.

LOL... there is something you are not getting. Excuse me but this stuff drives me nuts. How many times do I need to type "Everyone Misses" in this discussion before you don't reply back to me "everyone misses" like I haven't been saying that? Did you not understand what I meant when I said "decisions are tough in the GM chair"? Am I not real enough when I acknowledge that? Yes the Royals and Padres whiffed they didn't have as much time with him but yeah they whiffed. The A's almost whiffed. He was the last player added to the roster in 2023. It wasn't like the A's knew what they had either. He would have been the 1st player added to the roster if they knew. The superstar Conor Capel (Currently out of Baseball) opened up 2023 as the left handed DH while Rooker waited for a left hander. Rooker started the season 1 for 9 over the first 9 games of the year. He was getting splinters before the mighty Seth Brown (102 Career OPS+) got hurt giving Rooker playing time. Where is he supposed to play? My point isn't just that the Twins missed on Rooker... that can't be argued... The Twins missed on Rooker. MY POINT is that not only did the Twins miss on Rooker,,, they also missed on THE PLAYERS THAT THEY KEPT. Which is literally the difference between one of the best hitters in baseball and a 25 year old who is out of baseball because no one wants him. You listed the players that we kept like it was a no brainer. Yep those players plus the ones that I added are players that got to play OF. You are asking me "Where is he supposed to play"?

Some players get chance after chance. Some players barely get a chance. Predetermination is the culprit. It was predetermined that Kepler was going to get chance after chance. It was predetermined that Rooker was some sort of redundancy. In two years time Rooker becomes one of the best hitters in baseball. Celestino is hoping to sign a minor league contract at age 25. Two years ago... they were a tough decision.

I'm aware of all the players who made up the roster. I'm aware that decisions are tough in that GM office. I get it. Don't forget the Garlick. Plus Refsnyder, Astudillo and Cave. I'm counting on Larnach and Wallner this year. Everyone else on your list. Swing and miss. Gordon cleared waivers. Celestino is 25 and looking for work. Kepler... Was offensively below average for those 3 years with the exception of two months late in 2023. Decisions are tough in the GM chair. They missed. This can't be argued. I get everyone trying to justify the miss. The miss is justified.... but it was a rather large miss when the players they chose are no longer in baseball.

He still has an option remaining with the Athletics.

We think Player A will be good so we will have the patience to absorb struggles and let him grow into the position. We think we are redundant at this spot so we will let this guy go. Predetermination is the key to your plan.

Agreed. All teams miss. My dander isn't up about them missing. I actually don't know what dander is but I know that all teams miss. They missed... it's clear... it can't be argued. They chose a couple of players who are out of baseball this year over a player who was one of the best hitters in baseball last year. My war against specialists clogging up rosters continues on.

Twinsdaily posters can agree, complain, be excited or be apathetic all we want. If none of us saw this coming... it's easily explainable because it's not our eyeballs attached to the authority to make things happen. I just don't see how there is any argument here. The Twins let Rooker go and they kept Garlick, they kept Celestino. That's a Canyon. Twinsdaily not seeing it isn't an issue. Those who are paid to watch and decide not seeing it... is kind of an issue. 😉

I wouldn't read that article. I would read the one about Adolis and the Cardinals. 5000 words is a lot though.

There was another Rooker discussion on a different thread so I wasn't going to comment on this one... But Oh Well. 2021 didn't go that great at the major league level. There is no doubt about that. However... in fairness... there were two players that year that we will be counting on THIS YEAR that were in the same boat statistically... Larnach and Jeffers. Gordon, Astudillo, Simmons and Cave were offensively worse and received more AB's in MLB than Rooker did. Celestino had 59 well below average AB's in 2021. Rooker had more AB's in AAA that year to the tune of a .931 OPS. In 2022. He wasn't the same guy. His AAA OPS at El Paso and Omaha combined to 1.044. At the major league level... 7 AB's in San Diego... 29 AB's in Kansas City. 36 scattered AB's in the majors... I'm sorry... you can't say "Same Guy". Maybe a light switch was flipped in 2023. I don't know but with Rooker that light switch really really flipped. It did not flip for Astudillo, Gordon or Celestino who the Twins gave more playing time. I'm not sure why it's hard to accept the possibility that the Twins missed on their assessment here.

I do It happened with opportunity.

Amongst us on Twinsdaily. There is a tendency to believe that a late blooming Rooker is a rare occurrence. There is no question that It is a rare occurrence and I won't argue that. However... I believe that it is quite possible that this type of occurrence is made even more rare because players like Rooker who made the adjustments at age 28 are not given the chance to show the fruits of their labor while teams fill up roster space with Margot and Farmer who perform below average and are allowed to struggle without consequence. I can't give you specific names because the players who are not given a chance just disappear into the wind. Will some unnamed player on the Rockies lose an opportunity because of Farmer next season? I don't know but if Farmer has another season like last year... The answer is yes. In the end the Rockies will waste an entire of potentially getting better letting Farmer be Farmer. They will spend 3.25 million dollars in order to not give someone else a chance for the major league minimum. If Farmer has a good year... never mind... they found someone. With Rooker... for whatever reason... justified or not justified at the time.... Hindsight or foresight. It simply can't be argued that the Twins missed on him because Rooker is hitting better than any player on the Twins current roster and many other rosters for that matter. Meanwhile the string of specialists that have taken up roster space are nowhere to be found. Garlick (Left Handed Pitcher specialist and Celestino (Can play CF specialist) are looking for minor league deals. That's the complete opposite to Rooker who became one of the best hitters in the league. There is a grand canyon in difference between can't find work and one of the best hitters in baseball. That's how large this miss was. The Twins chose the Donkey behind door #1 instead of the Washer/Dryer behind door #2 or the brand new car behind door #3. The worst part is that they chose the donkey because they needed something they could occasional hook a plow to and they had a hat with earholes that only a donkey could wear. I have no idea what Yunior is or can be. I won't pretend to know. I do know that he we could have given him a roster spot on multiple occasions due to injury and we didn't. Correct Call? I don't know but I believe that Farmer and Margot were not correct calls... year long not correct calls. The Twins at best tread water with specialists... at worst... they don't tread water and they place development and discovery into the back seat. Development is the only way the Twins will get better. Finding a Kerry Carpenter type because Margot isn't in the way... is one less thing to do next off-season. I don't blame the Twins for missing Rooker with the information they had at the time. I blame the Twins for not developing Rooker and I blame the Twins for who they chose and gave chance after chance to instead.

Aiding and abetting is a crime in most states. Sentences can range from Community Service to hard time.

It's always hindsight. 😉 Don't players make adjustments as part of their development? Sometimes big revamps... Sometimes little tweaks and everything in between... video aided, data aided, coaches on staff suggesting this, suggesting that with the goal of getting the most out of every player. There is a clock on every player before hard decisions are made on who stays and who goes. If what Brent Rooker is doing for Oakland was somewhere inside him while he was walking around Fort Myers... it's in the best interest of the organization to get that Oakland version of Rooker out of him. They didn't get it out of him, they didn't see it and they let him go. They couldn't pull Brent out of that pile of players in the middle. I don't doubt you when you say that Rooker made adjustments that turned him into a different player. With his adjustments shining and on display in 2023... It still took an injury to Seth Brown before Rooker was given that fateful chance by the A's that he ran with. Seth Brown and Ramon Laureano were the guys on the corners that the A's believed in over others. The A's could barely pick Rooker out of that pile in the middle. Without Brown's injury... Rooker probably wouldn't have gotten enough opportunity to show he was a new Rooker. It's always hindsight. However... there is a foresight process before the hindsight. The Twins, Padres, Royals and I'll add the A's. Had trouble seeing it. There's the getting the most out of a player part and almost just as important... there is the getting Garlick, Celestino, Margot out of the way part. Not just the Twins... but all organizations often choose Garlick for some reason.

It only goes to show something that I've always said on this website. You never know who you are talking with? You must be proud. Deservedly so. On the subject at hand. I don't believe in redundancy or log jams. Having too many good players is never a problem... Having too many good players is what every team should strive for. Yet... these discussions keep coming up because... we keep trying to reduce depth to an inch deep for some reason. Right now... I'm counting on Trevor... I'm counting on Matt... Erod.. All of them. Tell Trevor... please don't let me down. 😁

That is a good question. My concern would be that if they took the 6m in savings and divided it up amongst 3 players at 2m like they did last year with Polanco. That is my biggest concern. Now if they took that 6m and held it so they had some financial wiggle room to add at the trade deadline. Oddly... I'd be ok with that... However... they need to be able to replace what Castro does... via Helman or someone for the minimum. Because Castro or the Castro doppelganger is going to rise up to over 300 AB's with our injury history.

It's a question of the price point. Castro has undeniable value to the roster or any roster. Does he have 6 million worth of value is the question. He doesn't if his performance can be replicated for less.