jmlease1

He did great in rookie ball, and frankly it would be really promising if he moves up to low-A at the start of this season. (Kepler for example didn't reach Low-A until his age-20 season) and it'll be interesting to see how he does in the FSL. the athleticism is impressive, so if he can translate those tools into effective baseball skills he'll rise quickly. It'll be interesting to see what position they start to lock him into?

Never trust players comments about their health, how they're feeling, etc prior to spring training. It's as meaningful as hearing that someone is coming in in the "best shape of the life". we'll see if he's healthy when he takes the mound against live competition and whether he can control his pitches. until then, he's just one of several guys competing for one of the last couple of spots in the bullpen. Right now he's competing with Alcala, Funderburk, Winder, Balazovic, Sands, etc for those last spots. I'd argue he's behind Alcala and Funderburk but possibly above Winder, Balazovic, and Sands.

It definitely seems to be where you see either a leap forward or washouts. the pitchers at AA either have superior stuff or refined approaches that don't rely on overwhelming a hitter with one pitch. The pitchers there are working on a 3rd pitch and already have a quality off-speed pitch they can work with. a lot more of them can hit their spots and you can't wait for someone to groove a 3-1 fastball in the heart of the plate. This should be a good test for Schobel.

I think this sums it up pretty well. He's an interesting player: when he shows some pop in his bat, you start to see him as a quality MLB player, either as a super-utility or maybe more. When he doesn't show that power, then the hit tool just isn't strong enough to carry him. He makes good contact, he takes some walks, he's a good base-runner ( 19-3 SB-CS ratio is outstanding) but he struggled at the plate in Wichita to get any power at all. I think it's a decent sign that he kept taking walks even when he was struggling, and he made a ton of contact in sept to finish a little stronger, but he's going to have to do better than the 9 xbh he got in AA last season. Important season for him. If he adjusts and starts looking like the guy from High A again this season, a couple months adjustment midseason is nothing. If he can't get the ball out of the infield this year, he's going to need a lot more hits and walks to have much of a future.

I wouldn't mind the Twins adding an OF, especially if they hit RH, mash LHP, and even better can play a little CF. But I'm looking at the roster right now and since we can only expect to have 13 position players we're basically at the point of any OF we add has to be better than Nick Gordon, and any INF we sign has to be better than Jose Miranda. (we could maybe sign an OF who is better than Miranda, and hope that between Jeffers/Farmer/Julien and maybe even Kepler/Wallner we can cover 1B behind Kirilloff?) because right now, those are the guys that look to have the last 2 spots on the 26 man roster. Miranda has options left; Gordon does not. Kirilloff, Jeffers, Julien, Correa, Lewis, Castro, Kepler, Buxton, and Wallner are locked in. If Vazquez goes, a catcher will replace his spot. Farmer could be still moved, but it's always seemed like the only reason the Twins were considering moving him was for payroll, so if that's not an issue it's hard to see him going when he's an ideal partner for Julien at 2B, can still play effective SS, hits LHP, and can even slide into the OF in a pinch. Solano over Miranda gives us more depth since Miranda can go to AAA, but does it make us better? Votto doesn't look like a fit at all. Taylor is excellent Buxton insurance defensively and hits lefties better than Gordon; I wouldn't hate a reunion, especially if the coaching staff isn't feeling great about Martin being ready. Underwhelmed about the reunions.

well, no 1-year deal is going to be that terrible, but I'm a little concerned that Santana is hitting the wall at this point. I'm also not sure how well he really fits as a platoon bat: he hits lefties well, but has never really been a destroyer of them, and his splits over the last 3 years aren't that encouraging...and neither are his career splits. (He's been better against lefties, but there's not a giant difference). But the other aspect his...how well would he accept the role as a platoon bat? he's been a starter full-time for 13 seasons, including last year. he'll be better defensively than Jose Miranda or Donovan Solano, but a healthy Miranda might be significantly better as a hitter. Solano won't give you any power at this point, and he won't give you a real boost against LHP, but he will give you professional ABs. I guess the other thing i worry about with this club is Sunk Cost Fallacy on these kind of veteran signings. Look at how long Gallo hung around on the roster before getting dropped. Now, injuries played a huge part of that, but if Santana is cooked and Miranda is destroying the ball in AAA, will they eat the remaining $4M or so of a Santana contract to bring up Miranda or will they keep hoping to get back some of the value and hope that Santana turns it around? That worked for Kepler, but bombed for Gallo. but Kepler is also 7 years younger than Santana (and had an option year left on the contract). Rolling with the kids worked better for the team last season. Think i would pass.

You have to wonder how much of a problem Peter's dementia has been for them as an organization, but also the fact that the Angelos family made their money off of Peter getting a massive windfall in tobacco litigation that wasn't repeatable. I suspect most of their money IS the Orioles, and they're one of the ownerships that doesn't have a gazillion dollars to invest in the team and/or infrastructure because growing the valuation of the team as an asset doesn't help them unless they sell. I mean, no sympathy for them: they're going to be all insanely wealthy after this sale. But it probably limited the team's ability to compete in the AL East. Camden is a great ballpark, and so glad more teams followed that example in design sensibility rather than the ChiSox.

This is going to be an interesting question for GG: how much has he physically matured or not? The prospect evaluators who are down on him seem to be grouping around two things: his EVs (suggesting that he's where he's going to be for strength and power) and his lack of patience (which could get victimized as he faces more advanced pitching). The ones who are higher on him don't see him as being done in terms of his physical maturation and some struggles upon advancing to a level that he's quite young for is normal. I wonder who will be right? I would be interested in how many of them have actually seen more than a little tape on him.

some teams probably didn't believe in his power explosion at ASU, and since he's not projected to stick at SS, maybe they just didn't believe enough in his bat to project him? Hard to say for sure, but the Twins took him high in the second, so it's not like he really tumbled way down. (at the time I think some people thought we were reaching a little?)

i think the assessment of Severino is a little harsh; he might not be the most disciplined hitter, but he still takes walks (averaging like 45 per year over the past 3 seasons) and with a batting average landing around .270-.275 over the same period he makes decent amounts of contact too. yes, power is the big skill here, but he makes enough contact to let it play (unlike Sabato, for example). we'll see how he does; I expect him to get a chance at some point this season when injuries strike, and maybe playing 1B will suit him. I love Rosario, though. looking forward to him at AA and I hope he keeps smashing the cover off the ball. Keaschall had as good a pro start as you could ask for, and it's great that he jumped up to high A already. he could push himself to AA by midseason if he keeps playing out like this. He looks like a pretty sophisticated hitter already and it should be fun to see him get a full year in pro ball.

Canterino has everything except health. I keep wondering if the "Johan Plan" could work for him, where he spends a season or two in the bullpen maybe throwing 2 inning stints and then transitions back to starting? He has the pitches to be a serious, front-line starter. He hasn't had the health to be anything other than a dream. Rooting for the kid, hope he can finally get to really play pro ball. This is a really interesting group. I'd be more excited about Olivar if people weren't already telling me "he ain't sticking at catcher, and probably will end up as a corner OF".

Topa is a really interesting acquisition. He hasn't been good until last season, but he added a new pitch which has been effective for him and threw more innings last season than his previous 3 combined. So do you weight the good year (where he threw a bunch) or the bad years (where he barely threw at all)? Some guys just develop late (we should have him locker next to Thielbar). I do like his different arm angle and the gazillion groundballs. I think there's value in having pitchers who don't have the same profiles, as awesome as it is to have guys throwing upper-90's, facing a guy with a sidearm angle you've only seen rarely can be very effective no matter how many simulated swings you take between innings against the machine. As a cheap, controllable replacement for Pagan, I kinda like it.

1. The ability to take on salary in a midseason trade does matter sometimes. It's not useless 2. And as has been noted, they're not paying Polanco's $10.5M, so they're netting about $5M when you throw in Topa's salary. 3. This is the part that's the most scary about DeSclafani, and it's why the deal feels underwhelming to many, when the stated goal was to acquire starting pitching. If this guy is a replacement-level pitcher then we moved one of our best trade chips and didn't get the return we need. Now, we didn't get nothing: DeSclafani might be a solid back of the rotation guy and though it seems insane at times...those guys get $8-10M on the open market easily. Topa does look like a good replacement for the innings that Pagan chewed up in the bullpen last season, which certainly has value to the team right now. And the prospects are good: Seattle's #3 prospect, which for them looks to rate somewhere in the 90-120 overall range, and an A-ball pitcher with upside. But we need to make another move to address the needs of today's team, which can contend. Maybe these prospects help get that done, or make it easier to move another guy in our system. Maybe the extra $5M lets us rebalance the roster (there's no question that we were long on infielders) and replace Polanco's production in a different spot. but we're not there yet. i think it's fair to be skeptical of the deal and the moves (or lack of moves) so far this offseason, but we're also not in fireable offense territory with this deal.

I'll take this bet. I'm amazed at how down you are on a player coming off a season where they were top 10 in RoY voting and absolutely earned that status. You apparently care more about the few times he's taken a called third strike over the 64 walks and the 130 OPS+ he put up. He might have started out as a nightmare on defense (that's still a little exaggerated, mostly because he made some very glaring errors especially early) but finished the season looking solid. no, he's not as good defensively as Polanco, but his rookie season he was more productive at the plate than Polanco has ever been his entire career. (I don't say this to dis Polanco, a player I love and who has been very important to the Twins. But Julien is 5 years younger, healthier, and far more patient at the plate)

well, he probably is. But Julien was quite a bit better last year than Miranda was in his debut, and while Miranda had a lost season it's pretty obvious that was due to injury. Julien is showing no injury issues and so far is showing only one real weakness in his game: hitting lefties (which he's also been protected against). But if you've already decided to be out on Julien after he finished top 10 in RoY for...reasons, then I really don't know what to tell you. There are reasons to not love this trade based on the return and whether it improves the MLB team in the short term, but needing Polanco to play 2B isn't one of them.

I'm shocked, shocked, that after making a significant trade to acquire a player who has twice missed at least half the season due to injury, and missed 140 games over the past 2 seasons the said front office would say that they're not worried about his health. That's as credible as the Twins front office saying Buxton will have no problems playing CF this season. Maybe the twins could have done better if they had waited longer, or maybe this was the best deal they could get from Seattle. Maybe no one else was particularly interested in Polanco. We won't know that either. I still like this move for Seattle, but if Polanco only plays 100 games for them this year...then maybe not so much.

Considering where the Twins are (a playoff team trying to make a push to be a championship team, or at least that's how they should be viewing themselves), it's always going to be a little underwhelming to trade a quality MLB player, and the best player right now in exchange for multiple pieces. I don't love DeSclafani (which seems to be a consensus), but he does give us more starting pitching depth. Topa actually looks like a good fit, but middle relievers aren't usually that impactful even if they are necessary. So there's a lot riding on Gonzalez, and while he's talented...he's still an A-ball prospect, so there's a lot of risk. It's not really what I was hoping for in moving Polanco, a player that I still really like, even with Julien and others staking their claims on 2B. Does this give the Twins more pieces to move for a higher quality starter? I think it does, especially because some of the players at the top of our prospect list looks like guys the Twins aren't interested in flipping for guys that might only have 1-2 years with the Twins because of the potential for stardom in the prospects. I certainly wouldn't be interested in flipping any of our top 3 prospects for mediocre starting pitching. It's not an awful return or anything...but it doesn't fix the real need for higher end starting pitching, so the net effect is more about saving payroll, which sucks.

A prospect who plays Catcher and CF? I'm already intrigued. he definitely needs to be in Cedar Rapids this year, But this is essentially his "age 22" season, so he's not really behind the age curve much if at all. Quality hitting numbers for the FSL. he should be fun to watch; if he can hit like this and play a premium defensive position then he'll jump up the ranks quickly.

Thanks! I think one of the things we see is that only the really great relievers are able to be consistently dominant over an extended period of time. You'll see closers who are in the role for a decade or longer, but the reality is they're just pitching the last inning for a fair number of years and getting a fairly empty "save" rather than be consistently dominant. the smaller samples also have some relievers putting up big seasons scattered over 6-8 years, but rarely every season in a row. It is one of the things that makes it hard to differentiate who the truly great ones are without really digging in and looking at a lot of different metrics. the evolution of the best reliever becoming a "closer" rather than a "fireman" and only being used in the last inning save situation was an unfortunate development by managers (aided by players and their agents, when they saw how big save numbers translated to bigger paychecks). It feels like that's shifting away again?

The '87 team really is the hardest one to rank. Because they were deeply flawed and fortunate to get hot at the right time and compete in a soft division. When they faced the Cardinals, StL was missing Jack Clark and Pendleton didn't play much in the series (only 3 out of the 7 games and 7 total ABs). Clark was easily their best hitter and Pendleton was important too. It's the luckiest team in Twins history. But they won the title. And that's a massive thing. You need to get a little lucky (most of the time) to win a title. And sometimes teams make their own luck. Gagne, Gladden, Brunansky, and Gaetti carried them against Detroit while the pitching was good enough. Viola, Blyleven, and Reardon were all great in the WS and Puckett, Gladden, Lombardozzi, and Gaetti were all hitting (and thank you Don Baylor who was great in the postseason). Timing. Magic. Luck. Winning. seems like the right spot.

Well, you had to stretch across a lot of years to come up with 17 names, so maybe it is a little more rare? Let's look at these guys in comparison to Nathan. Franco: pitched forever, but never as dominant as Nathan. Despite Franco throwing for 5 more season, he comes up short in WAR and WPA. 50 additional saves in 5 more seasons doesn't impress. Gordon: An average starter who had several good years in the bullpen, but was inconsistent there. Gordon's best season as a closer/reliever he dropped an ERA+ of 204; Nathan averaged that in 9 seasons with MN and Texas. Hernandez: Not sure why he's even on the list? He's nowhere near Nathan on WAR, WPA, ERA+, or WHIP. Only 2 all-star appearances. Henke: ok, now we're getting interesting. Pretty dominant, great WHIP, ERA+, but only 2 all-star appearances, and the WPA doesn't measure up. He's below Nathan, but is interesting. Hiller: interesting pitcher, but a different role. Threw a lot more innings, but falls down on the dominance scale. And while saves are flawed stat, but it does say some things about who was pitching in close & late situations. The WPA isn't there either. Tekulve: more similar to Hiller than to Nathan. Well below on metrics like ERA+, WHIP, WPA, and saves. The comparable WAR comes from all the extra innings, but when that's the only equal metric? Only 1 all-star? Relievers got picked for the all-star game in that era. Sorry, not impressed. Kinder: hard to comp pitchers from this era to modern baseball, but Kinder only spent 6 seasons as a reliever, so we're basically comparing apples to a bushel of wheat or something. Wetteland: I'd argue he's proof of how hard it is to have sustained excellence. He was dominant in a 9th inning role, but only did it effectively for 8 years (his last season wasn't really that great) and then was done at 33. Nathan tops him in saves, bWAR, WPA, all-star appearances, longevity... Lyle: effective pitcher for quite a long time, but Nathan was certainly more dominant and the ERA+ and WHIP show it. Had a nice advantage in that he got moved into the 'pen early, but still fall short on the WPA metric too. Nathan had more big seasons. Quisenberry: a fascinating case that deserves more consideration. truly dominant for about 8 years, his peak value is awesome. but the last 3 seasons weren't so great (and the first was just ok). Nathan's got him on WPA and longevity...again showing how hard it is to do this at the top levels for 10 years or longer; Quiz got his shot in the 'pen sooner than Nathan and still couldn't hold it as long, and that was without the big injury. F.Rodriguez: worthy of consideration. A lot of comps to Nathan and a worthy candidate. He was truly one of the best closers in the last 30 years. Orosco: pitched forever, but only a handful of dominant seasons, and falls down on ERA+, WPA (massively), saves, and even with a lot more seasons still falls short on bWAR. Only 2 all-star nods...why is he on this list? Papelbon: An interesting candidate as well; truly dominant in his early years with Boston even if his later seasons slid fairly quickly. I'd have him a bit behind Nathan, but they're not that far off. Percival: very very good closer for nearly a decade, but is hurt by being in such a limited role. Only topped 60 innings as a reliever 3 times. He's well behind Nathan on a number of metrics, including WPA which he would really need to show he's in the same league as closer. He's certainly behind Quiz and Papelbon and F-Rod Marshall: interesting pitcher, but had a pretty short peak (5 seasons or so) even if he pitched a lot of years. Not enough dominance in those peak years to carry him, falls way short on almost every metric even with the Cy. Face: a nice pitcher, but not sure why he's on this list. Maybe it's just an era thing, but he's well short on bWAR, WPA, ERA+, WHIP, and certainly on saves. Reardon: a quality closer for a decade, but never as dominant as Nathan. Comes up well short on ERA+, saves, bWAR, WPA. He's not just below Nathan, but well below guys like Quiz, Papelbon, and F-Rod. So out of the 17 candidates you're suggesting need to go in if Nathan gets the nod, it sure looks like most of them aren't really that comparable. And if 3 more relievers (plus Nathan) over 60-70 years of baseball history get tapped for the Hall we're hardly throwing the gates wide.

I think the Twins like his profile as a hitter and see him as someone whose bat skills can get him up to MLB at some position. Organizationally I don't think they worry too much about how many guys they have at a position, assuming there's enough levels in the minors and that talent will sort itself out. And for all that 2B is an easier position to fill...there's still always going to be a need for guys who can both hit and field the position. There were 10 teams in MLB last season that had real issues at 2B last season, either from not being able to find a guy good enough or healthy enough to man the spot all year, or had disappointing seasons from the guy they tapped for it. Having consistent depth coming up through the system at 2B ain't bad. Keaschall had a great start for the Twins and showed he could move up to better competition quickly and have success. He's young for a college player, which is certainly interesting. He'll almost certainly start the year in Cedar Rapids, but he'll get the opportunity to move up if he keeps crushing it. I think the key for him this season will be how well he holds up over the grind of a full season. (it was encouraging to see him do so well in the minors when it was easily the most games he'd ever played in a calendar year, but a full pro season is another 30 games more) It'll also be interesting to see how many positions he plays: he's gotten time at 2B, 3B, and CF so far and if he can be effective at multiples it'll be a great sign.

Nathan has a great case for the Hall, and it's a shame that the very crowded ballot and limited number of votes each writer got caused him to get eliminated so quickly, before his case could really be evaluated and discussed. I tend to value peak performance over longevity, but some voters I'm sure want to see more length from Nathan; he had a 10 year run where he was a great reliever from 2003-2013 with really only one blip (wasn't quite recovered from surgery/injury in 2011); every other year he was one of the 3 best relievers in baseball, and there just aren't very many guys who are that consistently good let alone great. Nathan really only has 2 deficits: playoffs (which is such a small sample size that it's hard to know if it really was an issue, but also how about blaming Gardy for asking Nathan to throw a 3rd freakin' inning against the Yankees? After getting the save the night before?) and the fact that some voters really aren't interested in voting for relievers. Some folks don't seem to look at it as much of a position, so unless you're holding down a record it makes it harder to get in. I suspect his career would be held in higher esteem if he didn't overlap his entire career as a dominant reliever with Mariano Rivera, who was literally the best of all time. Rivera's consistency, longevity, and dominance meant that Nathan was never the best reliever in baseball, but being #2 behind a sure-fire hall of famer should be looked at a little closer. It's a bit like Tim Raines, who was one of the great leadoff hitters of all time, but people missed just how great he was for a long time because he overlapped with Rickey Henderson, who was the best leadoff man of all time. Raines got the ballot time to have a better look at his career outside of Rickey; would have been nice for Nathan to get the same look away from Rivera.

He's had some tough breaks so far, but he's still very young and simply hasn't had a chance to show what he can do with his talent. Maybe he can meet with Royce Lewis in FL this year during spring training and get some tips and encouragement. He does seem to have the kind of attitude you need to bounce back from this kind of start. Good luck, hope he stays healthy and gets to really show what he can be as a player!

I'm not exactly going to go out on a limb for Nick Gordon, but Gordon has at least shown success in MLB. Last season was a disaster, but it was a small sample with a major (and fluky) injury. Thompson hasn't had a lot of opportunity in MLB but he also hasn't done anything with his chances (yet). Gordon certainly ranks over Thompson right now for me.