Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jmlease1

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,264

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jmlease1

  1. jmlease1
    Hard to complain about much here. Some really good looking prospects. Love it!!
  2. jmlease1
    I'm really rooting for Rortvedt to continue developing well on offense. I'd love for him to get a mid-season promotion and stay on a good path to the majors. Looking forward to seeing how Larnach does in what's generally seen as more of a pitcher's league. He was expected to crush it in cedar rapids (IMHO); the jumps get a little harder now, but he's got the talent to succeed.
  3. jmlease1
    I think the health and performance of the back of the rotation is going to be key. If we get through the season without having to use 9-10 starters (main rotation inning eaters?) and getting enough quality from positions 3-5 in that group we could win a lot of series. Nice to see the offense break out in game 3!
  4. jmlease1
    Wow, loads of overreactions on this board. I guess that's a good sign, people care enough to massively overreact? Yeah, sucked that Blake Parker wild pitched us to a loss but weird things like that happen in freakin' March especially to pitchers when it's 39F out there. It's one outing. Maybe we can hold off on the panic until he''s blown up a few times in a row? I'm a little surprised people are already outraged that the bench hasn't been completely emptied by Game 2. Which came after an off-day. When we have 4 new regulars in the lineup anyway. And frankly, betting on Tyler Austin as a savior is going to result in a lot of disappointment. It may make sense to be more more aggressive in using ol' Willans as a PH in close & late situations because of his ability to get a bat on the ball, but I think Im ok with letting some guys play early in the season. I'm also not going to start getting on Baldelli's choices based off one game, either. I'm going to wait for a pattern to emerge to see if he's making decent choices. Holy cow. Game 2 and people are already crushing him. Bauer buried our lineup, he's a terrific pitcher. That's the story...
  5. jmlease1
    Is it really fair to say this is Pineda's first year after Tommy John, though? He did pitch (a tiny amount) last year. He's not a guy who just got back on the mound in spring training, I'd argue he's going to be further along than a lot of the guys we normally think of as "coming off TJ". Frankly, I'm more worried about his knee and other injury history than the TJ at this point. Odorizzi may be the best beneficiary of the opener strategy, and as a 4th or 5th guy I think you feel ok about him. He's certainly someone you'd have to feel fairly confident he'll be able to take the ball for 25-30 starts in the season and there's value in that. I also feel better about the options for replacements if/when guys get hurt. Gonsalves, Thorpe, Stewart, Littell are all guys who could break through this season and give you internal options if Gibson needs more time to get back into game shape after the nasty illness or Pineda can't stay healthy, etc. None of them are sure things, but there's better depth options for the starters than we've seen.
  6. jmlease1
    It was a good signing. Hopefully it pays out, but it was definitely worth the (relatively small) risk. Good to see that Cruz seems capable of playing OF enough to stay in the lineup in interleague play as needed, but it seems unlikely we'll see him out there outside of interleague play IMHO.
  7. jmlease1
    I would tend to agree with you on the "#1 starter" definition, but I'm less enthusiastic about the "ace" definition. That one would end up being pretty elastic, I think and stretch out to more than the dozen you're thinking about in your head. Example: I think a lot of Twins fans would be very comfortable with Berrios starting Game 1 of a playoff series, but aren't ready to call him an "ace". Berrios is a guy that I think many if not most teams would look at as a #1 starter, even if their scouting department would call him a #2. (one thing I learned from The Ringer's series on scouting was that most scouts don't project to the extremes and won't go out on a limb to put someone into more elite territory) Is he one in Boston or Cleveland or Houston? Not on their staffs, but what about New York? or Oakland or the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in Southern California Disneyland? Regardless, the Twins are getting into much better position with their starters and getting closer to having a staff that can perform not only over the long haul of a season but in a short series. Berrios is terrific and will leave people drooling for years with that curve.
  8. jmlease1
    Nick, how do you define an "ace"? And is it the same definition as a #1? I kinda feel like these are different things, yet they get conflated often, and both have pretty muddled definitions. I don't think it takes much improvement to think of Berrios as an "ace" or be a fit for the #1 slot for a contender. He finished just outside the top 10 last year in pitching bWAR and was at least as good as anyone Oakland ran out there last season and isn't far off of Severino for the Yankees. Berrios improved in a lot of areas last season and it wasn't a fluky year. Are you only an "ace" if you're in the top 5 for Cy Young every year? Is that the same definition for a #1? (I think for the former it's not unreasonable, I think for the latter it means very few teams have a #1 starter and becomes silly). Boston, Houston, and Cleveland have had top-end depth in addition to talent; each had 2+ pitchers in the top 10 for bWAR which makes them so dangerous. It's why if the Twins added pitching in the offseason I wanted someone who was at least as good as, preferably better than Kyle Gibson (who was awfully good last year, despite my constant skepticism that he could sustain it. I was wrong...last year.) Twins would be helped if either Berrios or Gibson to take another small step forward, especially for when they get to the short series end of it, but getting consistent positive performance from slots 3-5 might be even more important. Odorizzi was our 3rd best starter last season and seems to be best suited as a 4-5 guy. We patched together a LOT of starts from guys who weren't ready or able (either from inexperience or injury).
  9. jmlease1
    I think there are also increasing numbers of teams who don't want to fill their DH slot with a guy who can't play in the field if they don't have to, so that probably reduced his market a little as well, along with the fears of aging, price tag, etc. But production still speaks, and there's no reason to think Cruz can't be an excellent DH for this team this year and possibly next year as well. And with his clubhouse reputation, he should be a benefit to a relatively young team in other ways as well. There's plenty of franchise depth for this spot: Sano could move in there easily, Austin is a good fit if the team finds a way to keep him around, Cron could shift in if they decide they don't like his defense but he keeps on hitting, Rooker might be ready for extended MLB time soon...lots of options. I think if Cruz hits over 30 hrs and puts up another OPS of .850 or so, he'll be back for another run. It'd be hard to complain about that.
  10. jmlease1
    I think Kepler can play any spot in the OF defensively. Nelson Cruz isn't going to DH forever, and having a player who can also play 1B or OF in that slot as your primary guy isn't bad (maybe it's Rooker). And there's also no reason why you can't trade a guy, you just have to hope you trade the right one and get appropriate value for them.
  11. jmlease1
    well, closer than the ridiculous 3 years $30M speculated. I'm almost certain that he's looking for an AAV of at least $17M and probably closer to $20M. The bigger issue may be that he's holding out for a 4-5 year deal on top of it. Of course the Twins would sign him at 3/$30M. I think the Twins would sign him at 3/$50M. I think he's trying to get a 4th year minimum and everyone is balking because they think his shoulder might fall off in year 2 or 3.
  12. jmlease1
    Incorrect. Sano was excellent the first half of 2017, a very deserving all-star. he struggled in the 2nd half and got hurt.
  13. jmlease1
    Probably because Molitor believed in starters playing a specific position and bench guys being the ones who moved around the diamond.
  14. jmlease1
    I love this. If we had dealt him after his rookie season (when he crushed it, with 18 HRs in 80 games) we would have been dumping a player with all-star qualities that was fully under team control who played a position of need. (who else did we have for 3B?) Were we supposed to dump him in 2017? He was a deserving all-star and looked like a franchise cornerstone the first half of the season...were we supposed to dump him in the middle of a pennant race? That would have gone over well. Were we supposed to deal him after the seaosn when he was rehabbing and his stock was down? We certainly weren't going to get real value for him last year at any time or in this past off-season, so please: tell me exactly when we should have traded Sano? You sound exactly like the sort of fan that wants us to drop 6 years/$180M on Dallas Kuechel and then will crush the FO if he doesn't win the Cy Young every year.
  15. jmlease1
    I sure am glad we signed Marwin Gonzalez! Our 3B depth is not great, so having Marwin available to step in is a BFD. And I agree, this does open the door for Astudillo! Why the heck not. Hell, this would mean we can use garver as a PH or DH if needed on days when he's not catching without anyone freaking out! I hope Sano heals fast and completely. It's a shame this happened to him, because it seemed like he had done a lot to be ready this season. foot injuries are freakin' weird, man. Friend of mine broken his foot walking across his yard when he hardly even stumbled. rebroke it almost 3 months into the healing process when he slipped a little on some sand. Both total freak accidents.
  16. jmlease1
    ah, 2006. Man, those years between Corey Koskie and Trevor Plouffe at 3B were a little rough, huh? And why has this franchise had so many crappy DHs?!? That team had the pitching to win a title if Liriano doesn't get hurt, but did they have enough offense? We were still relying on Rondell White (who somehow actually hit in the playoffs, just not in the season), Jason Tyner, the corpse of Phil Nevin...
  17. jmlease1
    3B is definitely the position I think is the weakest for the Twins system-wide. Just not a lot of depth there, and certainly no one that projects to be a high flyer down in the low minors with any confidence; it's hard to get enthusiastic about Severino being the future there when he's never played it. Maybe Miranda? But the jump from A to AA can really weed out a lot of guys that look hopeful. We're in pretty good shape for the MLB club for the next couple of years, especially with Marwin in the fold; he's a fine 3B and a fantastic insurance policy against Sano crapping out. I'd be interested to see what Astudillo can do here; haven't seen enough to get a feel for where his defense really is, and we've seen a lot of guys struggle defensively at 3B who later became more than solid (Trevor Plouffe and Corey Koskie both looked shaky early before having some nice defensive seasons).
  18. jmlease1
    Because Gonzalez isn't really replacing those hitters, he's replacing the guy who would be replacing those hitters when they get a day off or get dinged up. Kepler played 156 games last season, Rosario 138, 3rd on the team was Robbie effin' Grossman at 129. Ryan LaMarre, Gregorio Petit, and Johnny Field played 100 games between them. If Schoop turns out to be a .230 hitter, I'm sure Gonzalez will start getting more and more of his ABs, but if Schoop bounces back and has a season like he did 2015-2017 then he's a solid starter. I'm not expecting the 5 bWAR from 2017, but 2.5+ is very achievable. And he's been a fine defender over the years, at least as good as Dozier.
  19. jmlease1
    I'm a little surprised to see Kirilloff already be suggested as the long-term solution at 1B; from what I've been reading (particularly here at TD) he grades out to be a solid if unspectacular corner OF with a capable arm and good overall athleticism. And unless Kepler starts hitting a lot more, you lose so much value bumping him all the way down to 1B; you're better off trading him at that point, aren't you? Rooker seems like he's one of the better options for a longer term solution, assuming Cron doesn't step up and become a serious contender. And I think it's a mistake to write Cron off: He's had 4 seasons as a (mostly) regular. 2016 & 2018 he was a quality starter, 2015 & 2017 he was just a guy. But in the 2nd half of 2017 he raked, and had a very solid 2018, so it's not unreasonable to think that last year's performance is repeatable and if that's who CJ Cron is I think we're going to be awfully happy and not worrying too much about Tyler Austin. Regardless we'll get more pop and less D with fewer BBs out of 1B this year at a significantly lower price. Dan Barreiro will be thrilled as long as whomever he is gets RBIs and swings at more pitches with runners on base.
  20. jmlease1
    Fair. All I want is a far greater degree of revenue sharing so teams can operate on a more level economic playing field. I think it's reasonable for payroll to increase proportionally with revenue, but without more equitable revenue sharing you end up with the Yankees making a profit at $350M in payroll while the Rays lose money at $180M. That's not healthy either.
  21. jmlease1
    The players and player's union were fine with this system (which rewarded veteran players much more handsomely at the expense of younger players) as long as there were teams that were willing to make signings that were loaded with risk and based more on prior production than future performance. As franchises have gotten smarter and more analytical about projecting performance and fewer franchises have reckless ownerships willing to throw extremely long and risk-laden contracts at veteran free agents, their discontent with the system has grown. This is not news, and it's one of the reasons why it's challenging to have sympathy for the players: they're extremely wealthy and have been totally comfortable with screwing the next generation of players in order to protect the current generation. Ownership, of course, is even wealthier and deserves no real sympathy either: their membership is filled with bad actors who don't treat their franchises as a community trust. They're drawing ever increasing amounts of revenue even with fan interest wavering, and work incredibly hard to conceal their true costs of operation so they can claim poverty whenever convenient. A strike would probably be a very poor outcome for both sides, but the players seem to be feeling more militant. But it's hard to have sympathy for the players when their primary argument right now is "how dare you operate systemically and intelligently to mitigate risk!" They're going to need to reframe things pretty significantly and quickly (and there are plenty of better arguments to wield against ownership) because going into a labor war over Bryce Harper (who hasn't been an all-star caliber player in 2 of the last 3 season) not getting paid for 10 years as if he's 2015 Bryce Harper doesn't really play well...and the owners know it. This isn't like the 80's when FA weren't getting offers from anyone other than their own clubs.
  22. jmlease1
    "advanced stats" absolutely would take passed balls into consideration when evaluating catcher performance, and would be the only way someone might try to capture something like "catcher created wild pitches" (which is a hilarious new stat that seems to be "I think it should have been a passed ball but the official scorer is dumb"). Castro isn't a lame duck any more than any player in their walk year is, but the fact that he's coming off a significant injury and is in that walk year means there's an opportunity for Garver to seize the job as the starter. And if either Garver or Castro goes down for any significant period of time, it opens a window for Astudillo to show he can be the next backup here, or potential to start. Everyone wants a catcher who can hit and field. Castro's first year with the club, he had a fine season, hitting well for the position and playing good defense while working well with the pitching staff and the catching position for the Twins was one of the more productive in baseball (8th in WAA). Last year he started slow but only played 19 games before getting hurt. That's hardly a big enough sample size to write him off as cooked.
  23. jmlease1
    I think our depth is actually pretty solid with Astudillo on board. Yes, we're going to be hurting if we lose two catchers for an extended period, but that's true for probably every franchise. Would it be nice if Rortvedt had already put some time in at AA and was a little closer? Absolutely, but that's just the way it goes. Castro should give good defensive value and works with pitchers well. As long as his bat doesn't completely vanish, he's a good plate partner with Garver. Mitch hits very well for a catcher and his D is better than advertised. I'd be pretty happy with the two of them splitting time this year. Maybe splitting time keeps the injury risks down on both of them, Castro having any setbacks on the knee and Garver protecting his head. I'm sure we'll see Astudillo a fair amount this year, although signing Marwin Gonzalez cuts that down a little. (He's not getting called up to fill in at 3rd if Sano falters in the same way) The goal on him should be to improve as a receiver and get enough ABs in MLB to see if he's a guy to keep around as the replacement to Castro. I'm not sure he's a starting quality catcher, but splitting time with another guy while possibly getting some time in the INF could be a good role for him going forward to help bridge towards Rortvedt or Jeffers. Frankly, we're in much better shape at catcher today than we were.
  24. jmlease1
    The initial numbers on Keuchel weren't 5/100M, Boras was pushing 7/210M. there's still no indicator that he's willing to do 3/60M, otherwise he'd already be signed. Right now the hot rumor is that he might bet on himself with a 1 year deal if he can't get the 6+ year deal he wants at the AAV he's (Boras, really) is looking for. I''d like to add Keuchel to this team, reliable starting pitching is worth paying a premium for, but 6-7 year deals tend to get ugly. And there's no evidence he's willing to come down to $20M per season. We probably don't make much sense for him to come here on a 1 year deal because of the uncertainty of how competitive we're going to be, at least from his perspective. I'd love to have him on a year deal, but I don't see him going for that Back to ZIPS: projection systems frequently seem to choose to regress players to the mean, unless they;re older, and then they tend to presume degradation. They're not great at spotting breakouts or even projecting steady improvement. They're also not good at spotting who's going to fall off a cliff or get hurt, either. They're educated guesses and fun to play with, but are probably best used as a baseline for assessing risk.
  25. jmlease1
    I think the Twins would have loved to have re-signed Escobar (and stayed out of the Marwin Sweepstakes), but AZ took advantage of their exclusive negotiating period and locked him down. But I like this deal for the Twins, especially as it's clear they're valuing Gonzalez for his versatility and not looking to him to lock down a particular starting role. John has this absolutely right: Marwin solves a problem when one of their younger players doesn't take that next step, have that bounceback year, or someone has a significant injury. He sweeps up all these games and ABs from guys we really don't have any interest in playing too. If this means we're not giving ABs to guys like Petit, Field, or Motter...that's a good thing. It should mean we don't end up sliding Adrianza into LF or 1B either. It's game-day protection against the stupidity of having 13 pitchers too, which sadly will happen (and I maintain is a total waste) because you can shuffle Marwin in if someone comes off for an injury and feel good about wherever he plays. You always want to be playing great players at as many positions as possible, but there's also significant value to not giving playing time to terrible players too. This move raises the floor for this team and buys nice insurance against bad slumps, injuries, or lack of development. I'm a fan.
×
×
  • Create New...