jmlease1

interesting pitcher. I just hope that things aren't so tight on the payroll scale that if he's not able to get it done the $1M salary won't deter the Twins from moving on. Considering how fungible so many middle relievers are, I'm ok with trying to find one this way.

I'm fine with a move like this. It costs very little, and if you do unlock him maybe you find your next Brock Stewart. The trick is to not do it too many times all at once, or pin too many hopes on someone emerging. You should take a flyer on a guy this that has real talent and might just be good health or a mechanical (or even personal) adjustment away from realizing their ability every year. You just shouldn't be doing it with 4 guys at once and banking on at least one of them being able to step in immediately, because then your opportunity costs get too high with the value of the roster spot. This is a minor league deal with no guarantees and no spot on the 40-man. It's worth trying.

Well, I think Alcala is going to get a shot this year if he's healthy: the team likes his stuff and he's shown flashes of real ability in the bullpen before his injury, and one of Balazovic, Winder, or Sands is likely to make the roster as well. Which means there's really only room for Varland in the bullpen if they don't sign anyone, and in the rotation if they're unable to sign/trade for anyone. I strongly suspect they will acquire a starter with some kind of pedigree before the season starts, most likely via trade. (I also expect a great deal of disagreement over how good that starter actually is, with people staking out positions that range between quality #2 and "that bum shouldn't even be on a playoff team!" almost regardless of who it is....) I think there's a real possibility that Varland may land in the bullpen eventually, but I tend to believe that the franchise would be better off, both this season and for the future, in giving him another opportunity to stick as a starter. If he can add that 3rd pitch and keep the ball in the park, then he's a great add to the rotation for 2025...and likely will end up starting 10-20 games this season anyways, with room for him to go to the bullpen for the playoff run this year anyways. And if he can get either the slider or the changeup working consistently...he'll be even more dangerous in any role. But he won't really get enough reps to know with any real confidence in the pitch if he's not throwing it a lot more. Do we really need Varland in the bullpen right now, when the biggest need there is not a high leverage late-inning guy, but someone to throw 1-2 innings in the 5th-7th on a semi-regular basis?

I think this sums it up very well. The cutter does look better and it's a legit second pitch for Varland. for him to stick in the rotation, he'll need a 3rd pitch and I think it's an interesting question which it will be: slider or change? I have to wonder if focusing on developing one of them in the offseason will be the key, or can he work on both of them and see which one emerges once he starts facing live hitters in spring training? The Twins will need more than just 5 starters in 2024, and having someone like Varland to pick up 20-25 starts as a relatively young player who is still refining his repertoire is a big asset. Teams end up using 10+ starters during a season (for more than just spot starts, which I consider 5 or more) when they don't have a guy as that 6th starter who can come in and handle the business when someone misses 2-3 weeks with a groin pull. We used essentially 8 starters in 2023: Lopez, Gray, Ryan, Ober, Maeda, Varland, Kuechel, and Mahle. That doesn't happen if we don't have real options as the 6th and 7th guys in Ober and Varland.

I remember that A's series well; I was coming back to MN for a wedding and checked into the hotel in time to see the end of one of the games and it was delightful.

I'm a little baffled by the opposition to relievers generally and Billy Wagner in particular. As noted, there's only 8 relievers in the Hall to date and it's been a pretty notable position and recognizable in the modern context for 50 years. And it's not something that any decent starter can just shift into and succeed; we've seen plenty of guys fail at it. We've also seen more and more that relievers who are consistently great year over year are actually quite a bit more rare (and definitely more valuable). And Billy Wagner was pretty dang great. The man really only had one bad season as a closer (2000) and dominated in his last season at age 38. Has there ever been a better lefty reliever? Wagner dominated everybody, lefty or righty, home or away. He dominated when he was young and old, struck out a gazillion batters. If relievers are a position in baseball and they're eligible for the Hall, then Wagner should be in.

It will be interesting to see where these guys land next season. I tend to think Julien is the most regression-proof; that plate discipline is incredible and he kept it intact through a small slump in 2023, when a lot of young players even really talented ones start expanding the zone. He might get a little more respect from the umpires in 2024, which could help offset any regression. The real key will be whether he can keep consistently doing damage when he does swing at a pitch in the zone. Lewis is the hardest to judge for me; it seems unlikely that he'll out-slug everyone on the Twins by a fair margin...but at the same time, who wants to doubt Mr. Grand Slam? The good thing is he can have a fair significant regression and still be a fantastic player. Wallner looks like the easiest call to regress because of his Ks and we've seen players who K a lot fall into these holes where it seems like they'll never hit a ball again. But Wallner has shown that he can still do damage when he's not contacting the ball a lot, that he can still draw walks...and Cement Bones isn't getting pushed off the plate, which helps him get the pitches he wants and on-base a little more often. I think all three slip back some...but none quite as much as people predict. Lewis will technically slide the most, but will still be excellent, just maybe not a no-doubt all-star in his sophomore season.

I loved Torii Hunter, but...he's not a Hall of Famer in my book. Only 5 all-star appearances, but probably only deserved 4. A lot of good seasons, but never had a truly great year. It's notable that he only finished top 10 for MVP once, and really shouldn't have been that high. I look at guys like Lofton and Edmonds and have trouble seeing a reasonable argument to put Hunter in when both of them are on the outside. Lofton had a much higher peak, and was a better defender with much better speed that he converted on the basepaths to be an elite base-stealer. Edmonds was a much better hitter; Hunter was healthier, not better. I hope Mauer gets in on the first ballot; I think he's got an outside chance, but will definitely make it into the Hall. And he should: he was an elite catcher, one of the best hitting catchers of all-time who also provided good defense. 3 batting titles at catcher? Good luck seeing that again. The peak was so high that voters (non-MN fan edition) aren't going to hold the lessened version who held down 1B through the end of his career. (though he should have gotten a GG at 1B, which would have been a heck of an accomplishment) Utley is the hardest one for me to judge. The counting stats are pretty low, reflective of his relative lack of longevity and injuries, but also of how poorly he played the last 4 seasons. His peak is really high...but also relies on a ton of defensive value, which is a little complicated for a player who never won a Gold Glove. Now, GG voting has frequently been a mess...but it's also pretty rare for a player who was one of the best at their position to be completely shut out for their entire career, and it's not like there was an automatic choice out there that was blocking him off: the award was going to Orlando Hudson, Brandon Phillips, and Luis Castillo. Fine players, but not exactly Sandberg, Morgan, and Mazeroski. So if Utley was so great defensively...how did no one notice? Defense is still the hardest thing to quantify accurately, IMHO, so I get a little nervous when there seems to be this kind of of disconnect.

I'm sorry, but where exactly are you divining the supposed "advice" the front office gave him to focus on home runs? Because that reads like straight up "I hate the Twins front office, so Imma make some $#!@ up about them". You also talk about "wasted talent" like his getting hurt is somehow a moral failing on his part. Wasted talent would be things like if he was getting fat in the offseason, pissing away his ability on cocaine, or being such a clubhouse cancer that no one wants to play with him. None of that stuff is going on here: he's just been hurt. It sucks, but it happens, and he certainly didn't choose to hurt his knee.

I think success means being able to play in the field on a semi-regular basis without needing days off immediately thereafter. If he pulls a hammy and misses 6 weeks that would suck, but it wouldn't be failure to me: things like that happen. But if the knee keeps him off the field for functionally the whole season defensively, then it won't be a particularly successful season, even if he's able to hit well and DH much more often this year. If he is pretty much a DH all season but hits well, then it's a moderate success at best. Unfortunately, it's the one thing that's not entirely in anyone's control. Byron Buxton can't control whether his knee will finally stop barking at him all the time and swelling up like a balloon after he plays. (We know he's doing the work and following the treatment plans) So even if it doesn't work out any better than last season...I'm not going to blame Buxton. He'd certainly would rather be out there playing, and it's not his fault that right now that balky knee is keeping him from realizing his immense talent. A big success involves him playing at least 120 games with half or more of them in the outfield. And I have no doubt if he's healthy enough to do that, he'll be healthy enough to hit the snot out of the ball.

Look, don't get me wrong: I love Polanco and would prefer to keep him. But he's our most tradeable asset if the front office has determined they need to a) cut payroll, and 2) add pitching via trade. But I disagree that playing Julien at 2B compromises the infield. Julien started out wobbly defensively there but definitely improved as the season went along and he hit wonderfully. He can still work on 1B as he goes along, but he's the best bet at 2B if Polanco gets moved. Kirilloff is the one that should be at 1B. (and if Farmer sticks, he makes a nice partner for Julien as a right-handed bat, with Miranda potentially being a good partner for Kirilloff) It's not about selling Polanco short: we're definitely better with him than without him. But if we're trading offensive depth for pitching, he's the most proven asset who also has depth behind him and still frees up payroll space.

I don't need to wait. Unless Petty becomes an elite starter we got exactly what we were looking for at a more than fair price. And even then, you're talking about 5-6 years from the trade, when we needed a starter in MLB immediately. If you're going to swing back in another 3-4 years and say "boy, we shouldn't have traded Chase Petty" then you also need to either admit you would have given up on fielding a competitive team during Gray's time here or explain how exactly you would have filled that hole in the rotation. Because we didn't have anyone internally to do it and Petty (who still has only thrown 8 innings above A-ball) certainly isn't ready. One of the reasons you're pushing Petty out another 3-4 year is dude still hasn't thrown 100 innings in a professional season, He averaged less than 4 innings per start last year and has a long way to go. I still like him, he was a good draft pick for the Twins but he's still got a long way to go and there's still plenty of hurdles to overcome. There's real risk in trading some of our depth on offense to improve the pitching: it's hard to be sure which are going to be the right prospects to move that will maximize our value while hurting us the least by letting them go, but if you're going to make a trade involving prospects to improve the MLB team you can't obsess over whether or not a prospect might be a good MLB player in 2-5 years after the deal. Yeah, it's a bummer to move someone and have them turn into a regular elsewhere, especially if one of the prospects you kept didn't work out, but as long as you didn't give up a real star and you get what you needed, then it's the price of doing business. This is why they were willing to move Petty: they needed a pitcher like Gray, and while Petty is a nice prospect he's not dominating and was far enough away there was substantial risk. Right now, we're looking at moving Polanco, who is proven but more expensive, but should bring a substantial return. Maybe they're looking at moving Kepler, but we've been hearing that for years and it never happens. Twins aren't going to be packaging Polanco, Kepler, and 2 position player prospects for an average starter, either. We have the depth to move a player like Polanco right now without substantially impacting the offense; as much as I still like the guy, his production can be filled by full seasons from Julien and Lewis with the club (and I haven't given up on Miranda). We're not dealing Brooks Lee for a 5th starter or a 1-year rental. There's risk in any trade, but ITA there's just as much risk in standing pat and refusing to deal. We have the ability to compete right now, but we need one more playoff caliber starter to be a real contender. We shouldn't be afraid to make moves to try and compete.

I mean, that's the basic problem here, so I don't think it's glossed over. The Twins likely can't afford to sign a player that isn't going to be available for more than 110 games or so, even with extensive time as a DH at the kind of price that Garver is likely to command. They're dropping some payroll and that makes this unlikely. If we were maintaining roughly last season's payroll, then I'd love to give him the payroll slot taken up by Gallo last season, even with the risk of injury. But the team isn't going to have that kind of money available, and in significantly more constrained payroll the injury risk becomes more problematic as well.

The baseball fit is pretty good: platoon partner for Kirilloff, good DH fit, nice 3rd catcher to have on hand. the money and health make it less good. While the Twins should be able to afford a deal like this, they're probably not going to spend that high, especially not for a 2-year deal, because of their self-imposed payroll limitations. but I do think garver's health issues make it a gamble that they might not be too excited about: we've got several players already with health concerns (Buxton, Kirilloff, Lewis, Gordon, Miranda, Polanco, and even Correa), so adding another just increases the odds against healthy seasons. I think this would be a move that might happen if we were maintaining payroll closer to even with 2023, but the predicted decline of $20-30M makes it exceptionally unlikely, even if we are able to drop payroll with a Polanco/Vazquez/Kepler/Farmer deal of some kind.

It's definitely got some recentcy bias in picking 2023. breaking a playoff drought doesn't make you better; it makes you luckier than some of the other teams. that said...there are a lot of things going for the 2023 Twins: they're a deep team, and a balanced one. there's a lot of quality all over the place, and not a lot of true weaknesses. You have quality starting pitching with top-end guys (Lopez was excellent and Gray deservedly was Cy Young runner up. Maybe they don't jump above Sweet Music in '87, but...over the '87 version of Bert?). The bullpen had real weapons, including a closer that would slot in fine on any championship team. A deep and dangerous lineup with top-end talent and very few holes. They're not truly a top 10 squad in Twins history...but it's also a little boring to pick 4 slight variations of the same 6 teams from Killer's run.

how many serious knee injuries has Chourio had?

I would absolutely explore it. Royce is the kind of player you want in your franchise: high-level talent on the field, magnetic personality and generator of excitement and positivity off the field. There's some risk because of his injury history, but that's what makes it doable for the player. While I'm sure the supremely confident Royce Lewis (amazing how he can be this way without sounding like an arrogant ass) would be comfortable betting on himself, I also think he might be interested in locking in generational wealth for himself and his family. he also seems like the kind of player that would rather know where he's going to be playing and not have any contract nonsense hanging over his head. That said: I know I'm not entirely rational when it comes to Royce Lewis. I just love the dude.

I'll take that bet. Unless the motor city kitties add a significant piece or two to their lineup they're still also-rans. They might pass Cleveland (who are cutting payroll too and lost an excellent manager), and will probably be a little bit better, but their top prospects haven't really developed and that lineup scares me not. Their record against the Twins last season doesn't mean much; that's just noise in the context of a 162 game season.

Seniority within the division doesn't mean much because a) we overrate the impact of managers in baseball, b) seniority has a lot more to do with the talent level of the roster (bad teams churn managers, good teams tend to have more stability), and c) who cares if a manager has the most time in-division, when divisions mean less than they have? Hinch is a good manager, but his involvement (or refusal to get involved) in the sign-stealing scam from the Astros is a black mark on his record and is going to come up in tandem with his world series championship, deservedly. He's been fine in Detroit, but hardly a world-beater...and a lot of that has to do with the deficiencies in the roster. They were decent last season and might be a real competitor this season, but we'll see. Their lineup still doesn't scare me, and we'll see if their pitching can hold up for a full season. Having MLB experience as a manager likely makes some difference. You've hopefully established a bit of an identity, you're less surprised by anything, and there's hopefully a comfort levels that's been built. But time in division says a lot more about the club than the manager. Baldelli is fine. He's never going to satisfy people that don't like modern analytics and theories of baseball (the constant mocking of "spreadsheets" and other nonsense shows that) and he's going to be the focus of that hatred at all times. But generally makes reasonable decisions, his lineup construction is fine, he handles his clubhouse well be all accounts, and there's really no evidence that players do anything other than play hard for him. He's aggressive about using his bench (YMMV on how good that is, but I don't hate it), and other than needing to have an 8th reliever on-hand even if they don't get used handles the bullpen fairly well. (I appreciate his willingness to deploy his best relievers to shut down the other team's best hitter late in a game regardless of whether it's the 7th, 8th or 9th, rather than always play a classic "closer")

I think you have to discount the secondary and trinary impacts of trades like this rather than just tot up the bWAR and go "holy cow, the team really blew it there!". It's one thing to look at the direct returns on a deal, but a different ballgame to look at the value accrued from the players that were traded again; isn't that on the other teams that were in on the deal? An assessment like this shows how well the Rays front office was functioning and how well that spotted talent in other team's farm systems and leveraged their assets to get those players. But you can't hang any blame on the Twins for Pittsburgh making a trade to acquire Chris Archer and sending the Rays quality prospects in exchange that quickly outstripped Archer's value. The original deal has some interesting parts and other questions that need to be answered, like how much influence did Ron Gardenhire have over personnel decisions in that off-season and during the Bill Smith years? It's also notable that Jason Bartlett had one of the more notable "fluke years" in recent baseball history for TB in 2009, hitting far far better than he ever had in his MLB career, and better than he ever would again and it wasn't really close. Please tell me who could have seen that #*%$ coming? But I don't think this deal haunts the Twins any longer. Bad trade at the time, but also part of quite a few bad decisions that all piled up together for a stretch where we couldn't get our infield right and the rotation wasn't good enough. Dealing Bartlett was a bad decision because we didn't have a proper SS ready to step in, but acted like we did (I remember back then believing that Gardy didn't care for Bartlett that much). Harris almost immediately got dropped in the pecking order because Gardy seemed to prefer Punto there. Garza was a bad decision because we didn't have enough pitching, even if he didn't like being with the Twins or their coaches.

The problem is the in-house replacement aren't all that plentiful; the most likely options are: Gordon, who had a dreadful year along with a major injury. Larnach, who hasn't shown he can adjust to MLB pitching once they make their first adjustment to him. After that it's....Martin? Who has never played a game in MLB, but still might be needed to backup CF. Looking at the big picture is correct, and what I see is that the Twins are a playoff team in 2024, but don't have a lot of corner OF depth that's close in the system. The best prospects to fill those roles are in AA or A ball and are realistically another year away. (Rodriguez, Rosario, and Jenkins currently). Going into last season it was easier to look at moving on from Kepler because Gordon was coming off a good season, Larnach had promise, and Wallner was knocking at the door and the team had signed Gallo (whom we didn't know would be a zero after a hot month). If we move on from Kepler, we'll need some reinforcements otherwise we're blowing a hole in what right now looks like a strong lineup. Right now Kepler would probably be hitting 6th or 8th in the lineup, which is exciting. not interested in screwing that up unless it's part of a deal that improves the rotation. (My proposed batting order, as of today: Julien, Polanco, Correa, Wallner, Buxton, Kirilloff, Lewis, Kepler, Jeffers. That's a tough one to navigate!)

Miranda didn't work out last year at 3B because he got hurt and couldn't hit or throw with that bum shoulder. You can't predict injury. Julien had a terrific season (better than the 2022 year from Miranda that had many of us enthusiastic about his future) and finished strong after a wobble in August, while showing real improvement in the field. the only way you can really say they're going to have similar results is if you know Julien is going to get hurt. Are you predicting injury for Ed Julien?

Lee and Martin are close, but ideally they're guys that start in AAA and are the first wave of replacements for the inevitable injury bug dings some guys and can get their feet wet filling in for a few weeks to show whether they can Pipp someone. But neither are 1B, which is where Kirilloff is going to be locked in (and after a minor cleanup procedure in his shoulder and no wrist problems for the first time in several years...I have more faith in Kirilloff than you) Lewis is not moving to the OF. period. It's doesn't matter how many people think it's a good idea on the message boards, it is not going to happen. I doubt it would happen even if Buxton, Gordon, Castro, and Martin all got hurt. They are committed to him in the infield and are not sliding him into the OF. Everyone needs to move on from this, because it is never going to happen. Never.

Except in 2023 the plan was to start Kirilloff at 1B and Gallo in LF, but Kirilloff took longer to recover from his unusual wrist surgery than they had hoped. Now, that may have been a different sort of malpractice (signing Gallo for $11M) but at the time it wasn't crazy to have Larnach in the OF and Gallo at 1B, with Wallner pushing in AAA. The malpractice would be after an unimpressive season from Larnach and no one knocking on the door in AAA relying on internal depth to step in by trading Kepler. We don't have a corner OF in AAA knocking on the door going into this season; the next wave of OF in the system are in AA or lower (Rodriguez, Rosario, Jenkins, etc) The situations are different, which is why it makes more sense to keep Kepler unless he's needed to be part of a significant trade for pitching. he's not untouchable to me if a team wants him as a real piece in a deal for a starter, but I'm not dealing him for prospects or searching out someone to drop his contract on.

He really wasn't, though. They'd been fairly close in total value (Eddie a more consistent hitter, Kepler a much better defender) and had fairly similar value in 2020. Since the Twins non-tendered Rosario, Kepler (despite his flaws and struggles at the plate) has easily been the better player (and cheaper). but that's also the sort of player that's going to be out there if Kepler gets dealt and the Twins are looking for an OF on a 1-year deal. Rosario was ok last season but not an average starter. Maybe there's some juice left there...but also might be a replacement level guy (or worse) at 32.