LA Vikes Fan

Well, we don't have to worry about a spot for Colina. He was put on waivers and claimed by the Rangers. The changes begin...

I don't think this is real choice because I think it is very unlikely that Astudillo or Cave is anywhere near the 40 man roster. I think the real choice is do you want to keep Rooker and take the risk of not protecting and losing someone like Gordon, Palacios, or Garza, Jr. If you look at the list put together there are 26 players who are considered "Locks", all of whom I'm confident will be on the 40 man roster. There are then 5 "Notable Prospects", all of which I'm also very confident will be on the 40 man roster. That's 31, so that leaves you nine spots for all of the other players, including the players listed in the not so "notable" prospect list plus you have to leave at least 2 or 3 spots for free agent signings because I think we all agree that this team needs to sign at least 1 or 2 free-agent pitchers and probably will sign a free-agent shortstop unless they decide to put Polanco back at that position. Leaving 3 open spots for free agents gets you to 34 and you probably want to leave a couple more open spots if you can. That leaves you with somewhere between 4 and 6 spot for everybody not on the "Locks" and the "Notable" prospects list. So who are those 5 or 6 guys and do you include Rooker in that group? I look at that group and I see Rooker is somewhere around number 9 or 10 behind Pineda, Minaya, Gordon, Garza, Jr., Palacios, Vallimont, Jax, and Barnes, and probably behind Thorpe and Smeltzer. Others may add guys like Cave or Astudillo to the list of players to keep. So the real question here is of these 10 or 11 players (or even 13-14), which are the 4-6 that you think we should protect/keep? The rest are going to be exposed either through waivers or the Rule 5 draft. It is just hard to see how Rooker can be in those 4 to 6 protected players based on his performance to date. I sympathize with those who are concerned that we will expose a player, lose him, and then he will go off and be good or better somewhere else. The reality is that happens to every team and we all just need to get over it. Every single team makes the mistake of keeping a player who turns out not to be not an MLB asset at the guy at the expense of a player who goes on to be a contributor or even a star elsewhere. At some level, that's the game and we just all need to get over it. The way to judge a Front Office is are they right on their choice more often than wrong and, even better, are they generally right and not often wrong. That's the true measure IMHO.

I think the C/C- is justified based on what Baldelli did outside of the player issues he had to deal with by bad FA signings. He seems to have a hard time shifting when things don't go according to plan. This lack of flexibility is the opposite of what a manager should do; the manager needs to adjust to the talent and performance, not the other way around (same problem with Zimmer). Two examples: (1) Colome showed early that he wasn't ready to be the closer. Baldelli said it was closer by committee and would use matchups and performance. Still, he decided to ride Colome as a closer after he didn't perform and never went to closer by committee. Colome in April and May is one of the main reasons this season went off the rails but Baldelli didn't see it happening and adjust. He also seems to hew to that hackneyed notion that relief pitchers need to "know their roles" and have consistent roles. Horse feathers. Good relief pitchers can adjust to different situations. If ours can't, they aren't good. Bad, very bad at adjusting to the facts on the ground this year. (2) The season was over by May 30, really over by June 30. After that, it was time to play the younger guys and see what we had for next year. He did some of that, but.... Why Simmons at SS all season? Why not try Polanco and Gordon on an every day basis? Why Colome as the closer again in August and September? Why not Alcala? Why even play Cave or Astudillo (or for that matter Refsnyder or Kepler even)? At least the first 2 of those 4 will not be with the Twins in 2022. His primary goal post 6/15 or so should have been to evaluate guys for next year. Instead, he seemed fixed in his ways and overly focused on short term wins over longer term development. As a result, we aren't as prepared for the off season as we could be. I think Baldelli has the possibility of being a good MLB manager. By that, I mean one who can adjust on the fly and change philosophies to match the talent he's given, all while keeping everyone loose and performing. He did not do the first part of that this year. Still, he seems to have both the ear and respect of the team and he did keep them competing in a lost season. Hopefully he's learned from his mistakes and can be more flexible going forward. If he can't, he needs to be replaced.

This is going to be a tough off season but I like your list with a tweak or two. Gordon definitely stays on the 40 man and I think will be on the MLB roster as a UTL starting the 2022 season. I think we need to keep Garza, Jr., Minaya, and Stashak. All are possible components of a quality bullpen although history tells us it's likely that only 1 or 2 will actually be that guy. I think all will be claimed through waivers or Rule 5 selected. Palacios is tougher because he passed through once already but I think last year's paly for him would give a SS needy team (and there's a lot of those) enough pause to select him. Jax isn't great so far but young guys with MLB starting experience and any level of potential don't grow on trees; we need to keep him at the expense of a fringe prospect if necessary. I would take the risk on losing the rest of your "Middling Veterans" and "Fringe Prospects" and frankly wouldn't even re-sign several of them to MiLB contracts. So, to get to the point of the exercise, who would I protect? I'd start with your 26 locks, add all 5 of your Notable Rule 5 Eligible prospects for 31, and then add Minaya, Stashak, Gordon, Jax, Garza, Jr., and Polacios for 37, We need at least 2 open spots for a new Free Agent SS and a Free Agent SP, probably 3 so we can get 2 pitchers. I'm going to assume that any trade involves and even number of 40 man protectees. I could see losing Stashak from the 40 man in the hope the injury would scare teams out of drafting him and replacing him with Vallimont or Thorpe if the FO really thinks one of those 2 can be a MLB starter (I don't). Also, let's not forget the Elephant in the room, Alex Colome. I think they are going to pick up his option and that means one of Minaya, Garza, Jr., and Stashak is out or we don't sign 2 FA pitchers. Probably Stashak gets left off. This leaves out Rooker - possible prospect but we have other guys with the same or better skillset and he doesn't add anything, so he probably the 42nd or 43rd man - and some of the veteran relievers that I would hope to sign on MiLB deals after they pass through waivers like Coloumbe, VIncent, and Farrell. Th other Elephant in the room is how to do we re-sign Nelson Cruz, assuming we can and want to? I think the only way Cruz can come back is if Donaldson is traded. This season showed us that we need to DH spot for Donaldson if w want to get 135 or more games from him. I think it's a binary choice - (1) don't go after/re-sign or Cruz and have Arrraez, Donaldson, and maybe Miranda share 3B/DH, or (2) re-sign Cruz and trade Donaldson for low level prospects with upside and salary relief. In either scenario you have to either leave Sano at 1B or trade him (I think he stays), and Kirilloff is in LF because there is no room for Sano at DH more than occasionally. I would keep Donaldson and not re-sign Cruz but I do think it's a close call and could live with either result. I appreciate the time that went into setting up the matrix here and enjoyed the exercise,. thanks for doing this.,

Extremely well said, sir. Especially the part about giving Rocco an experienced bench coach. Well, all of it well said.

Excellent point. I didn't realize he had 2 options remaining. Still a tough call on the 40 man, but does increase his value both to the Twins and to other teams after they stash him for a year as a Rule 5 draftee. I still wouldn't keep him on the 40 man over a youngish pitcher but I would keep him over a 30+ year old reliever with no clear path to the 26 man roster like Kyle Barraclaugh, Nick Vincent and Luke Farrell. His lack of defensive ability really limits his utility - he's got to be a .850 plus OPS guy to really be usable on a contending team. Still, it wouldn't kill me to have him as the 39th or 40th man so we can give him one more try.

I really think the main difference between us is that I say sign two free agent starters and you’re using some of that money to sign relief, and then trading for that second starter. I think either approach works well. The key is getting two guys to handle rotation. I don’t think our needs in relief are as great. I think we may have actually found a decent group in the second half. If we go to the trade route, Miami seems illogical partner. I live in LA, and I seriously doubt if the Dodgers will trade pitching so I don’t think either they or the Padres are likely to trade anyone any good. My only other disagreement is I think we would be buying high on Robbie Ray if we signed him and I don’t think he is anywhere near as good as the other guys you mentioned. But Hey, I would be happy if your plan came to fruition.

That is the question. Who gets the 4-5 year $20-$25 million a year contract? If you aren’t willing to pay that, you cannot expect to get a tier 1 or even a tier 2 starter. That is why we no longer have Berrios. We didn’t offer that kind of money and he will get there or more when he becomes a free agent. And that’s for a tier 2 starter like Berrios. I would go high twice, on short term, one long-term. For the short term, I would offer Verlander and Greinke each 20 to 25m a year on a 2 year deal given their age. That maybe a tough sell because they are going to want to go to a team they see is being contenders in their last two years. Verlander Is a little younger so he may want and get more years. Greinke is my target - Older guy, doesn’t like the limelight. If that doesn’t work you drop the money and pivot to Cory Kluber or Robbie Ray. Then, you sign a younger younger pitcher to a four or five year $20-$25 million a year deal. Best choices are Marcus Stroman and Carlos Rondon. Push hard to get one of them. Those two guys head the rotation, Pineda comes back at somewhere between 8 and $10 million a year for a couple of years, and Ober and Ryan fill out the rotation. There will be plenty of opportunities in 2022 for other guys to get a shot do the injury and there isn’t anybody else in the system that is shown they are worthy of a full year shot at this point. How do I pay for this? That is where all of the off-season money goes. We sign a stopgap glove first shortstop like Iglesias or Galvis or even Simmons to a $5 or less million deal, and we run with the bullpen and lineup we have. Yes, that means picking up Colome’s option and also signing Rogers to a three-year $20-$25 million backloaded deal. It’s back loaded so that Rogers salary jumps when the older starter comes off the books. Overall, this commits another roughly $50-70 million a year to the payroll, which should put us between $140-160 million If my memory is right on what’s committed to next year, etc. If necessary, we trade Kepler and/or Sano as part of a package for young pitching to reduce payroll so we can spend the money on major-league pitching. I think this approach makes us competitive next year without putting an unrealistic strain on payroll. It also gives us options as guys develop over the next two or three years.

It’s very hard to see Rooker as having any long term place on the Twins for all the reasons stated. He also won’t have any trade value until after the 40 man is announced for the Rule 5 draft. Why would any team trade for him when there’s at least a decent chance that he would be protected? I think the smart move is to leave him on the 40 man roster and then try to trade him maybe as a sweetener in a package deal. If there isn’t a reasonable deal out there, he does have an option left so we can give it one more yearBut that’s probably just delaying the inevitable. All this assumes there’s room for him on the 40 man without having to expose a decent pitching prospect. It’s a choice between him and any kind of pitcher with any kind of upside, Rooker should go.

For those of us not as well versed as others, who needs to be added to the 40 man roster after the season that isn't on the 40 man roster now? Is there a site where this information is available?

It's hard to see Thorpe, Smeltzer or Barnes as MLB starting pitchers. Smeltzer might offer some Long relief of LH Bullpen value, but again it seems like that could be replaced with pitchers released from other Organizations or Rule 5 pickups. I owuld not put any of those 3 on the 40 man roster unless we have open spots and it seems unlikely that they will be selected in the Rule 5 draft. We should be ale to keep Barnes and Smeltzer in the organization with Minor League contracts with an invitation to Spring training and have them in AAA to start the season. No big deal if one of them is lost. They will get another chance next year with the twins due to the injury or ineffectiveness of others. Jax and Stashack are tougher calls because I could see one of them him being drafted in the Rule 5 Draft by a poor team. I would leave them both on the 40 man. Gant may be our 5th starter next year and, if he isn't, he will be in the Twins bullpen or at the top of the AAA rotation. He stays on the 40 man. Same analysis for Dobnak. Unfortunately, theis means the RH pitchers stay and the LH pitchers go. Not good. Still, their performance seems to compel this result.

Colome is a tough call because since May he's actually been a pretty good reliver. We need pretty good relievers because the starters are rarely going to go more than 5-6 innings next year unless we bring in a FA that can lead the staff. It's more likely that we'll have a guy like Greinke, then Pineda, than three of the Ober/Ryan/Dobnak/Jax/Barnes/Winder/(fill in more names here) crowd. I agree with the poster who said a mid market team can make it work with 5-6 inning starters with a quality bullpen. Colome could be part of a quality bullpen, but not as a traditional closer. The problem is that Baldelli insists on making Colome a traditional style closer. This season has taught us that he is not good at that role at this point in his career. By the way, neither is Taylor Rogers. In order to make this work, we need to either get a free agent "traditional" closer who effectively gets the ball in every save situation, or we need to play matchups and have 3 or 4 guys can pitch in the 8th and 9th inning depending on the opponent and matchups. Baldelli said that shifting/flexibility was what he was going to do, and then he frankly acts like Ron Gardenhire by designating a closer and going to him every time. He exacerbated his mistake by having the wrong guy designated as the closer. If I would point to one mistake that Baldelli has consistently made this year that makes me question whether he can be an effective major league manager, it's his bullpen management. It has been poor to say the least. He has been inflexible and beholden to the idea that the relievers need to have "set roles" to be effective. This may simply be the problem with having a former player from a different era manage. If we have relievers that have to have a set goal to be effective we need to get different relievers because that is not the way to win modern baseball games. So, bottom line, happy to keep Colome on the team if he is an interchangeable part rather than a set traditional closer. I question whether Baldelli can actually make that transition. The Front Office may need to take that option away from him. I hope he is self curious and self reflective and really studies what he did this year that didn't work. If he does, he should conclude that his set role bullpen management was a mistake and commit to greater flexibility. if he does that, Colome may have an effective role on this team.

The answer? Not so good.

Another good evaluation moment. Let's see how Gordon does against a LH specialist out of the bull pen.

No! Clean single and an RBI! C'mon, giver the guy a break...

Wow, Sano goes the other way! He is learning? I hope so. By the way, that's a line drive in the scorebook...

From that shot it looks like Ryan is trying to talk his way into another inning. I hope they give it to him. I know he's at around 87 pitches but let's see if he can go 100 pitches, get into the 3rd time around the order, and show us something. Can't learn if you don't get a chance.

I do have to say though, 9 SOs in 4 2/3 is nothing to sneeze at no matter how good the other lineup is. Make that 10 SOs in 5 innings. That part is impressive even if I don't get it.

This is a bad Cubs lineup. Hopefully a good way to build some confidence. By the way, with Polanco and Buxton out ours isn't that much better. I'd like to see Ryan pitch against Houston or the Yankees and see how he fares. He's looked good but 2 starts against Cleveland and 2 against the Cubs definitely helps.

Agreed. The velocity makes one wonder how he is this successful so far but it seems to be working. he does look a little tentative.

Good analysis. This article points out something we all kind of know and supports it with real data. Kepler is an above average fielding corner outfielder with a well below average bat. I don't think moving him to centerfield really helps a lot because tat minimizes his one asset, an above average glove, because he would be an average at best centerfielder. The problem is he just can't hit and for some reason he is unwilling to do anything other than pull the ball on regular basis. He's got to be the easiest guy in the American League to shift against. With these flaws, I think it's unlikely that we would be able to trade him for much pitching unless we included an upside prospect with him in a package. Maybe somebody who is not an elite or even strong prospect but projects to be a possible mid to back rotation starter or solid bullpen piece regarding whom there is still some doubt. That might be someone like Winder or Strotman or, if we are willing to take more risk on the return side, maybe someone like Jax or Barnes. I will say that if I'm right on the possible return, Kepler probably has more value to the Twins than he does to anybody else. We are probably still a year away from having a capable replacement given the somewhat gaping hole we presently have in left field. Even if Kirilloff becomes our regular leftfielder and continues his development as a solid or better than that hitter, it's not like we have another outfielder banging on the door to take Kepler's place in 2022. Larnach wasn't quite ready when he came up this year and neither is Celestino or Rooker. I think the best thing for Kepler is to continue to work with him on learning to hit the ball to left field while at the same time effectively platooning him with who we think is our best right-handed hitting outfield prospect to give that player a chance to develop. In my view, that's probably Celestino given how well he hit at AAA when he went back down. We use the 1st half to two thirds of 2022 to see if the younger player can develop and/or if Kepler and finally gets a better approach at the plate and each of them and effectively also functions as the backup centerfielder. I just don't think trading him makes sense because of the low likely return and I do think the Twins highest priority in the off-season is to re-sign Buxton

I agree on the SS position. I just don't see them trusting Polanco or Gordon, nor should they. I would expect them to sign someone like Freddy Galvis or Jose Iglesias although the latter just had kind of a brutal year in the field for the Angels. How about Sano as a bounce back candidate? He's had a strong second half but he was so bad the first half that he was almost unplayable. I would consider a .240 avg., 35 HRs and a 30% or less strikeout rate a great improvement. That may be more of an improvement than a bounce back though. The other bounce back candidate is Tyler Duffy. Again, better in the second half but not good in the first. I would love to se him show up in shape and have a sub 3.00 ERA year but having two good halves instead of just one.

I think in evaluating the 40 man roster decisions last winter we have to bear in mind that the Twins were expecting to be contenders. Window was wide open as they say, until it turned out to be totally shut. Either way, last winter the Front Office seemed to prioritize players who would be able to contribute right away, like Devin Smeltzer, over the players they saw as being a couple of years away, like Tyler Wells and Baddoo. It’s the same reason we have so many AAAA players at Saint Paul, we were looking for guys who could come up for a few games and potentially contribute rather than guys to develop because we were in the contention window. Well, that evaluation turned out to be wrong. Now, we have to make the same evaluation again. Is this team going to contend in 2022 we should be playing for the long haul? I think it goes without saying that we should be playing for the long-haul given the state of our pitching staff. To me, that means he made 40 man decisions based upon long-term prospects without considering the short term. Guys like Jake Cave, Astudillo, Lewis Thorpe, Devin Smeltzer, Luke Farrell, Nick Vincent, etc. are not protected so that you can keep the guys you consider to be the better long term prospects. Next year is more of a development year where who knows, maybe we get lucky and contend, not a year we expect to contend. Hopefully the Front Office sees it the same way and makes 40 man decisions accordingly.

Frankly, I feel like I'm repeating what others have said, but don't spend a lot of money on position players, spend it on pitching. I'd love to see them sign Chris Taylor but the Dodgers really like him so he won't be cheap. More likely is Freddy Galvis or Jose Iglesias. Please dear God, no more of Simmons. On the pitching side, I think 18-22M for a front line starter is too low. I think its more like 20-25m. Would love to see them devote 35m a year to starters, something like 20m to Stroman and 12-15m to Robbie Ray, both on 3 year deals. More likely combination is someone like Stroman plus Pineda for a total of 30m. If they do the latter they probably have enough to sign Taylor to go with it. I'd love to trade for controllable starting pitching but I don't think we have the talent to pull it off. We'd have to trade someone with a very high potential ceiling like Woods Richardson PLUS a Kepler and a position player prospect like Celestino to get a controllable #2 or #3 guy. I would rather keep the talent we have, sign one high end FA starter and get by with Pineda in the 2 spot, followed by Ryan, Ober and Dobnak/Winder/Duran, etc. Then spend 10-15m on 2 solid/good bullpen pieces, plus a glove first stop gap SS like Galvis. Probably doesn't get us to contention in 2022 unless we get lucky, but will hopefully develop what we have for 2023-2025.

Wow, just heard that the Twins have allowed 70 unearned runs this season The combination of shaky pitching with shaky IF defense is deadly. I love Polanco but he needs to play 2B. We gotta get a good glove SS for next season.