Otto von Ballpark

I'm not disagreeing with your larger point, I have no problem calling up Albers. In fact, I'd rather he was starting the second game, and Milone was dropped for a reliever who could stick around longer.

I don't think there was any great wisdom involved -- Albers isn't starting, so we had some other 26th man options on the 40-man, chiefly Pat Light or Mason Melotakis from the upper minors.

I would respectfully disagree with you there, Jack. I don't think there are many people here, at Twins Daily, basing their opinion of Antony's GM readiness solely on that interview. (I think if there were, you probably wouldn't bother commenting here!) We can be a critical lot for sure, but most of us on Twins Daily back up our opinions with more evidence than that -- not perfect, obviously, but generally the best and most complete evidence we have available as fans. In this case, the evidence comes from the likely cause of Antony's problematic 2010 interview -- his suspect record as assistant GM here during the difficult years of 2008-2016. For example, I personally thought the Delmon Young trade was likely a disaster the day it happened, and while I don't know if Rob Antony may have cautioned against it privately, the fact that a full two seasons later, he still publicly claimed that RBIs were more predictive than slugging percentage... well, I highly doubt that Antony cautioned against the Delmon Young trade. It's far more likely he was a proponent of the trade, as well as later moves driven by similarly problematic narrow vision such as Ramos-for-Capps, Hardy-for-Hoey/Nishioka, and the Jason Bartlett reunion. In that case, the interview is just one piece of evidence among many supporting a larger case, that Antony might lack the ability and curiosity to quickly learn and adapt as befitting a modern head of baseball ops in MLB. This extends into your second point, about someone from outside the organization with the same job duties as Antony. If such a candidate had likewise not distinguished himself or his organization in the creative thinking and management practices associated with heading a modern MLB organization, over an 8 year opportunity as #2 in command, most Twins Daily posters would recognize that and oppose him or her equally as much as they might oppose Antony. I don't doubt that some fans offer more shallow judgements, but I don't think it's the norm around here. (And I suspect those that do, go even shallower than you suggest -- I would guess most such fans are rather unaware of Antony's 2010 interview or even the timeline of his Twins tenure.)

Jeremy, this is highly misleading. Rosario's 2013 strikeout rate only trends the wrong way if you include his midseason promotion to AA. His first half stats at high-A (itself a promotion from his 2012 level) indicate a career low strikeout rate (12.6%), lower even than his pre-injury Beloit rate.

Looking at the Beloit game logs, after return from the injury, Rosario walked 4 times in 33 games. While less than his earlier season rate, it was not unprecedented up to that point in Rosario's career. In his first 37 pro games back in 2010, Rosario walked only 7 times. In his second pro season, 2011, he had a similar stretch midsummer of 27 games and only 4 walks. He drew more walks outside these stretches, but why? Was it really because he had a natural gift for working the count and taking a walk? If so, why did he have extended stretches of low-walk aggressiveness? Which one was his real natural skill/approach and repeatable at higher levels? Maybe he was just a pretty good hitter otherwise at those lower levels, and opposing teams went through extreme stretches of challenging him and pitching around him? I suspect low-minors pitching is not nearly as skilled at "pitching around" hitters as compared to upper-minors and MLB pitching, so even some aggressive hitters can take walks in such circumstances. And the following season, 2013, Rosario followed similar patterns -- only 4 walks in his first 100 PA at high-A, followed by a stretch with a much higher walk rate. It's highly likely that, for whatever reason, that was just the kind of hitter Eddie Rosario was at those levels, and quite unlikely that he was a dramatically different hitter before and after his injury.

Centeno's wRC+ is 87, which is indeed league average for a catcher this year (86). But it's only 123 PA, and he has no track record to support this level of offense performance. Most notably, he has 2 HR in those 123 PA this year, after hitting only 4 in 1665 career minor league PA. Those HR alone are almost entirely fueling a more than doubling of his minor league career isolated power (.129 compared to .061) -- never mind his gift triple the other night that got Carlos Gomez DFA'd... By comparison, Fryer had a 93 wRC+ in 124 PA as a Twin. These things happen. Now, with good defense (I too have no idea on this front), it's quite possible Centeno remains a viable backup -- since about 2010 or so, he has maintained solid batting averages in the minor leagues, so he likely won't be overmatched too often. But it would be a stretch to even consider him as a starter, or even relying too much on him in the backup role.

But wasn't his walk rate basically back to normal the next season at high-A? Within normal variation? A difference of ~2 percentage points is far from statistically significant on its own, setting aside the sample size and level differences. And his K rate was actually better the next year than his pre-injury rate. Plenty of players have to adapt their game in different ways as they move up the ladder. The idea that a partial season of Rosario having a 9% BB rate and 14% K rate at his first stop above rookie ball was somehow supposed to represent his true talent baseline for the rest of his pro career is not one supported by your limited data or common sense.

I am not sure I get this argument at all. Rosario actually had a better K rate the following season in high-A. And his walk rate was just fine until he got to AA a year later. Was he maybe a bit rusty when he returned in 2012? Sure. But there is really nothing else to see in the data here.

Considering that Rosario wasn't even at the plate when he got hit in the face, that's kind of an odd suggestion.

Sounds like a sample size issue, especially if he is better on the road this year.

I think in their most recent FA power rankings, MLBTR suggested Ramos keeping up his hot streak would guarantee his 4th year. Not necessarily require a 5th.

Calling him up in September is easy once you've made the decision to protect him on the 40-man this winter (which is also an easy decision if he hits well at AAA, heck probably easy even if he doesn't). Only thing hard about it might be if they want Centeno and Murphy to battle for their 40 man lives this September, although that obviously has little to do with Garver's performance.

It's not a tough decision at all. The alternative to leaving Garver off the 40-man roster is seeing him selected in the Rule 5 draft in December. Turner is in a similar predicament, and will be a harder decision.

FWIW, the Nationals apparently haven't approached Ramos about an extension yet, so I'm not sure they intend to be serious bidders (although logic would dictate that they should be). I'm not sure the Tigers and White Sox will have the capital to spend that big either (and as it stands now, neither would have a protected first round pick like the Twins). Boston should be a big one, I am frankly surprised they haven't addressed the position already for the 2016 stretch drive. I just haven't seen FA catchers get bid up out of scarcity so much -- Martin and McCann had solid cases to earn their contracts. The general concerns and limitations about the position seem to keep the market in control? There just aren't a lot of grossly overpaid catchers.

You seem to be missing the point that Garver has to be added to the 40-man roster in November anyway, or likely lost in the Rule 5 draft. The Twins don't really have the option to leave him off the 40-man roster until next year. And I highly doubt the Twins would draw a firm line at 3 catchers, but not 4, on the 40-man, unless the FA catcher in question was marginal, in which case it's more of a question about quality rather than the number of catchers on the 40-man.

Sure. Martin got 5/82. My wild Ramos guess earlier was more like 4/60. Of course, Martin was 3 years older than Ramos at the time too...

I don't think Brian McCann has been a lotto ticket, even if he hasn't been a star; Martin hasn't been much of one either, pending how he can finish out this season, I suppose (although he was older when he signed his deal too, so I don't know if him failing would be great evidence against Ramos anyway)). I highly doubt Ramos was ever seriously a non-tender candidate last offseason. It was only one bad season at the plate, partially offset by defense, and he was only due to make $5.35 in arb for his age 28 season in 2016. No way any team non-tenders such a player given the scarcity of catchers. Also, Ramos currently sits at a 147 OPS+. I don't know where he'll finish, I would certainly bet the "under" on that figure in any future season, but I don't think it's fair to characterize his range of offensive proficiency as anywhere near that of, say, Suzuki, who has peaked at 105.

Garver has to be added this winter anyway, or left exposed to the Rule 5 draft. (Turner too.) So they already have to make those decisions regardless of whether they add them in September or November. At least if you add them in September (or now), they can get some MLB reps before next spring. Suzuki would also come off the 40-man roster this winter. Centeno might a remove and re-sign candidate (he was a minor league free agent last winter). Heck, Murphy could possibly clear waivers and be outrighted if we really needed a spot.

I'm not necessarily on the Ramos bandwagon, but I wouldn't discount him yet. The point of my posts above is to suggest that the market hasn't necessarily priced catchers unreasonably before. If we preclude consideration of the top FA catchers because we don't want to pay for the extra catcher risks, we might essentially be double-counting those risks because they are already reflected in the market price. If Ramos finishes strong and fetches 4/60, that's not necessarily bad. A short-term veteran may require $5-10 mil himself, so really you are just paying an extra $50-55 mil for Ramos, on his age 29-32 seasons, with demonstrated 4+ WAR upside. Also, he's often had a manageable K rate, and it's gotten even lower this year after LASIK surgery -- that low K rate could be something the Twins lineup sorely lacks. If an internal option develops, I think Ramos at those terms would be movable during the contract under most outcomes, thanks to the perpetual weak catching market. Even if Ramos bottoms out like 2015 again, his defense kept him worth 0.8 bWAR that season. Arizona got out from under 3/40 of Miguel Montero who posted a 0.8 bWAR combined for his age 29-30 seasons. It's a lot harder for a young catcher's market value to crater than, say, Ricky Nolasco's -- there just aren't a lot of alternatives.

Ramos will be 3 years younger than Martin when he signed that deal, and even with his great season, most experts cap the length of a Ramos deal at 4 years. That would run through his age 32 season -- Martin last season, or Brian McCann this season. A team signing Ramos will not be stuck with his age 33-35 seasons. Also, it seems you are being a little harsh/selective on Martin. He's at an 84 OPS+ for the season right now, which isn't necessarily backup level for a catcher -- that, plus good defense/framing is often acceptable for a starting catcher, and it's pretty much what we were hoping Murphy would do to claim the starting job here. And so far, Martin's 84 OPS+ for the season is largely affected by a disastrous April -- since May 1st, his OPS is .742, equal to Suzuki's 2016 season number. Since June 1st, his OPS is .800. Obviously the poor start still counts, I am not asking anyone to throw it out, but it doesn't quite fit the neat little narrative that he is collapsing at age 33 and bound to get worse.

The Twins most certainly could have dealt with "adequate" Mauer if he was still a full-time catcher. Adequate catchers are very valuable. I am sure the Yankees would have liked a higher level of offense from McCann, but I think a large part of what they were buying was his floor, not his ceiling.

McCann has been worth 4.6 bWAR / 5.3 fWAR in his first two full years of that deal. And that doesn't including framing (not sure where he ranks, though). Less than $7 mil per win. This year he's a little lower but he's getting dinged in fielding by -4, not sure if that's real or just a small sample issue. And he's been pretty consistent/durable which has value to a contender -- the Yankees basically haven't had to worry about the catcher position, invest other resources into it, rush their catching prospects, etc. because of confidence in McCann's high floor, even if he hasn't much exceeded it so far. I know McCann apparently cleared trade waivers this month, but I wouldn't read too much into that -- the Yankees weren't going to let him go for nothing so I think that influenced potential claims.

With positive defense! After a respectable 88 OPS+ last year. Also, while McCann is the nominal starter in Detroit, Salty has been seeing significant action and has a .716 OPS. I think you can make a case that John Hicks' lack of MLB opportunity there so far is based on a defensible decision to stick with that pair, rather than try to break-in Hicks during a pennant race. (Hicks doesn't even have the benefit of spring training working with the Detroit pitching staff, having been acquired in April.) Not that Hicks has great value or anything, but I wouldn't read too much into him still being in AAA. The fact that he's still on their 40-man roster, and 3rd on their depth chart (meaning they didn't try to acquire anyone else at the deadline), suggests they are still comfortable with him and giving him an opportunity if the need arises.

Actually, I'm not sure that this is true. First off, it seems the market already corrects for this a bit -- there haven't been a lot of big money FA catcher deals. Secondly, the ones that have happened appear to be working out OK. Russell Martin had a dreadful start to the season, but he is slowly climbing back -- .800 OPS since June 1st, he could easily finish about league average for the season. McCann has been pretty solid in NY too. Beyond that, there have been a few extensions. Yadier Molina's bat has slipped but his defense has kept him valuable. Miguel Montero's deal was probably a bit excessive, but Arizona was able to dump much of it on the Cubs. Obviously Posey and Mauer were mega-extensions for franchise players, a little hard to compare with the rest of this group. So basically, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the top catching option on the FA market as too expensive.

If the July 31 trade chatter was accurate, it seems like the rest of the league may not see Suzuki as a viable defensive catcher anymore.