chpettit19

Will be very interesting to see if they move him directly to the pen or try to keep him as a starter. He's 23 (well technically not for 2 more days) so he's nowhere near young for an A ball pitcher (not old either, but not young). I assume they'd plan to move him to A+ to start the year, or very quickly there after, but it'll be interesting to see if they have him starting or just throw him in the A+ pen and see if he can take off like a rocket through the system by just relying on maxing out his 2 best pitches. Don't have any opinion of my own (shocking, I know!) on what to do with him, but will just be interested to see what they end up doing.

Gabriel Gonzalez for Alek Manoah and a low level flier would be an interesting trade to me, assuming Manoah's medicals are clear and the Twins believe they know what went so crazy last year. I wonder what Toronto would say if the Twins called with that kind of deal. Wonder if their plans to move him would change. I only pick Gonzalez because he's never even stepped foot in the Twins facility (to my knowledge).

I think this all comes down to price. How much do the Twins actually have to spend? If it's just the 5+ cleared in the Polanco deal there's really not anything I'd be excited about available. If they're taking that 5 and adding it to another 5-10ish that they had available already then I'm in on some guys. Soler would be my #1 target if there's available funds for him. 3 years, 45 mil would be a deal I'd sign for sure on him if that's what it takes. I want nothing to do with Buxton as primary DH. If he can't play CF regularly put him on the IL. I wouldn't love the lack of flexibility from JD, but I'd take him on a 1 year deal if they're not willing to do any multi-year deals for Soler. If they think JD has another year in him at what he did last year he'd be a significantly better hitter in the DH spot than cycling through other guys. If they still had Polanco I'd be on board with the cycling through idea, but at this point cycling through is just putting lesser hitters into the lineup. If they bring in Soler because they were able to free up just enough money in the Polanco deal I'll have a much better opinion of the Polanco deal. Let's see what they can do.

I think the Twins love Kirilloff. It's never safe to assume they won't trade someone, but I think their "offensive profile" stuff is overblown here. Alex Kirilloff started 73 games last year. 74% of those starts (54) came in the 2, 3, or 4 spots in the lineup. That doesn't scream "he doesn't fit our profile!" to me. That says they think he's one of their best hitters. Add in his 8 starts in the 5 hole and you're at 85% of his starts being in the absolute heart of the order. I think the Twins very much believe in Kirilloff's bat. His concern is his health. Because of that I think this is a bit of a "make or break" year for him in terms of staying in the plans as the primary 1B. If he can't stay healthy this year he's likely out of the plans when it comes to building teams moving forward. Not that he'd necessarily be dealt, but just that they'd not really take him into account when planning their team and anything they get from him would be bonus moving forward. But for 2024 I think their only concern with him is health. You don't hit a guy in the 3 hole more often than any other spot in the lineup if you don't trust his bat.

Yes, if Kepler is his 2nd half self for a full season we'll be talking about whether or not they can/should extend him. And I have my fingers crossed for that.

I meant from this point. We've already lost Polanco so the offense is what it is already. Switching Kepler for Soler would boost the offense, in my opinion.

All I'm going off is the report from Morosi that they touched base on a larger deal involving Polanco and Kepler. No idea when those talks took place. Could've been winter meetings before they got more OFers, or 2 days ago, we don't know. No idea what any ideas that were suggested were, just would be interested to have been a fly on the wall. You were pretty far off base on their interest in Polanco because of recent IF additions so it's possible you're not thinking in concert with their FO when it comes to their interest in Kepler even with recent OF additions.

I won't speak for others, but I was simply talking about their styles and what type of prospect they are. But those numbers actually make me feel even more strongly about that comp. Definitely the same type of player.

Would be fascinating to hear what the package would've been coming from Seattle if Kepler were involved. Including if it would've changed the financials. Like would Kepler have upped the starter from DeSclafani to Woo or Miller and freed up another 10+ million to go spend on Soler to play LF? Would've been a real blow to the defense, but a real boost to the pitching and offense. But without knowing what the offers were it's hard to speak on the Seattle situation in particular. But trading Kepler now doesn't make much sense to me unless you have another trade already lined up that you'd need the money for. Trading Kepler now would be a straight salary dump and I have no interest in that.

(I think I should just start calling him Chia Pet)...You wouldn't be the first one! But it was more fitting when I had hair.

Their pre-arb and arb years are capped financially so to speak. You get the outlier Soto and Judge guys who "break" the arb system, but generally speaking there's a limit, and a known one at that, to what the player is going to make in their first 6 years of service time. There is a massive difference between singing a guaranteed deal that only covers your first 6 years and one that goes into your free agent years. It can't be understated. Keith only getting guaranteed money through his arb years is a massive difference between his deal and the Chourio deal. The second you get to the 7th year in a deal like that the value skyrockets. The years are a huge part of this conversation. And yes, it's about hitting free agency. You simply can't compare their guaranteed money without addressing the fact that one only covers arb years and the other goes into free agency. The years are very important.

That isn't how EV percentile works. It's not just a standard curve that can be extrapolated from a single data point, it's about the distribution of their actual batted balls. You can get to the same average a number of ways. You can get to 85 average exit velo by hitting everything between 80 and 90 MPH or by having things spread out from 70 to 120 MPH just depends on the volume hit at what velo. 90th percentile EV is simply the 1 ball hit at that percentile. In the pic below you can see that Peralta has significantly higher 75th, 90th, and 99th percentiles than Escobar, but Escobar has much better 10th and 25th percentiles while they have nearly identical 50th. The reason analysts care more about the higher percentile numbers is because they tie much closer to success. Certainly outliers and exceptions to rules, but 90th percentile is a pretty good predictor for success because higher numbers there leads to more success and is also much more sustainable year over year. So the harder you hit it the more successful you are and the more likely you are to be able to hit it hard moving forward. It's more helpful to have that 106.9 to 101.9 advantage than it is harmful to have the 69.7 to 73.7 disadvantage.

No, Jackson Chourio is making 2 million this year. He doesn't make 10 mil in a year until year 6 of his 8 year deal. You need to take into account the pre-arb and arb year portions of the deal, not just the overall deal. Chourio is getting 45 mil for his first 6 years so if you want to say it'd take at least 45 mil in the first 6 years to sign Lee that'd be a better argument. But there is a very real difference between buying out pre-arb and arb years and buying out free agency years. So comparing just their guaranteed money is not an effective way of comparing these deals because Chourio's deal includes guaranteed money in his first 2 free agent years while Keith's doesn't. That is a very important part of these deals.

Not overly surprised, but not happy. There's a lot of moving pieces here so it's hard to know who to really blame (besides Diamond/Bally), but Provus probably should've been less aggressive with his comments. I'm sure he was promised things so it's wasn't him making things up, but it appears he over-promised on this one. At least at this point. This isn't a new problem so it's not surprising, but I sure hope they can get it figured out for 2025 at a minimum.

Feels like Spencer Steer, Tanner Schobel, and Luke Keaschall are all the same type of guy. Scrappy 2B/utility guys who don't look great but seem to just put their head down and do the dirty work and just keep getting better. Like Steer, Schobel and Keaschall may end up as trade bate depending on the timing of their progression and what the guys ahead of them are doing, but if you can keep churning out ball players like Steer (Schobel and Keaschall not there yet) you give yourself a lot of flexibility in managing your organization. The Twins need their stars to be stars, but you need these kinds of guys to provide depth and fill in gaps without huge drop offs when injuries happen. Schobel isn't a likely star, but if he can stay on his general trajectory he's setting himself for a nice long career of playing ball at the major league level. Never making all star teams or being known by the national fanbase, but being adored by his team's fans. Big fan of these kinds of players. Hope the Twins can keep developing them.

I agree with your general stance here on the pitching, but to be fair to Varland it likely isn't possible for him to beat out DeSclafani no matter how well he pitches in spring. Much like Ober last year, Varland having options puts him at a nearly impossible to overcome disadvantage for the rotation. His only real shot at the rotation (unless more moves are made) is that the team puts DeSclafani in a long role in the pen. I'd guess that is not their plan, and has a very small chance of happening. All this to say that it's not as straight forward as Varland "couldn't beat out" DeSclafani. Varland is likely already pegged for the #6 starter spot starting the year in St Paul right now. Especially because they added another reliever so he's less likely to get sent there to start the year. It's not just a straight "who performs/looks better in spring" competition between those 2.

I'm fine with the return for Polanco, and was expecting him to be traded since the season ended. But this was an ALDS team last year and they've now lost their #2 starter, their number 5 starter/playoff bullpen arm, their 2 hole hitter/top 4-5 hitter from their lineup, and replaced them with a broken down 5th starter 2 other teams have already paid to have not pitch for them, a 32 year old break out rookie reliever, a handful of low probability relievers, and 2 prospects in A ball. The FO doesn't get praise from me for that. The Pohalds definitely don't get praise for anything. I'm with you and Pierzynski. I hold out hope and expectations that more is to come. I think it's being oversold that they have some grand plan for some big move with the money saved in this trade. They've surprised me before and I'll wait until opening day to pass final judgement on the offseason, though. But as of this moment I'm not impressed. And the idea that they could use this 5 mil for a deadline deal doesn't impress me either. Don't starve your team (I like your phrasing there) during the offseason and rely on being able to outbid other teams at the deadline to fix the holes you already know you have. Fix them now.

I've maybe not acknowledged it in our back and forth, but I've mentioned future moves in other posts. When the 5.25 mil is reinvested into the roster I'll reasses where things are at, but I'm not going to praise them for moves they haven't made yet. If that RH bat is Donovan Solano I'm not giving them heaps of praise for this wonderful manipulation of the roster and finances, but if it's Jorge Soler I will. I just won't praise them for saving money until they've shown what they do with it. Julien destroyed the minors every step of the way. Lee has not. I think Lee can be a very good player, but I'm not a fan of relying on him to improve an ALDS team. No problem with others having that stance, but it's not where I'm at with him yet. Rookies fail more than they succeed. Miranda is already an after thought on this team after he put up much better upper minors numbers and had a great rookie year. I'm just more hesitant to rely on rookies and young guys improving an ALDS team. Just maintaining an ALDS team when losing your #2 pitcher and a top 4-5 bat is really hard when your biggest addition is a reliever and prospect who's 2 or 3 years away at best.

You're ignoring years. Keith's guaranteed years don't buy out any of his free agent years while Chourio's buys out 2, that's the difference in guaranteed money. That's why Keith's option years add up to the same total, but over 1 extra year so AAV is slightly less. That's why I separated my numbers by years. If you're only guaranteeing the contract for Lee's pre-arb and arb years the number is 27-30 mil. If you're adding 2 or 3 years onto that you need to get to the 80-90 mil mark. Call it 9/100 if that makes you feel better. But you need to take into consideration what the length of the deal is buying out.

Yes, but Chourio's deal was for 8 years and Keith's base is 6, his max is 9/82 with isn't crazy different than 8/82, and awfully close to the 9/90 you said was too little. I used Albies to play off your Bregman comp of "if they wait." I agree it's a totally different thing. The Tigers and Brewers set the market. The question is number of years you're guaranteeing. If it's 8 or 9 years you're looking at 80-90 mil. If it's 6 years you're looking at 27-30. So those are my numbers. Because that's what the market has been set at in the last month or so.

If they wait until Brooks Lee plays 3 years in the majors, makes an All Star team, and finishes 5th in the MVP voting he's going to demand 6 years, 100 million? Yeah, that'd make some sense. Or if they wait and he never actually figures it out his contract comp becomes DFA'd at age 27. The bigger concern would be that they wait and the contract comp becomes Austin Riley. Or maybe he just wants to get to the majors asap and thinks signing an extension now helps that so he'll take an Ozzie Albies deal for 7/35. Maybe he thinks that 8/82 mark that Keith and Chourio were at this summer is about right and he takes a deal with 1 more guaranteed year than Keith but the same total max. I don't have any idea what Brooks Lee would be looking for, but I know that when you're playing your age 22 season compared to someone else's age 21 season at the same levels and the 21 year old outperforms you considerably you have some awfully limited leverage to be asking for double their contract. Or even significantly more. Yes, minor league stats are only part of deals like this, but when it comes to leverage the team is going to point to the closest comp there is and right now that's Colt Keith. So I don't know Lee's number, but the Tigers just set the Twins number.

No, I don't, but thanks for the offer. Never called the FO incompetent. Bunch of national people liked the Gallo signing last year, did that make that a great move automatically? Twins got great grades for the Mahle trade, clearly their best move, right? Jorge Lopez was a stroke of genius according to many in the national news! Couldn't have gone better, right? Listen, I've said over and over and over that I thought the value back for Polanco was the right amount. I haven't once said they should've gotten more. I've said many, many times that, in a vacuum, they did well in this trade. So I agree with ESPN that the Twins should get a good grade for value. But the FO thinking this was the best move shouldn't mean anything to anyone on here. If it did what would be the point of any discussion about any move they make? "Well the FO thinks its the right thing so we can't question it" is great for community forums. Really drives content for this site, I'm sure. I'm glad you're able to agree with the FO and that makes you feel good. I'll just continue to be fanatical and wait for them to do something I feel actually helps the 2024 Twins win more games. Not sure why you care so much about my stance when you think it's uninformed and fanatical. Just be happy your stance is so clearly superior and move on. Fangraphs take on the prospects: "The most likely outcome is that neither will ever be a major league regular." Not exactly rave reviews coming out of there. "Harold Ramirez role player" was their prediction on Gonzalez. You want to soften your position on him? Fangraphs on the Twins needing Polanco in 2024: "But there’s a pretty clear problem with that: a lot of things have to go right for Polanco to be rendered unnecessary." Yeah, I can see why you think all the national guys are just in love with this deal. Couldn't be a stronger stance on how little Polanco is needed in MN, right? It's almost like they think the Twins got good value for Polanco, but he's most certainly likely to be needed for a contending team in MN in 2024. Which is what I've been saying for the last 22 hrs or whatever it's been, right? Man, I feel so smart now that a national guy shares my opinion.

So you were real mad all postseason that they were just ruining their chances of winning by playing Polo everyday and hitting him between Julien and Lewis, right? Imagine what they could've gotten for Castro if they got such a great haul for the clearly inferior Polanco! I don't think they want a DH only. Maybe they think JD has another great year in him, but I think they prefer cycling guys through and having someone who can play multiple positions. But we'll see what they do. I'm glad you're happy with the trade. I'm glad you think the 5 million they saved can buy a DH. I'm thrilled you're sold on a 32 year old rookie reliever and are looking forward to being able to control his age 36 season. I'm glad you think DeSclafani is "decent." Gonzalez is a top 100 prospect on 1 list, but I'm glad you're excited for him. I'm glad you're pumped for a "fairly decent" pitching prospect who's 23 in A ball. You're not alone. Plenty of other people happy with it as well. I'm not happy they made their team worse yesterday, but I'm hopeful they have more moves to make so that the lone positive addition to this team isn't Justin Topa. To each their own.

I'm 100% serious. They would've DHed him. Did they trade Arraez because they didn't think he'd get playing time here last year? Jorge Polanco would've been an everyday player for this Twins team if he hadn't been traded. That doesn't make trading him the wrong thing to do, but he would've played 3B, 2B, 1B, and DH for 150 games if he was healthy. Show me where the FO has ever said they're only trading Polanco because they don't have a spot for him to play. And what has the FO done recently to suggest that their plan of attack is to prepare for the season as if all their guys are going to be healthy? I'd argue very strongly that you're the one not following the FO's MO here. Depth and planning for 162 where injuries are a certainty is far more their style than "well shoot, 3B and 2B are covered so no possible way we can play Polanco ever" is.

How would you go about making that argument? Colt Keith hasn't had an OPS under .858 at any level outside of A+ ball for 18 games as a 19 year old in his first year. Brooks Lee's best OPS at any level is .848 at A+ for 25 games as a 21 year old. In Keith's age 21 season he had an OPS of .977 in 59 AA games. In Lee's age 22 season he had an OPS of .841 in 87 AA games. In Keith's age 21 season he then had an OPS of .890 at AAA in 67 games. Lee put up an OPS of .731 in 38 AAA games. Colt Keith has clearly been a better professional baseball player than Brooks Lee. If teams are ignoring "crapshoot" minor league results in favor of draft position they're doing it wrong. Whole bunch of guys should've been getting a chance over Julien if that's the case. But I'm pretty sure the Twins used those "crapshoot" minor league results to decide to move him up over much higher drafted guys who didn't perform as well. Especially when it comes to the high minors, results matter. And Colt Keith has had much better results than Brooks Lee.