chpettit19

The ALCS 7 straight years isn't the bar for success, but improving our chances to make the ALCS once should be the goal, no? In order to do that the Twins need to add elite bats. Wallner and Jeffers are very unlikely to be those guys. In fact, there's really only 2 guys on the current roster with any sort of chance of being those guys, and Julien's Ks make him a bit of a stretch as an option, too. That Astros series should've been eye opening to fans (which was in the comment you replied to). Their top 4 is so much better than ours. And, yes, it's a reasonable goal to expect them to work to improve their top hitters and get closer to Houston.

Wallner and Jeffers are never going to be Altuve, Bregman, Alvarez, or Tucker. I won't speak for Woof, but it wasn't just the performance in series by the Astros, it's the overall line of those 1-4 hitters. Where would Michael Brantley rank in the Twins lineup? I'd take him over almost everyone in our lineup and he hit 6th for the Stros. It's not about "giving up on" anyone, it's about being honest about the type of talent the Twins have on offense vs what most other playoff teams have. There are very few playoff teams that wouldn't have the best 3 or 4 hitters in a series against the Twins, in my opinion. That's a problem. Maybe Julien and Lewis become guys that could hit in the top 4 of that Houston lineup, but we're going to need to see it for more than a partial year from them both. Kepler has no business hitting in the 3/4 hole of a playoff lineup. None. Correa is a solid 5 hole hitter on a playoff roster. Polanco is a 5 hole type guy as well. The Twins need to add some Altuve, Bregman, Alvarez, Tucker types. And that's not just based on the tiny sample of that series. That's based on who those hitters have been for years.

For sure the answer is both, but its a tough question knowing that likely isn't realistic. I think the answer probably lies in what you think about the young guys already on the roster, or close to it. Do you think Ryan, Ober, and Varland (or whatever your list of young arms is) have a better chance of filling that #2 slot than Kirilloff, Julien, Lewis, and Lee (or whatever your list of young bats is) have of filling multiple top bat slots? I think the likely answer is they go after a #2 starter before they go after bats because they think they can platoon their way to enough offense. If it were me I think I'd also go after an arm, but I think they're going to continue to struggle in the postseason until they can answer the question with "both." If they can get a number 2 arm and lock them in for another 3 or 4 years I think you're in good shape on the pitching side and have to expect that they can fill the top 2 rotation spots in 3 or 4 years (hopefully with homegrown guys). I think getting the pitching set for multiple years would be my answer as that then frees you up to focus almost entirely on bats moving forward.

A couple people have touched on it, but a big part of this question is how many spots they'll even have open. By my count they currently have 46 guys on the 40-man. 39 active and 7 60-day guys. I see 12 free agents to be that will drop the 40-man down to 34 after the World Series. Then the question is if you plan to DFA anyone, if you plan to trade any 40-man guys, and how many vets you want to bring in (or back). Do Castro and Martin cover your need for Gordon so you try to trade him? Are you happy with Lewis and Castro being your backup SS so you non-tender or trade Farmer? Have you given up on Miranda after an injury plague horrid year? Sands, Winder, SWR, Balazovic, Thielbar, Moran, Henriquez, Headrick, Alcala done enough to hold their spot or are you looking for upgrades? I don't see a ton of "must protect" guys, but I also see a bunch of guys that should be targeted for upgrades on the 40-man. Could (maybe should?) be a pretty active offseason with some real rearranging of the 40-man. Which is a little weird after a trip to the ALDS, but I think it'd be a mistake to not try to make some real changes.

I'm so confused about this concern about Jeffers playing every game. He played back to back games. Then had 2 days off. Played back to back games and had a day off. Then played back to back games and the season was over. He played 6 games in 9 days. That is not an unreasonable amount of playing time for a catcher. JT Realmuto caught 131 games this year. He's 32 years old. Jeffers is 26. Jeffers can catch 6 games in 9 days without his body falling apart.

I don't think it's about not having a "legit DH" as much is it's about just not having any elite hitters. Maybe Julien or Lewis turn into those guys, but they aren't there yet. There were only 6 players in all of baseball who DHed more than 100 games this year. Ohtani was elite, and Soler, Ozuna, and JD Martinez were "legit DHs" in performance. The concern isn't not having a DH, it's not having an elite bat, or 2. The top guys for the Twins would be hitting 5-9 on most playoff rosters. They need more 1-4 quality playoff bats no matter what position it is. Hopefully Lewis and/or Julien can reach those heights. But Correa isn't that guy. Buxton's career looks closer to being over than him getting to that stature. Kirilloff just can't stay on the field. Wallner is a 6-8 hole slugger. Martin is most likely a 9 hole "second leadoff hitter" type. Maybe Lee can be elite, at least as a lefty? Maybe ERod figures it all out? Maybe Jenkins goes on a Holliday type tear next year and is our Alvarez starting in 2025? The Twins have a bunch of good bats, but lack great/elite ones. They don't need a DH, they just need a legit top 20 in baseball type bat.

I don't think there's going to be many, if any, teams willing to offer him 4 years guaranteed. I think his most reasonable ask is to try to get a 3rd guaranteed year with the 4th year option. I think he can get 3 years, 60ish mil from someone. Maybe a 12 mil option year for a 4th year tacked on. I don't expect him back with MN next year because I don't expect them to guarantee a 3rd year. Just not their style.

These are professional athletes, they don't need to be apologized to for not playing when the other option was clearly the better player all season. Who cares if Houston was his former team? Why would that have any impact on Rocco's decision? In what world should any manager look at the numbers below and feel like they should play Vazquez?

It is fascinating to see that people were convinced Sonny was leaving (was probably demanding a trade behind the scenes!) because he had 2 games in 2 seasons where he was visibly, and publicly, upset with being taken out when he was taken out, but then he says he's willing to stay and people say there's no way you can read into that and believe him. I'm not saying those groups of people are the same, but it's fascinating. I don't think these statements should change the Twins plans with Sonny. Make the QO, and offer him 2 years with a 3rd year team option. I think that was likely always their plan, and still should be. If he takes your deal, great, if not enjoy your #35ish draft pick.

Camargo, Severino, Martin, ERod are the only 4 I'd protect. Camargo as the 3rd catcher they never had to use this year because of some sort of miracle. Severino as the slugging cIF backup in AAA to start the year. Martin as the top prospect who you hope is coming around and has a shot at the opening day roster. ERod as the superstar prospect you have to keep away from a bottom feeder snagging and carrying all year even if he struggles. The rest look like AAAA or bullpen guys I don't think are worth taking up 40-man spots during the offseason.

Robo umps have been measuring human umps for years. We don't have access to the data, but the league uses it to determine who gets postseason jobs and who doesn't. If they can be trusted to measure the humans why can't they be trusted to measure the robots?

There would still be umps behind the plate who can call the balls and strikes during any tech issues. Problem solved. I'm quite certain MLB has the ability to create a precise upper and lower boundary. I don't think they're stuck with that definition for all eternity. Problem solved.

We're not talking about replay, we're talking about automated calls. There is no time added for the computer to say "strike or ball" vs the human ump saying "strike or ball." There is a time savings in players, and/or coaches/managers, arguing about that strike or ball call when they can't hope to influence future calls by planting seeds of doubt in the human brain because the computer is the one making the calls and it doesn't care about your complaints. Your "replay rabbit hole" argument has literally nothing to do with an automated strike zone.

Fans are ok with bad calls that help their team because there is a 100% certainty that there will be bad calls. If you know there's going to be bad calls of course you want them to go your way. That's not an argument for not reducing the number of bad calls that take place. The poll you really want to do is asking fans if they'd prefer a) a system where there's going to be bad calls and you don't know if they'll help or hurt you, or b) a system where you know you won't have any calls help you, but also won't have any calls hurt you. I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that most fans would take option b.

That's a super unbiased poll there. Definitely not setup to get the exact answer you want while not actually getting to the point I made at all. Why don't we do a poll and ask fans if they'd prefer a) the Twins lose a playoff game due to a bad call or b) the Twins win a game that is umpired perfectly and "fairly?" My guess is 95% would vote B and 5% will lie. Crazy how setting up a poll to always give you the answer you want is completely useless.

My biggest complaint was that they never seemed to adjust to the fact that Houston was clearly sitting off-speed 100% of the time. And Gray had his sinker going pretty well to his glove side. There were strikes for the taking by just pounding back door sinkers to righties all day. I can certainly understand wanting to stick with your strength and having the confidence that your strength is good enough to beat their plan, but it wasn't, and they should've adjusted.

That first sentence is nonsense. There's an imbalance of calls in every game that we all currently have to accept. Not complaining about the calls that go our way is in no way the same thing as wanting those calls to stay while the ones that go against us go away. Those are not the same thing. There are absolutely posts on TD acknowledging that the Twins got a break on certain calls. There's posts on this very thread about the Polanco call. Those of us in favor of more technology to get calls right aren't saying that call should've stood. In fact there's someone who's already questioned why it isn't reviewable. I want that call gone as long as the calls that go against the Twins are gone too. Sure, it likely does even out over time. But does that mean we should accept a bad call changing the result of the World Series? That's why I pointed out the postseason. "Hey, you got that call on June 12th in the 5th inning against the Padres so don't be mad that the call that ended the World Series went against you" isn't an argument many people are going to be good with. The postseason shrinks the sample size and the equation. It just does. That's the point of the postseason. Have to be at the top of your game everyday or your season ends. Nobody has said they get it all right. You claimed they expanded replay after things with replay went poorly. They no longer review pass interference calls in the NFL because replay for it didn't work. They get more calls right now than they used. Your argument at the end there is basically "it's not 100% right so it's not helpful and we should get rid of it even though it's improved the number of calls they get right." Setting your standard as "100% or it's a failure" is awfully aggressive and unrealistic.

The sides of the strike zone are a hard line, independent of any other variables. Those are the calls that bug me. High and low stuff is different. But the side of the strike zone is a hard line that a robot could absolutely get perfect at calling.

I don't think those first 2 sentences are true. Is it true for some fans? Sure. But, I think, overall, most fans just want the calls to be right so the game is decided by the players, and not the refs/umps/whatever. And it's not about benefitting certain teams at the expense of others over years, or even multiple games. It's about benefitting one team over another in each individual game. "The NFL wants the Chiefs to win so they get more calls" type arguments come from a very small, but often very loud, segment of the population. Arguing against those people is pointless. There's no argument that can be made that missed calls are balanced between the teams in each game, though. That simply isn't true. 1 team always gets the benefit in each particular game. Whether from bad calls, missed calls, or a combination of both. Some of us just want to take as much of that out of the equation as possible. And often time the advantage is very small, and not even worth really discussing. You'll never find me claiming the refs/umps/whoever cost a team a game. But pretending that one team doesn't benefit more than another in any given game is ignoring reality. And when you get into the playoffs that disparity is naturally looked at more closely. Especially in a sport like football where 1 game not going your way ends your season. Or game 3/5/7 in a series where you know 1 team is going home at the end of the game. I don't think I agree with your layout of the replay timeline in sports, either. The leagues expand replay after it does work, not after it doesn't. I can't think of 1 league that implemented it, watched it fail, and said "the answer is more replay!" The NFL tried to replay certain penalty calls and stopped after it clearly didn't work. MLB started with just fair/foul replay, found success, and expanded to calls on the bases, etc. The leagues keep expanding replay because they are getting more calls right. Which seems like a pretty logical process to me.

Then all is not lost! Larnach is our "first off the bus" guy to intimidate the other team. Let's just hope they were watching the pregame and haven't looked at our roster lately.

Did Larnach look good, though?

Vazquez has a career .633 OPS in 31 postseason games over 10 series. I don't think he's "built for October." I don't think it's the end of the world if he catches a game, but it's all small sample size stuff now. This is not the time to panic over your clearly superior hitter having a couple tough games.

Jorge and Royce did their celebrations rounding 3rd after they hit homers when they were down big late in game 1. And I hope they'd do it again if down late but get something going. Pump your teammates up and get them energized whenever you can. There's no clock. The other team still has to beat you until you run out of outs. There's never a time in the postseason that you shouldn't be looking to hype up your team.

Always want to score in as many ways as possible, but HRs rule the postseason. Teams that out homer their opponent in the last 5 postseasons have won 85+% of the games. Need to mash to win playoff games.

FYI, Lewis is on the lineup at 3B and Julien is DHing. As of now at least.