chpettit19

I can't imagine him being super good at picking poor throws with the hands he's shown. And his feet are terrible. Can't picture him easily changing his feet on off the mark throws to be able to best stretch in one direction or the other.

Agreed on Julien and Lewis. I think Brooks Lee has an All Star season in him, but as a 3B I see mostly just a solid regular. Certainly useful, and a very nice outcome, but I don't see a star. I'm not sold on any of the older AAA players being stars. Would be surprise to even get an MLB regular out of them. I would be giving them opportunities over the likes of Gallo right now, though. Agreed Kirilloff has star potential. Don't see it in Miranda or Larnach. Think Wallner Ks to much to ever be a star, but wouldn't be shocked by an All Star season in his best year. Jenkins looks like a natural. Really hoping to see him go Jackson Holiday on things and race up to AA by the end of next year. But all of those teenage to 20 year old kids are miles and miles away. Every system has a handful of teenagers with sky high potential. Until they reach AA, and have some semblance of success there, they're just not close enough for me to have any faith in them even reaching the majors. The pitching is where I see the biggest hole. Absolutely value in developing #3 starters, but you need #1s and 2s to win in the postseason. I loved the Prielipp pick, but man is that kid going through it with his elbow. Raya is nice looking, but getting absolutely shelled right now. Very young, and clearly has talent, but he's not a big kid and the deck is stacked against him. Soto is intriguing, but, again, so far away. Canterino I think becomes the number 2 to Duran's number 1 in the pen. Hoping at some point next year. I think his starting days are over. Too old to take the time to build up that inning count and to be able to trust his arm holding up. I put him in the pen in the AFL this year, and give him a legit chance to make the Twins out of camp next year. I'd love to see him, Jax, and Duran be the Herrera, Davis, Holland of the Twins for the next couple years. But, to tie this into the FO talk, I think their obsession with platooning actually holds some of these guys back, and stops them from being stars. I have no idea if Kirilloff, Julien, or Wallner will be able to hit major league lefties well enough to just plant at the top of the order everyday, but I do know never letting them see them isn't going to improve their chances. I want 5 guys that you put in the 1 through 5 hole everyday. No scheduled off days. No platooning at the top of the lineup. 5 guys who play everyday, and hit in the same spots everyday. They'll tell you when they need a day off. I don't subscribe to the idea that hitting 2 one day and 4 the next effects the guys that much, but there's no need to move them around if you have 5 guys like that who can slot in. Maybe it's Julien-Lewis-Kirilloff-Correa-Wallner. Maybe those 5 are good enough to anchor a championship lineup for the next 5 years. I have no faith that this leadership team would ever just put them in those 5 spots and let it rip, though. They have to tinker (I don't think it's just Rocco making lineups on his own). They have to "play the numbers." I'm fine if you go with 2 or 3 platoon guys and your catcher in the lower spots. But if you're platooning in the top 5 spots you either don't have a good enough offense, or you're over managing. I think they draft pretty well. I think they have some very talented guys. But I think they shoot themselves in the foot with all their extra tinkering. Platooning is nice and all, but pinch hitters are significantly worse than guys who were in the lineup to start. Bringing in a cold bat to face elite relievers at the end of games may give you the platoon advantage, but that advantage is washed away by the disadvantage of it being a pinch hitter. Will they adjust away from that in the playoffs? That's what I'll be watching. It's why I don't like their ceiling. They are good at a number of things, but, what seems to me at least, their core processes are flawed in a way that holds back their skills in other areas.

Not sure what you're getting at in the first paragraph. There are numerous ways to build competitive, sustainable rosters, yes. Having a huge payroll doesn't give you that big of a leg up, yes. That's my point. Good FOs can build sustainable teams in a variety of different ways, and in any market size. Yeah, this year is incredibly disappointing for Cards fans, but they've been a model franchise for a very long time, and the odds are they'll be right back at the top of that division very soon. The Twins don't have to be the Rays. There are a whole bunch of teams run better than the Twins right now. And they're run in a variety of ways. I don't know how many times I have to say I acknowledge that it's easier to find someone worse than someone better. I don't view the system the same as you. They have very few star level prospects in the system. Turning out more league average guys and trying to mix and match your way to them being good enough to truly compete isn't a process I think is sustainable. Yes, the 2022 and 2023 drafts will determine the future. But they've had 7 years before this with some really high picks to determine the present. And the present isn't good enough for me. 7 years is an incredibly long time in the world of professional sports. I don't think they've been a disaster. I think they've done quite well at finding big league players in the later rounds. I think they've been terrible at finding stars. The question of this thread is if a successful last 2 months, and a wild card series win, would change my mind on the FO. My answer remains "likely not." But how they go about doing things could change my mind. But I'm not going to ever be on board with "well it could be worse so just don't try for better" as a reason for keeping a FO or player around. Winning a historically bad division while struggling to stay above .500 for 2/3 of the season when you've had 7 years to implement your strategy, and build your team, is not impressive. Could it be worse? Absolutely. But there's way more room above them for it to be better, too. I think we've hit the end of our road, though. You don't want to risk getting worse, and believe in this FO more than me. I want to take a risk for greatness, and believe this FO has some faulty processes that I believe lower their peak. Reasonable minds can disagree. We can certainly agree we hope they win a playoff game or 2 this year, though!

I think it's a 99% chance they pick up his option. They believe in Max, and his current hot streak has confirmed their beliefs. They're not dumping him for nothing. Will he be with the Twins in 2024? That likely depends on their belief in Larnach, and what kind of trade offers they receive for both over the winter. I'd put it at 80/20 that he's standing in RF wearing a Twins uniform on opening day 2024.

I wouldn't let this FO switch philosophies and tank, no. Again, I don't care about market size. It doesn't matter nearly as much as people act like it does. It's certainly nicer to be bigger, but I'm pretty sure you can survey Angels, Mets, Rays, and Cards fans and find that the Rays and Cards fans are much happier with their teams than the Angels and Mets despite being in significantly smaller markets. Well run teams succeed in every market size. Ownership hasn't "loosened the purse strings." They're still in the middle of payroll sizes. They're a mid-market team spending to mid-league payroll sizes. San Diego loosened their purse strings. The Twins are operating the same way they have for decades when it comes to payroll size. The pure total of the payroll is an awful way to judge spending. If they jump into the top 10 in payroll size they'll have loosened the strings. This FO has just chosen to spend it differently by giving out bigger deals than previous regimes were willing to do. I acknowledged that the odds are better that they'd be worse than Falvey and Levine. I don't care. You do. And that's totally fine. I don't think this FO can deliver on the "sustainable winner" idea. Others, including you it seems, do. That's why we have TD. To come and share our differing opinions. They've had 7 years. They've improved the org. They haven't been a disaster. But I think they've peaked. And their peak isn't high enough for me. So, as of now, I'd move on in an attempt to find someone with a higher peak, knowing full well I may find someone with a much lower peak.

Spending more money is an ownership decision, but running the team better is a FO or manager task. I am currently in the "fire them" ranks. But I'm not blindly stating that they're terrible, or of the belief that it's easy to find someone better. They're an average FO and manager. They're in the middle 10 of the 30 teams. I'm just someone who wants more than "average," and is willing to take the risk of worse for the shot at better. To keep with football analogies, I am happier having Kirk Cousins than having Baker Mayfield. But I'd rather take a shot at finding a Mahomes than just stick with Kirk Cousins. I know the odds are better that I find the next Mayfield than the next Mahomes, but I'd still take that risk. And I'd keep taking that risk until I find the next Mahomes. I'd rather be the Cornhuskers than the Hawkeyes. I don't love the college football analogy because there's so many teams, and so many other factors, that the differences between the top and bottom there are WAY bigger than the differences between the top and bottom of MLB teams. But I'd rather keep taking chances at finding the next best thing than stick with having no shot at ever reaching the peak of the mountain. Like I said, it's a tough analogy because it's nearly impossible to turn those programs into Ohio State, Georgia, or Alabama because Iowa and Nebraska are stepping stones to bigger and better things. They're the minor leagues in their own sport. But MLB teams are on much more even footing. You don't often see guys reach the very top of 1 org, succeed, and then get poached by another org. It does happen, but not like in college football. I don't want to be Detroit, KC, CHW, Colorado, Oakland, or Anaheim. But I also don't want to continue being this .500ish team mess either. I want to be the Dodgers, Braves, or Astros. I don't think this FO can get us there. The next guys may not be able to get us to this .500ish mess. So I'd fire them, too. This team winning a wild card series played entirely at home likely won't change my mind. Winning more than that might, but it depends on how they do it. I have concerns over their regular season processes. But if they show a different process in the postseason this year I'd rethink things. If they overuse Vazquez, pinch hit endlessly, and go bonkers with platoons in the postseason I will be less likely to change my mind. If they only throw their 3 or 4 best relievers and never touch the bottom 4 outside of blowouts, and put their best 9 hitters in the lineup everyday and don't try to platoon 7 of them I would have to reassess my opinions. I look forward to the chance to see what they do in the postseason so we can pick this debate up again in November.

I agree that I don't think they'll move on from Gallo until Kirilloff is back, but that's unacceptable to me, and a mark against them. My concern has always been that they are incredibly slow to move off their plan or expected outcomes even when reality doesn't match their expectations. Pagan has to succeed in high leverage situations for an extended period of time before I give them credit for him. Kepler needs to sustain this hot hitting for the rest of the year. And Jeffers is a young player so I don't put him in the same category. Patience is a good attribute, but too much of it is bad. The real attribute you need is knowing when to move on and when to wait. They wait on almost everyone, and it doesn't often work out. The Twins aren't a small market team. They're a mid-market team. They're 17th in the MLB revenue sharing market list. We need to quit letting them tell us they're small market. They aren't. Houston is 15th on that list. I don't care if those rosters have higher payrolls. You get 3 games at home. You should be able to win 2 out of 3 at home if you're a legit playoff team, no matter what your market size is. St Louis is 26th in market size. San Diego 24th. Tampa 19th. I don't accept the "small market" argument at all. Be better at running your team and quit making excuses. There's some self-made limitations to keeping high priced players, but there's also built in boosts for drafting, and they're handed "free" money every year. Build a team your fans want to see, and invest in, and they'll turn out. Invest in your team and the fans will follow.

I agree it's a bit complicated, but you can't trade your best hitter. Buxton is the bigger complication. Julien is atrocious in the field, and I don't have any hope that he ever becomes serviceable as his hands and feet are just so far away from being major league quality. But I'd put Lewis in the OF. Kirilloff in the OF if they refuse to do it with Lewis. If Buxton can play the field some you have the DH spot to put Julien in more frequently while rotating some guys through the IF. Unless they're trading him for an equally good, young, controllable hitter I want nothing to do with trading my best hitter. You find a spot for your best hitter.

Beating up on the bad teams is kind of an expectation for a division winning team so doing well the rest of the way won't impress me much. My biggest question with them has always been their in season adjustments. Carrying severely underperforming vets into August, or all year. Refusing to give young guys a shot until they're forced to. And never really addressing the bullpen. Gallo still being on this team is mind blowing to me. I give them credit for waiting out Kepler's cold streak to reach his current hot streak, but how will they handle his next cold streak with very little time left to bounce back to a hot streak? 1 series win wouldn't impress me a ton as they should be able to win 2 at home against the 3rd wild card team. Making more noise than that could get my attention, though. More so it will be about how they do it. If Kepler is on one of his cold streaks getting to, or in the postseason, do they bench him (assuming there's an option that's hitting well to replace him)? If Pagan is back to blowing lead after lead at the end of the year do they still turn to him in the 7th of a 1 run game in the playoffs to have him blow that lead? Will they adjust and show urgency in the playoffs? Will they start Jeffers behind the plate in every playoff game if he's still clearly the better offensive option or will they stubbornly continue to go every other game with Vazquez? I realize some of those things are more Rocco than FO, but, to me, they're all pretty well tied together. I believe Falvey, Levine, and Rocco's fates are all tied together. But how they go about having success the rest of the way is going to be a bigger part of my opinion than simply winning games.

I would be absolutely shocked if they traded Julien this winter. He's the best hitter on the team right now, and under control for 6 more years.

What does Gallo have to do with any of this? I was having a discussion with another poster about choosing between Laureano and Luplow. I don't care which one of them they choose. Lefties have nothing to do with what I was talking about. I don't care about the very small differences between whatever random waiver claim right handed bat they bring in to be the short side of a platoon outfielder.

Yeah, I was unaware that they dropped the league dependent part of the waiver claim process in the new CBA.

Because of the way human bodies work there's a max to how hard a ball can be hit. With only 21 data points it is far easier to skew the average lower with a couple really low numbers than it is to skew it higher because there's no possibility of a 130 MPH hit. So the percentage of balls hit really hard is more important than the average because the average doesn't have enough data points to tell a real story yet. Stroman has a 20% K rate. Valdez has a 26% K rate. Keuchel hasn't touched 20% since 2017. And it was 0 yesterday. If you're going to go off his 5 IP yesterday you don't get to ignore that 0. The debate is whether or not he can sustain that performance. If he can't K people he can't maintain that performance. He's not suddenly going to bounce back to a 20% K rate after 6 years. Because 2015 was 8 years ago and he hasn't been nearly that effective in 5 years. You're using 5 IP to suggest a 35 year old who hasn't been any good at all in years is going to turn back the clock 5 to 8 years. His sinker was at 30.1 inches of vertical drop last year. It was at 30.5 yesterday. It was 25.9 in 2016. Is he closer to 2022 Keuchel or 2016 Keuchel? I'm not sure where you're getting it being the same as back then when it's 4 inches of difference. Sure, the changeup has more drop, but it lost a significant part of it's run, and was closer in speed to his sinker. Why is his K rate so sure to not be under 14%? It was 13.2 in 2021, and 14.9 in 2022. Why would we think it's so surely going to spike this year? Even if it is 14%, or even 16%, when his exit velo normalizes to the high 80s/low 90s he's not going to be stranding 90% of his runners when he's still allowing 1.5 to 2 runners an inning. Thus his overall performance is not sustainable. Fair enough. If 23 batters was enough to convince you Keuchel is ready to turn the clock back 8 years then we'll just agree to disagree. I hope you're right. It'll be cool to see a 35 year old suddenly start pitching like he's in the prime of his career again. But nothing about his 5 IP, 23 BF start yesterday suggests to me that that's what we're about to see.

Well neither of those guys is a .170 hitter against lefties so I'm not sure what the point is? Over the final 2 months of the season it's such a small sample size of opportunity that I don't really care which one of them they pick. I actually don't think the FO came up with an answer of "no." I think they carried Solano for that situation. They're massive believers in platoon splits and force themselves into really weird spots because of it.

You didn't say XBH, you said XBA so that was my confusion there. By the statcast definition of "barrel," sure, guys weren't "barreling up baseballs." But hitting the ball over 90 MPH is getting the barrel on the ball. And if you're letting 2 guys every inning hit the ball that hard (I didn't even count the 2 other balls that were hit at 88.4 and 88.5 MPH) you're not setting yourself up for sustainable success because a fraction of an inch higher or lower on that barrel and those balls are to the warning track or seats. He gave up an avg exit velo of 88.3 in 2021, and 88.8 in 2022. So seeing over half the balls put in play against him be at, or above, those numbers isn't encouraging at all for his sustained success. I'm confused by your entire stance. You go from "I didn't believe in him and wanted Varland, etc. instead of him" to "his expected data (unless you ignore the expected data I didn't like) and hard hit data were bad, but now I'm a big believer in him because he has an admittedly unsustainable GB% in 5 innings!" All of his expected data points, even from that miniscule 5 IP sample size, are in line with his last 2 years when he was atrocious, but you're trying to sell that we just ignore that because his sample size was so small that a couple extremely low outlier balls in play skewed his exit velo numbers, and he had an unsustainably low launch angle against? Comparing a 5 inning start at the age of 35 to his age 27 season is some awfully questionable analytics work. Oh, and Varland was basically the exact pitcher you're describing being happy if Keuchel becomes. So I'm not sure why those 5 IP made you change your mind on that front. He had a 5.30 ERA in 10 starts while you're suggesting that Keuchel is a clearly better option because you expect a 5.40 ERA (3 earned over 5 IP) over 9 starts.

I guess my overall point is simply that neither of them make any real difference. I'm not interested in playing the "which below average player is going to be 2-5% better than the other below average player" game. Neither of these guys significantly improve the team's chances of winning playoff games so I'm just not interested in which player they shouldn't be relying on that they go with. I don't want either of them on the roster. But, as you said, moot point now.

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up.

Sounds like he's headed to Cleveland.

No thanks. Doesn't bring anything Luplow doesn't. Switching around our "hits against lefties only" cOF bat does nothing for me.

Starts with the league of the releasing team (so AL in this example) and goes from worst record to best. If none of them place a claim it goes to the other league and goes from worst record to best.

No, I don't think those things are sustainable, actually. Unless your argument is that Dallas Keuchel is going to have his 3rd highest ground ball rate of his career, and highest since 2017. He has broken 55% once since then (58.2% in 2019). So, no, I don't think he can sustain that. I'm not sure what you mean by "two XBA-worthy batted balls in five innings." He gave up 9 balls hit over 90 MPH in 5 innings. That's nearly 2 an inning. If you're giving up 2 balls hit over 90 MPH every inning you don't get to then complain about giving up 60 MPH hits. No, an ERA of 5+ is not "about as good as you can ask for" from your #5 starter if you're trying to win a division, and think you're a real playoff contender. Not at all. Not even close. There are 7 qualified pitchers in all of baseball with an ERA over 5. Only 13 with an ERA over 4.5. Even dropping the innings requirement down to 90 gets you to 23 pitchers with an ERA over 4.5. Dylan Bundy didn't even have an ERA over 5 last year, let alone 5.40. We can, and absolutely should, be demanding more than 3 runs over 5 innings from any and every pitcher who ever takes the mound for the Twins.

They are absolutely not useless for prediction. In terms of predicting exactly what their WHIP or ERA is going to be for a full season? Sure. But in predicting likelihood of effective pitching for a super small sample size? They're absolutely useful, especially when used in conjunction with K%, and if you emphasize their BB% in regards to WHIP. We're not talking about team building or big picture/season long stuff here, just whether or not we should expect Dallas Keuchel to be useful for a handful of starts. We don't need to do a deep dive into analytics here. I'm all for analytics, but a guy who hasn't been good at keeping guys off base for multiple years, and 225+ innings, hasn't been good at keeping guys from scoring for multiple years, and 225+ innings, and doesn't strike anyone out is a pretty safe bet to continue to not be good at keeping guys off base, not letting them score, or getting Ks. If Keuchel is absolutely perfect with his command and control he can succeed. I don't need analytics to tell me that the chances of any human performing to that level of expectation for any extended period of time, or from appearance to appearance, is miniscule. We don't need to overthink this. The odds of Keuchel being useful for any real amount of time are incredibly small. Let's hope he can hold on for dear life as long as we need him, though.

Guess I could've read the article where it states that this stuff predated this season and was happening under TLR. So there goes my theory.

Not sure BA is really the way you want to go when suggesting Kepler is good and Buxton is bad. Kepler is a career .233 hitter. And this hot streak where he's hitting .328 since the break? That raised his BA this year to a whopping..... .238.

Interesting. This was Middleton's first year in Chicago. Would be interesting to hear from the guys who'd been there a while (Lynn, Giolito, etc.) who were moved on if this is a drastic change from the TLR years previously. Did the org try to swing the pendulum back the other way and over compensate?