Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,094

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    The argument is pretty easy. You're just giving team ranks on the leftovers from a team that was so bad it got blown up. If you expand the sample size beyond "awful team with an awful offense" he no longer looks like he's been anywhere near good this year. When you compare him to his entire peer group he's been bad. 24% worse than the average major league hitter is not a good hitter. He hasn't been good. He's just been less bad than the awful hitters left around him, some of which have nearly 400 fewer PAs than him and you're comparing counting stats against.
  2. chpettit19
    Every prospect is always "let's hope and see." All of them. All the time. Until they've done it for multiple years in the majors. Their K rate doesn't change that. A lower K rate is preferable to a higher K rate just like a higher BA is preferable to a lower BA and more home runs is preferable to fewer. Being a better hitter in the minors is preferable to being a worse hitter. The point was simply that there are a LOT of the best hitters in baseball who had higher K rates than are suggested are acceptable in the minors and have turned out just fine because judging prospects is far more complex than looking at k rates. If it was that simple no team would ever miss on a prospect. But they all do. Constantly. Developing all around players is preferable to me, as well.
  3. chpettit19
    Yeah, that's not at all what I said. Nobody said k rate doesn't matter at all. What we said was that judging a prospect entirely by their k rate is not a good strategy. Thanks, though.
  4. chpettit19
    Did the Pirates gain anything by keeping Paul Skenes in the minors until May 11th of 2024? What was the "value proposition" of that decision?
  5. chpettit19
    You have to question any "analysis" that only looks at stats, let alone 1 stat. It's good to know that Aaron Judge fella has no chance as a college hitter with a 25.3% k rate in A+ ball. 25% in AA. 28.5 and 23.9% in AAA. Poor guy is doomed. Don't even get me started on Acuna Jr. 31.7% k rate in A+ ball! Just cut him. Only got it down to 24.8 in AAA. Braves don't need him, he'll be awful. There was catcher out of Florida State I was hoping the Twins could get. Silly nickname. Great glove and I thought he may hit a little, but 29.6% k rate in AA and 23.3 in AAA. Cal Raleigh is toast, I'm sure. Obviously, striking out less is better. But the idea that guys have no chance if they're K'ing in the minors is wild. I just named 3 of the best hitters in baseball who all had some pretty significant K rates. There's so much more to evaluating prospects. People get pretty crazy with prospect love around here (including me), and are currently expecting way too much out of the system. That's a pretty constant state of affairs, though. Talk of "log jams" and "redundant prospects" is always wrong. There's no such things because prospects fail too often. But just looking at k rates and saying "these guys are doomed, move on" is crazy talk. Or Aaron Judge is severely over paid.
  6. chpettit19
    Have you looked at the 2021 top 5? Henry Davis certainly isn't worthy of the #1 pick, but Jack Leiter, Jackson Jobe, Marcelo Mayer, and Colton Cowser is not a bad top 5. Dylan Crews is not at all looking like the star people thought he was. The Nats would rather have Cowser, I bet. Skenes is obviously a freak. Langford is looking really good. We'll see what Jenkins and Clark can do, but Mayer is looking like a star in that 21 class and Lawlar has debuted as well. 2022 has Jackson Holliday who reached the majors at 20. Kumar Rocker in an MLB rotation already. Cade Horton is going to pitch in the playoffs this year. I believe you're amongst the fans here who are still excited about that Brooks Lee fella who was a top 5 prospect that year but fella to 8. But I'll also point out the randomness of the draft with Bryce Eldridge going 16th and looking more ready than Jenkins already. Kyle Teel going 14th and already being in the bigs. Hurston Waldrep 24th and dominating the bigs already. Aiden Miller 27th and fans around here having wanted him back for Duran. Brice Matthews 28th and being an important part of what Houston is doing trying to make the playoffs. Already discussed Schanuel going 11th. Or Zach Neto from 2022 having gone 13th and having been the better choice than Lee at 8. Or Cole Young at 21. Or dang, imagine the Twins having taken Jackson Merrill instead of Chase Petty in 2021. Could you imagine if we'd traded him away for Sonny Gray? Heads would have exploded. Of course they should develop and take advantage of draft odds. But it is sometimes an either or proposition. Sometimes they work together. Sometimes developing your young players leads to more losses and better draft odds. Sometimes developing your young players leads to more wins and worse draft odds. Sometimes it's essentially a push. All I'm saying is they shouldn't make 26-man and playing time decisions based on who they think gives them the best chance to lose (and I think you're wrong in that being their motivation or strategy). I think they should make them all based on what is best for the development of players who have a chance to be part of their future (I don't think that's their strategy either). I think they're still trying to win games. Or they're still just terrible at evaluating talent and honestly think Clemens and Gasper may be part of the 2026 team. No other reason for them to be playing.
  7. chpettit19
    You've already decided it isn't smart to bring him up in April or May? So, he could spend the next 4 weeks putting up a 1.200 OPS, handling every type of pitch they throw him, and showing he's got no real problems with AAA pitching. Then go to spring training next year and face a bunch of MLB pitching and show he can handle that, but it's still not smart to call him up until July? All for an extra year of control that they're more likely to trade him before they can take advantage of anyways? Or are we still on the "you have to do your time in AAA to be ready for the majors" thing? The draft is volatile every year. You're arguing the lottery is less volatile than typical, but the draft is still volatile. Sure, you could end up with that, or you could end up with the #7 pick (like the Marlins just did with a 22.5% chance of getting the #1 pick). Or you could end up with the #3 pick and the draft class turns out to be way less talented than expected. Because the draft is volatile. Every. Year. And I disagree the draft is the best way to find stars. Trading for high minors prospects is the best way to find stars. The Twins should be focused on developing the prospects they have in hand. If that strategy mixes well with improving their draft odds, great (it does, they have very little talent at the MLB level so they're going to lose a bunch of games).
  8. chpettit19
    Why would you look at at bats? Legitimate question. Why wouldn't you look at the number of times they stepped to the plate? Who ever said anything was mandated? Are you attempting to prove me wrong by pointing to something the Twins did as proof that it was the right thing to do? An appeal to power by using the Twins as the example of intelligent baseball ops operation and prospect development? What about how they've developed players suggests they have it figured out and what they do is proof that it's clearly the right call? All offense meant by that towards them (not you). The reason they're in this position is because they've completely and utterly failed at developing even a single consistently productive all around position player prospect. Excuse me if their belief that "it was prudent to move him to AAA" isn't impressive to me. They haven't earned the right to have their decisions be unquestioned proof that it's the right decision. I understand how service time works. I also understand that if you call him up after the service time date to try to get that extra year and he wins rookie of the year (like Paul Skenes) you don't get that extra draft pick or the extra year of control. That would be less than ideal, no? See, the Pirates didn't call Skenes up until 5/11/2024 to make his debut. Should've gotten an extra year of control out of that, right? Except he was good. Like really, really good. So, he won rookie of the year. And that meant he got a full year of service time anyways and they didn't get that extra year. And they didn't get the extra pick because he wasn't up in time. And he'll win the Cy Young this year and they still won't get the extra pick. See, not so clear cut when you have a potential star. The 2027 lockout should have an effect on their desire to keep a player down just to manipulate service time. Their development should be their only concern when you may lose an entire year of baseball. Sorry, I was going off just my list, which only had 2 Angels on it. If you're doing total Angels you can add Christian Moore who had fewer than 100 AAA PAs before he debuted. Yes, so they're devoid of major league talent. Which you listed as a reason to call up prospects quickly. And I hope they aren't playing for a better 2026 draft pick. The lottery is far too volatile and the draft is far too much of a crap shoot for that. Developing your prospects you have in hand should be a far bigger concern than trying to lose games for draft pick placement.
  9. chpettit19
    To be fair, they did add 1 pitcher last year, but then he left (Burnes). But, yeah, the Basallo extension (I assume that's what's lead to this discussion) would be far more like extending Keaschall than anyone listed here.
  10. chpettit19
    Correa didn't crater. He had one of the best years of his career while healthy. Including September when he came back injured. Buxton didn't crater. He had the second highest OPS+ of his career while playing 100 games for only the 2nd time in his career. The offense fell apart without them because it was untalented. Talent has been the problem. Nobody can coach bad hitters to be good hitters. Larnach had the best season of his career, by far. Wallner was one of the best hitters in the game for half the season. Santana had the best season, by far, he's had since 2019. Like you should look at his stats for the last 6 years and see the outlier that last year was. It's unreal. Do the same thing for Larnach. And Buxton and Correa. Like actually go look at the numbers for the players for last year compared to their careers. This lineup has lacked talent for a long time. Popkins got career years out of many of them. Castro was his best in his 2 years with Popkins. They collapsed but putting it on Popkins is scapegoating probably the best thing this team had going for them in terms of coaching from an outside perspective.
  11. chpettit19
    Jenkins will be 21 next year. Let's not act like Neto being 22 is some crazy difference. Your argument everywhere else is that it's about "minor league at bats," but now it's age? Neto had fewer than 200 minor league at bats before his debut. But he was 22 and had a whopping 16 plate appearances in AAA. That's your argument? Again, Jenkins will be 21 before next season. So, that's the same as Schanuel who has, to this day, a staggering 97 plate appearances in minor league baseball. Not AAA. Not even AA (only 76 there). But the minor leagues as a whole. 97 PAs. Chourio's first "year" in the minors was when he was 17 and was the Dominican summer league. Let's not pretend that's some wildly competitive minor league significantly higher than the showcase circuit Walker played at the same age. Then he played 3 years of minor league ball in the states. That's half a season more than Walker. If the Twins are playing service time games with the incredibly high likelihood of a 2027 lockout, they're even bigger fools than many already think. Jenkins has been in the Twins system for as long as Merrill was in the Padres before he debuted. Walker Jenkins has 752 plate appearances in the minors. He'll be over 800 by the end of the season. Just like Jackson Merrill. The Angels account for 2 of the cases (and the Twins have a major league system devoid of talent, despite you not wanting to admit it. There's a reason they continue to get their butts kicked by bad teams, they are a bad team lacking talent). The article is about Jenkins on the opening day roster. He'll still well below 100 AAA PAs. Him making the opening day roster would be him essentially skipping AAA. The other poster didn't name 6-7 players, they named 4. And those 4 weren't all called up in the same year. Nor were they called up on opening day. Nor did they all totally skip AAA.
  12. chpettit19
    Jackson Merrill (totally skipped AAA before he debuted at age 20), Jackson Chourio (24 AAA PAs before he debuted at age 20), Nolan Schanuel (totally skipped AAA and debuted at age 21 the year he was drafted), Zach Neto (16 AAA PAs before he debuted), Michael Harris (completely skipped AAA before debuting at age 21). Those are just off the top of my head. This isn't a different era. These are all guys who've skipped, or essentially skipped, AAA in the last 3 years. Shoot, Jackson Merrill moved to a position he'd never played in his life in spring training at the age of 20 and debuted in the majors at that position on opening day last year. Swanson and Benintendi are absolutely not the last MLB players to skip AAA. It's happening more and more. Jenkins debuting on opening day would not be weird at all. You have a pretty nice lineup going with the 5 guys I listed above. Better than the Twins lineup. And they didn't need AAA.
  13. chpettit19
    But we don't "know nothing." We're not Jon Snow over here. It's been pretty widely reported that they bought somewhere in the 20s percentagewise. Essentially they bought out the debt. We know that Joe Pohlad himself said they were going to use the money to pay off the debt but wouldn't commit to spending any on payroll. And we have decades worth of Pohlad family ownership. Sure, we don't know anything 100% as far as how it'll all turn out, but we can make some pretty educated guesses. You can take that info anyway you want. But I'm going to take the entire history of the Pohlads owning this team and make a pretty educated guess that Joe being willing to openly state they're paying off their debt with the money but not being willing to say they're going to put any of it towards payroll as a Broadway sized, flashing, neon sign that he isn't looking to run a $120 million payroll and that the investors aren't there to get this thing humming in the spending department anytime soon. We know, or have at least had multiple reports on, quite a bit. And I don't see any reason to believe any of the optimistic views on the investor situation.
  14. chpettit19
    I'm not sure why we should believe the investors have any power at all. Many MLB (and other pro sport leagues) teams have minority investors/owners. They aren't driving decisions. Just collecting checks. Patrick Mahomes owns part of the Royals. He's not dictating the direction the Royals take as a franchise. Derek freaking Jeter couldn't influence decisions with the Marlins and he was part of that ownership group when they first bought the team. Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and Jose Altidore are all part owners of the Bills. The GM didn't ask their input on the James Cook extension, they asked Terry Pegula. Minority owners get to brag about "owning" pro sports teams and attend fancy dinners. There's very little reason to believe a 20-whatever% stake bought them actual input on anything. And even less reason to believe they invested without a path to majority ownership because they care about wins and losses and are going to try to influence baseball decisions.
  15. chpettit19
    Does it make you feel any better if Lee was actually 1:8? How about knowing the Pohlads save money by paying Falvey to suck at 2 jobs instead of just 1?
  16. chpettit19
    Yes, that was obviously some extreme exaggeration, but Royce Lewis laying down bunts in games is not what's going to solve this team's problems or fix Royce Lewis. And you absolutely can use negative reinforcement to improve athletic performance. There are fines handed down between players in MLB clubhouses right now.
  17. chpettit19
    He's only at 95 because of 1 good month. He's not the 10th best position player on a good team. He was on a good team and got cut. Kody Clemens was out of this world in May and it's carried him for the season. Like Joey Gallo having a 100 OPS+ in 2023 because of his 1.000 OPS that April. Since the calendar flipped to June Kody Clemens has a .656 OPS. Is that the 10th best position player on a good team? Is that good enough for a utility player? Kody Clemens has not been good since May.
  18. chpettit19
    He isn't "cheap." They're not paying him $4-5 million in arbitration next year to be a no defense, no speed, platoon bat with a .783 OPS against righties. He's not going to be on this team next year. There's no more audition. He's done. If Clemens is still auditioning there's no point in watching this team until maybe 2027. He'll be 30 next year. He had a great month with a couple other hot weeks mixed in. He hasn't "had success." His numbers aren't good. He has a 95 OPS+. What does a below average bat, 30-year-old 1B bring us? Gasper can't catch. He can't. This is nonsense. What are we even talking about? They've watched him catch in AAA. Now every Twins fan who's still tuning in has seen that he darn near has to crow hop to get the ball to second on his throws. If they know what Pereda and Cardenas bring to the table they know even more what Gasper brings. Or should. What are we even talking about here? This is the problem with the Twins. These guys are not good. They're not good enough to be auditioning for anything. Pretending they are is the problem. Pretending Kepler was a top 5 in the lineup bat was the problem. Pretending Larnach was/is a top 5 in the lineup bat was/is the problem. The talent evaluation by the FO is awful. But they're going to get it right on Larnach this time because of the money. This lineup hasn't been good enough for a long time. And it's because they keep thinking/hoping/wishing/something that guys who aren't good enough suddenly will be or actually are good enough. Kepler was a 7-hole hitter on a good team. Larnach is a 7-hole platoon bat on a good team. But the Twins keep going into the year convinced they're set and ready to win because they have these guys in the top 4 or 5 of their lineup. It's why they keep "underperforming." But they aren't bringing Larnach back. They won't pay him 4-5 mil next year. Yes, there's a ton of DFA candidates on the 40-man. But Larnach, Clemens, and Gasper should be right at the top of the list with them.
  19. chpettit19
    I'd much rather have Royce figuring out how to hit than bunt. Royce's development swinging is much more important than his development bunting, no? I'd never ask a single player on the Twins to bunt again this season. Why? The Twins season didn't fail because of their bunting skills; it failed because of their swinging skills. The fact that wins and losses mean nothing is all the more reason to go up there and swing the bat and develop the ability to actually hit the freaking ball and reach base. Tell Royce that hits to left don't count for him anymore. He's out unless he hits it to the right of the shortstop. Screw bunting. Bunting didn't ruin their season. If Wallner Ks more than once in a game he gets fined. If Lee chases more than once per plate appearance he's fined. If Julien watches more than 1 pitch over the heart of the plate he's pulled from the game mid at bat. Pick all their biggest weaknesses and whatever punishment you want to come up with and start fixing those weaknesses. Not bunting. Bunting has never ruined a team's season in the history of baseball. Who cares about Royce Lewis bunting? Royce Lewis hitting .225/.288/.358/.646 ruined the season, not him being a bad bunter.
  20. chpettit19
    His best bet for a 40-man spot next year may be not being added until after the season so the decision is made off only minor league info. If I'm the Twins, I'm doing a "lemon test" on him the rest of the year. I'd do Larnach a solid and DFA him now and see if any playoff team wants him. He's not going to be on this team next year and you're not getting anything for him this offseason. Giving him ABs the rest of the year isn't helping this team moving forward. Let him see if he can snag a bench role with a contender. Then I'd fill his spot with Fedko and give him a 1-month tryout. Carrying him on the 40-man all offseason without even seeing what he looks like against MLB pitching feels like a wasted opportunity during a lost season. I'd also get Gasper out of here and bring up Cardenas or Pereda (preferably Cardenas). I'd DFA Clemens and bring up McCusker. Stop wasting ABs on guys you know aren't part of the future. What are you gaining? You have 40-man/Rule 5 decisions to make. F'ing gain data on the guys you're going to have to make decisions on and quit messing with guys who'll be in their 30s and you know can't fill roles adequately. Chances are very high McCusker has no future and Pereda and Cardenas aren't good enough to be your backup catchers next year but gain MLB data on those hypotheses because you know Gasper and Clemens aren't already. Fedko is likely Prato, Helman, Keirsey, Contreras, etc. 2.0. He very likely isn't good enough to be an MLB player. But this is a lost season. Fitzgerald looks, to me, like he can play a utility/backup role in the bigs and is worth being on a 40-man for the minimum. Keirsey isn't good enough (boy was I wrong on that one) for even that role. Test Fedko. If he looks completely and utterly overwhelmed you can DFA him without much fear that he'll be claimed. If he looks like he has a chance then you've made your decision based on actual MLB data. If you don't care/already plan to lose him, then who cares, I guess.
  21. chpettit19
    Depends what league you're talking about. Some leagues (like the International league the Saints are in) have very good hitting environments. Others (like the Florida State league) have much harder hitting environments. I find using wRC+ and the Fangraphs leader boards to sort through minor league numbers at each level to be pretty helpful in judging how well guys are doing. Fangraphs actually has quite a bit of data on minor league players. But just judging minor leaguers based on what we know to be good MLB numbers wouldn't get you a full picture read on how well guys are doing in the minors.
  22. chpettit19
    You're talking to the "managers don't matter because if you need a manager to tell you to take ground balls or bp when you suck at fielding or hitting you're not the player I want anyways" guy. I get it. Paddack's interview also included some stuff about having his life twisted upside down and him having to get used to things and how hard it was even though he'd been traded before, right? So, maybe it bothered him a little? Maybe that's part of why he was "bashing the Twins?" It is part of the business to get moved some. But another part of the business is that they learn to control what they can control, and they can't control who runs the team in the FO or from the manager's seat. Do they all like the managers on their new teams? All like the GMs and/or POBOs? What about the owners? That's part of the business, too. And if they really hate it, they can find a "normal job" that pays significantly less. I'm not denying that part of this is just part of being a professional baseball player. I'm just pointing out that your claims that they all wanted out are beyond unsubstantiated. You want them to want out of bad situations, so you've projected on to them that they all did/do. They're humans. They build real connections. They build real lives in places. They may know it's possible they'll get traded, but that doesn't mean they want to get traded (even from bad teams) or that it isn't hard to get traded. I think you'd be surprised how many players are against being traded, even from bad teams. Most of the guys with families are not big fans. And I think the quotes coming out of the Twins clubhouse that should concern you are Jeffers talking about the pressure being off so they can just play loose and these quotes from Lopez that the veterans that have been around this entire time just now got together to figure out a way to stop losing 5 games in a row all the time. Those aren't "players demanding more of their organization" or leaders about to set a demanding culture. If pressure is too much for you and it took them trading your friends and not you losing a ton of games for you to start trying to figure this out you aren't the ones to right the ship, in my opinion.
  23. chpettit19
    I do, and that isn't what I was claiming. The other poster suggested it was ridiculous that I could argue both that I'd like to see everyone from the Pohlads down be replaced and that players didn't want to leave. The post you're now replying to is stating that it's not crazy to think players would be happier to have their bosses replaced instead of having to uproot their lives.
  24. chpettit19
    He wasn't extended, his option was picked up. And, yes, that is an important difference. But we don't need to get into all of that now and derail this thread anymore than we already have. The point is that my argument isn't some crazy idea. These are human beings. Your claim hasn't been that they're happy to be gone (well, you're trying to move the goalposts now), it's been that they actively wanted out. My argument has been that you have no proof of that beyond your belief that they should want out because of the state of the organization. I've provided multiple quotes from the players themselves that disprove that idea and provided multiple examples of players who actively chose to stay in worse situations and not go to contending teams. You then chose to mock my argument as "odd." So, I provided a few reasons why players would not have wanted out like you claim. It's actually not a lot of fun, but instead pretty darn stressful, to up and move to a new city you didn't choose on a moment's notice without knowing where you're going to go. And then be expected to perform immediately in a new clubhouse with new teammates, a new manager, and new culture/routine you know nothing about. It's more than reasonable to argue that players didn't want to be traded and that a clean sweep from top to bottom is what's needed and that the cultural struggles Pablo is talking about are actually veiled suggestions at not bringing Rocco back.
  25. chpettit19
    Very odd to argue managers really matter and then suggest players would prefer to have their entire lives uprooted in an instant, move away from their families, lose their on team friendships, and figure out a whole new routine while still performing but now in a whole new place instead of just having their bosses changed. That's TD for ya.
×
×
  • Create New...