chpettit19

That's fair on the OPS. I don't know that we can blame the batting spot on injuries. They've always hit him in the top 5 or 6 his whole career. And he's had to hit their because their offense has never been good enough not to need him there. That's not his fault, but when you're taking up a lineup spot that teams typically look to for offense, and you're a league average hitter in the top 5 or 6 in a lineup, it's pretty easy for people to point at you and say you're not doing enough. Lewis and Polanco are the only 2 guys I see injured who'd jump in front of him, but 1 of them would be replacing Julien so it's not like there's a whole lot of injured guys ahead of him. I'm not sold on Wallner. He's doing better in AAA than I expected, and there's a possibility he's a better hitter than Kepler. There's no real possibility he's a better defender, but this team needs offense, and, in my opinion, should be willing to sacrifice cOF defense for a shot at more offense. The pitching staff leads the league in K rate so they can get away with a little less defense. Kepler wasn't even that good out there before his new found energy burst the last couple weeks. I've often defended Kepler (including coming into this year) as the victim of circumstance meeting too high expectations. He never reached his expectations, and was on teams where he had to be an impact bat which he simply couldn't do. But we know who he is, and we know what this team needs, and it's the same thing next year's team is most likely to need. Offense. It's easier to replace a corner bat than an up the middle bat when looking for offense. That makes Kepler (and Gallo) the easy choices for first places to look. I don't know if the Twins have the answers on hand in the system, but I know Kepler isn't the answer. I like him, and think he's a decent enough player (I'm fine keeping him as the 4th OFer). He just isn't what the Twins need, unless he's magically unlocked a new level in his age 30 season after incredibly consistent performances for 7 of 8 previous seasons. I find that hard to believe.

Noble at 5? No, thanks. Noble at 34? Yes, please. I want nothing to do with high school arms at the top of the draft. Yes, it's possible you hit on a true ace, but it's far more likely you hit on a kid who maxes out as a AA pitcher at the age of 27. I don't expect the Twins to be able to pull any magic to get Noble to 34, unless they're going under slot at 5, and way under slot at 49 probably. If under slot at 5 is Clark, and you can snag Noble at 34 I absolutely am willing to go senior sign at 49, but I'm not risking my guys dropping to 34 and/or 49 to take a high school arm at 5. Get the highest ceiling position player at 5, and don't get cute.

Why would you expect Kepler to hit .244, or have a .344 OBP? 2019 and 2017 are the only seasons he hit .244 (.243 in 2017 technically), and he's never topped .319 in OBP in any season outside of 2019 when he was at .336. He's shown the ability to be better than a .390 slugger (which he currently is), but he's literally never shown the ability to be a .244 BA, or .344 OBP, player for a full season. Why would you expect that? And why are you calling him their 7th best hitter? He hits in the top 5 more often than not. Is he good enough to be a top 5 hitter? And if you're going to use Wallner's MLB K rate in 18 games in 2022, why not use his MLB K rate in 11 games in 2023? It's 16% this year. I certainly don't expect that to be who he is as a hitter, and I don't think he's a star, but give both sides of that data. Wallner may not be a league average hitter, or he may be better than one. We know Kepler isn't better than that. And he plays an offense first position that needs to be better than your 7th best hitter. And I value defense more than almost anyone around here. But not from a RF only, league average (at best) bat.

Spotrac and fangraphs have him at 2 more years after this one. And I'm not saying I'd go out of my way to keep him, and what the return would be is always the key decider. I just think he's a perfect fit for the 26th man role. But maybe things play out that Martin is the better option there next year? I'd actually like both of them (assuming Martin comes back closer to his AFL self than most of last year self) as bench players in 2024 to add a little athleticism to this squad. I just think Castro is a great fit, and he even has an option left if he struggles at some point and you need to send him down.

What's "long-term" to you? Castro has 2 years of arbitration left, and I'd definitely take him as the super utility guy for 2 more years at will likely be exceedingly reasonable prices. Even beyond just his arb years he's not likely to make much so could be here even longer than 2 years. He's in the same age range as their current prospect wave, and I think he fits in very well with them. I'd rather have him for 2 years (assuming we think this is the type of player he is) than whatever low level prospect we'd likely get in return.

His vision is something that I've thought about. It seems crazy that he'd go from really fixing his swing decisions the last 2 years, and seeing great success because of it, to back to his old self and struggling. Very weird.

He's making some terrible swing decisions. The first pick are swing% from 2022. On the left is league overall, the right is Miranda. The second pick is from 2023. You can see that all of his big swing% in 2022 were in the heart of the plate, to up and in. All pitches he can do damage on. In 2023 he's all over the place. Much smaller sample size, but I think it's a good picture of what his struggles have been this year. Too many swings at pitches he can put in play, but not do damage with, which leads to a lot of soft contact, and outs.

I agree the team isn't ready to compete with the big guys in October. I do hope they make it and break "the streak," though, as I think there's value in taking that monkey of the orgs back. I wouldn't move Castro as I think he's a great 26th man on the roster. He has 2 years of arbitration left, and is only 26. I wouldn't trade him. I don't think I'd trade Taylor either. I don't think he brings back any real prospects, and he has worth on this team. And I don't know about Polanco either. I can't imagine he has much value right now, and I don't like the idea of trading him for nothing. I think I'd keep him in hopes that he comes back in the 2nd half and reestablishes his value for a possible offseason trade. Gray is a fascinating situation. I'd definitely be listening to offers, and if someone offers something worthy of the rest of the year of Gray, and a comp pick after round 1, I'd be willing to pull the trigger. But wouldn't move him just to move him. Have to get something real for him. But I loathe the idea of going into 2024 with no idea if Wallner, Larnach, Miranda, Julien, etc. are real pieces. I have no desire to bring in more rental position players with modest ceilings who aren't taking this team anywhere again. Miranda is going to get his shot until Lewis is back, I'd guess. Julien is getting his now. Larnach has had a few. But Wallner needs to get his. He's 25. Kepler is who he is. It's time to see what Wallner can be. Is he Gallo with bad defense, or is there more contact, and BA, in there? Need to find out over a real stretch of playing time before next year. Can't go into 2024 with the same questions.

Ticket sales are up from last year. This team has 12 new players on it from last year right now. If you're counting Wallner as "new" (which have been on all these boards for weeks) then they have 6 other guys who are "new" that you suggest fans wouldn't pay to see. That's 18 guys, but you think making it 19 or 20 guys is going to make fans stop paying even if they win? If Wallner is too new to call up then Jordan Balazovic, Jose De Leon, Brent Headrick, Pablo Lopez, Tyler Mahle, Oliver Ortega, Brock Stewart, Louie Varland, Simeon Woods-Richardson, Christian Vazquez, Kyle Farmer, Joey Gallo, Edouard Julien, Alex Kirilloff, Royce Lewis, Donovan Solano, Willi Castro, and Michael A Taylor should all be cut today. None of those guys have significantly more time with the Twins than Wallner does. Or they didn't at the start of the year. Fans pay to see good teams. Especially good offenses. If your team is full of names people recognize, but never win, fans don't pay. Viewership of the Twins has been trending down for a month plus. They haven't been turning the team over to the young guys, but they have been losing. Why aren't the fans still tuning in if they're still rolling with almost all the position players from opening day? Is it because fans care more about the offense being good than recognizing Kepler's name on a jersey?

When do rookies get a shot then? You want to start next year as a "AAA and one-half team?" None of the guys we're asking to call up are skipping AAA. They've all been in AAA, and are in their mid to upper 20s. We're not talking about a bunch of 21 or 22 year olds. If they're destroying AAA right now, as some of them are, they have confidence. Way more confidence than they'd get from a month of spring training at bats. If these guys aren't ready yet they're never going to be ready. The Twins need to find that out in a season when they can barely break .500 with the starters they started the year with. Fans do not pay to see a terrible offense that can barely score 2 or 3 runs a game, either.

Should the Twins spend as much of the Padres? Why wouldn't we want that? Spending more just opens more doors for building a competitive team. It doesn't automatically make you a great team, but it makes reaching your goal easier. I'd be awfully happy with the Twins spending like the Dodgers. Or Braves. Or Astros. Or Blue Jays. I'd even take the Rangers spending even if I don't think it's as sustainable as the other 4 teams I named. Why would any fan ever not want their team to spend? You don't get bonus points for building a team on a budget. People don't think the Rays FO wouldn't love to double their payroll? Imagine what they could do with 150 mil, let alone 300. More money doesn't make you a better FO, but it gives a good FO more tools to work with. Of course we should want them to spend more.

High school kids have the option to not sign and go to college instead (they're the ones most often targeted for "over slot" bonuses). Juco kids have the choice to return to school as well. And 4-year college juniors have the option to return for their senior year (like Kumar Rocker 2 years ago before being drafted again last year). This also leads to "senior sign" picks in the mid to later rounds as another way to go "under slot" and "save" money. Seniors are the ones without any real leverage so they often sign for cheaper deals. Rumor has it Max Clark is willing to take lower than slot deals at the top of the draft, but that could be a team specific thing. Rumor also has it that Crews doesn't want to go to the Pirates and is throwing out crazy numbers to push himself down the board a bit, and since he's a junior he has the leverage to make that work as he can just not sign and go back to LSU next year. But that's just rumor, and could be totally wrong. I'm not a fan of playing too many games with slot money. I'm a "tier" guy when it comes to prospect rankings and such. I'm no expert so this is just from what I've read, but, to me, there's clearly a "tier 1" of 5 elite guys this year who would've been 1-1 picks the last few years. If you have a chance to pick someone who's typically the best player in the draft at pick 5 I think you have to do it. I hate the idea of them playing bonus pool games. They need stars. Take someone who can be a star, not someone who can be an above average regular in hopes that you can pick an average regular later. Go for the star! The other interesting thing this year is that there's more guys who have "first round talent" than normal. More than 34 of them. How much does that sway leverage to the teams vs the players? If there's 50 guys that would normally be top 30 picks in this year's draft does it make it harder for them to demand big money, or are teams going to play even more slot games to try to pick up multiple first round talents? If the Twins were picking 13th (like they were supposed to), 34th, and 49th I'd be more of an advocate of trying to snag 3 first round talents by playing slot games. But they're picking 5th. Don't play games with this gift from the baseball gods. They're testing your dedication. Show them you're trying to get stars and take one of the top 5!

That last sentiment is what has me the most worried. Drafting to save your job is a terrible way to do things. They need to be looking for a star, and taking on the extra risk that can come with that. The draft is a crap shoot, but going outside the top 5 is a real bold move that would make me sad.

Each team is given a pool of money they're allowed to spend on their draft picks in any given year. That pool is based on the slotted price of each draft pick spot. This year the top 5 picks have values of $9,721,000, $8,998,500, $8,341,700, $7,698,000, and $7,139,700. So the Pirates, Nats, Tigers, Rangers, and Twins have those amounts added to their pools. Pick 34 has a $2,481,400 value, and 49 has a $1,741,500 value. The values continue to decline until pick 314, in round 10, ends with a $164,400 value. The Twins have the 4th highest bonus pool at $14,345,600 this year. That means they can't spend a penny over that amount to sign all their picks. The strategy that comes with that is based on the team's conversations with each prospect. So the Twins are talking to all their top prospects and getting an idea for how much each guy will demand to sign a deal if drafted by the Twins. If Max Clark says he'd demand 8.5 mil, but Teel says he'd take 6.5 the Twins could "save" 2 million by picking Teel that they could then use to sign someone at #34 who'd be looking for closer to 4.5 million than the 2.5ish that they get for that pick slot. Teams use this pre-draft time to negotiate with players in an attempt to drive some of them down the board. So if the Twins really want Langford they could tell him they're willing to pay him 9 mil, and Langford then goes to the Pirates, Nats, Tigers, and Rangers and tells them it'll take at least 9 mil to sign him. If those teams aren't willing to pay that he ends up dropping to the Twins. Typically it's used more to push guys in the 20s down to the 30s. So they draft Teel to save $X which they then promise to Prospect Y who expects to go in the 20s, but he tells teams he needs $Z based on what the Twins are promising him and that can push him down to pick 34 where the Twins go "over slot" to sign him. It's an interesting little twist to the MLB draft. That being said, I hope they don't play any games, and just take the highest ceiling player available. Probably Clark at #5. Who, rumor has it, is likely to be the cheapest of the top 5.

Definitely a bummer to not see Ryan and/or Duran get the nod, but what can we really expect from a team that struggles to stay above .500? Those teams don't generally have a whole bunch of guys making the all star team.

Thanks for the kind words! The sentiment goes both ways, for sure. I actually think our disagreements would be a massive plus for our reign at the top. Just know that when things start going downhill I'm telling everyone all the ideas that didn't work out were yours! 🤣

Take the highest ceiling player. From what I've read that's Clark (as far as who's likely to be available). Public "experts" are wrong all the time, but there doesn't seem to be any wavering on this top 5 being the clear 5 best players in the draft, and all likely #1 overall picks the vast majority of years. Let's get some dynamic, young talent in the system. A 4 tool CFer, who may be a Corbin Carroll clone and become a 5 tool guy, sure sounds like a dynamic, young talent to me. They passed on the real Carroll before. Don't do it a 2nd time.

What's your reasoning for trading Castro? I've seen a few people suggest it, so I'm curious as to why that'd be the desire. To me, he's the perfect 26th man for a roster, and I'd keep him. Curious why people want to move him.

I know he adjusted his swing a little this offseason/spring to account for his wrist, so it may just be that, and not his wrist hurting again, but he's making worse contact this year than in the 2 previous years when we know his wrist was hurting him for large chunks of the time. I'm not convinced the wrist is healthy, or that he fully trusts it. His swings look far less aggressive now, and he's simply not hitting the ball well. Barrell%, average exit velo, max exit velo, and hard hit% all at career lows in pretty similar batted ball amounts. If this is "full strength," Kirilloff isn't the answer, unfortunately.

Maybe? He lost 110 games 2 years ago. I'd rather have the Arizona FO, though, that's for sure. Are the Twins attempting to get more athletic by bringing in Castro and MAT types? Eh, maybe. Because they balance it with Farmer and Solano types. I don't know if Lovullo is any better than Rocco, but I do know Arizona running out a whole bunch of athletes is way better than the Twins.

A lot of this, to me, comes down to what they knew, or should have known, about the health of Buxton, Polanco, and Kirilloff coming into the year. Were they surprised when Buxton and Polanco showed up and couldn't play? If not (and it feels hard to say they shouldn't have known about their best player's health), then I do chalk it up to "the roster," since they should've been prepared better than MAT as an everyday CFer, and late signing Solano paired with no glove Julien at 2B. They definitely shouldn't have been banking on Kirilloff being any sort of everyday player after his surgery. Hope for it, but don't bank on it. And pairing that with a hoped for return to glory for Gallo wasn't really fixing that hole at all. They banked on too many "ifs" turning out in their favor. I think that was a pretty steady drum beat from the folks around TD forums, too. This offense could be good if, if, if, if. They put all their eggs in the Correa plus a bunch of ifs basket, and it's bit them. This may be pretty close to worst case scenario, but it was always a possibility. Especially because some of their ifs were pretty darn long shots (Kepler magically turning into a better hitter, for example). Correa being bad for this long isn't something I think anyone would've reasonably predicted. But the rest aren't total shocks.

There were many of us saying that we had real concerns about this lineup. My problem with it, from the beginning, is that even if the 5 you have * next to were all hitting to their expectations we're still for sure 1, and probably 2, true impact bats away from a true contender's offense. Hot Buxton is an impact hitter, but he's too streaky, and injury prone, to be a true, overall impact bat. Correa is really good for a short stop, and that's valuable, but he's not good enough to be the #1 or #2 bat on a contender. We all hope Kirilloff gets there, but there's no way we should've been banking on it coming into the year with his wrist concerns. Polanco is a lot like Correa in that he's really good, but not a true #1 or #2 bat, and came into the year with injury concerns. Miranda is a lot like Kirilloff in that we have hope for him, but shouldn't have been banking on him being an impact bat in his sophomore season, especially after he slumped to end last year. Those 5 guys are worthy of lineup spots on a contending team if they're hitting to expectations, but they are not good enough for the top 5 of a contender. I'd argue you need 2 guys better than any of them, but there's no doubt you need at least 1. And if your top 5 aren't good enough, the rest of the roster definitely isn't going to save them. Many of us had this team winning 85ish games. That's not a terrible roster, but it's certainly not a great one either. 5 guys worthy of being in a playoff lineup is not a good roster, in my opinion.

Yeah, I'm just curious if the new guy in charge will be any different. Certainly wouldn't bet on it, but he offices out of Target Field so there's an ever so slight sliver of hope that he cares more about the team winning. We'll find out this season/offseason.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see if the new head Pohlad operates any different than the old ones. How quick on the trigger will he be? He's got a mess on his hands early, and it'd be encouraging to see him be decisive in order to fix things.

For sure, but if we're looking for improving the overall problem of high Ks while hunting slugging at the major league level I don't think that promoting someone else who's going to push the same strategy is truly the answer. The Saints also have a number of major leaguers facing AAA pitching. Kind of expected that they'd perform well down there.