chpettit19

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Because their norm isn't good enough. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't have rose colored glasses. I've been saying since the start of the year that there wasn't enough talent on the offense. They're lacking true impact hitters. But the post I replied to suggested that every free agent signing was performing worse than they had in previous years. That isn't true. They aren't. They're performing almost exactly how they always have. There's a difference between not being good enough (what I'm arguing is the case) and performing worse than they had previously (what the other post claimed).

They've improved their talent. They added an MVP candidate to their lineup, and gotten Marte back. Adding 2 studs to your lineup tends to lead to improvement in run scoring.

Do you believe the organization is preaching different things in the minors than the majors? Especially at AAA? They're already being molded to the team's way of doing things. The Saints strike out a ton. Half their roster strikes out at basically 30% or higher clips. They just happen to bring more power with the K's down there. I agree that there's little chance the coaching staff drastically changes their approach this year, but changing coaching staffs midway through the season isn't going to fix the overall problem either. Who are you hiring midseason that can come in and drastically change things?

The Saints have 13 hitters with at least 100 PAs this year. 6 of them have K% of 29.7 or higher. A 7th at 27.9%. If you're hoping to fix the strikeout problem I think the hitting coach in St Paul is not a good place to start. Assuming we're blaming the hitting coach in Minneapolis for the K problems.

While I don't disagree that it's probably time for Popkins to go, that bolded sentence is wrong. Gallo, Farmer, and MAT are hitting at basically their career norms/expectations with a slight dip from last year for Farmer and MAT, but within acceptable variance range. Vazquez has been much worse. Solano has been better than last year, and at about his norm since 2019. Castro is having the best year of his career, outside of 2020.

Kenta was solid again today. So that's fun.

Enlow is the one that comes to mind to me, but I'd be good with letting him settle in at AAA a few more starts and trying one of the other guys first. I'm just ready to take chances on a higher ceiling. This thread is about Pagan, but I'm even talking the team in general. It feels like we've hit the ceiling. For multiple years now. It's time to try some options who's ceiling's we aren't 100% positive on yet.

I don't know enough about the system, but I'd be looking internally just as much, and not waiting on just the waiver wire. I think the biggest disconnect with many fans and the FO is that we define "intriguing" differently than them. My level for what it'd take to be intrigued enough to replace him is very clearly lower than the FO's level.

I certainly understand that thought process, but I'd move on to guys not on the 40-man. We know his ceiling, and it's not good enough. Let's give someone else a chance to see if they can have a higher ceiling. If you're going to go with the theory that bullpen arms can be found year to year by churning through them and finding the guy who has it that year (it's how they found Stewart) then you have to be willing to churn through them. He's churn worthy to me.

Jeren Kendall, Kyle Wright, Brendan McKay, JT Ginn, Carter Stewart, Matthew Libertore, Shea Langeliers, Braden Shewmake, Kody Hoese, Michael Busch, Greg Jones, Jared Shuster, Bobby Miller, Nick Bitsko. Those are the 1st round picks for the Braves, Dodgers, and Rays between 2017 and 2020 (so guys we should expect to be in the majors by now if they're really good). Wright is big time (and was a high pick), Busch is looking nice (wasn't a high pick), and the rest are a mix between "will never see the majors" and "ceiling of a solid regular." No, the draft isn't just throwing darts, but it's pretty close. These are the teams you're claiming are superior in drafting. Is drafting well important? Of course it is. But you're proving my point by admitting it's not just about having high picks, but actually being good at it. Is your argument that the Twins are good at it so being high is extra good? If so then ok, sound theory as far as drafting goes. But, as you point out, there's way more things you have to be good at to have a good team. And if the Twins aren't good at those things they're doomed anyways. None of what you said changes the fact that being bad isn't some automatic ticket to being good. Especially when you're actively trying to be good, and failing at it. At that point, being bad is likely an automatic ticket to being bad for longer. See: Royals, Tigers, Rockies, Pirates (all have been attempting to be good, failing, getting high picks, and continuing to be bad). Getting high picks doesn't suddenly make a team well run, or a FO good. But none of this really has anything to do with the idea that "there's a difference between 'prefer to make the playoffs than to miss the playoffs,' and 'happy just making the playoffs.'" You claimed it's "Minnesotan" to be "happy just making the playoffs." That's not what the other poster said. They said they'd rather make the playoffs than not. You then argued that that's the wrong stance, and they should want to miss the playoffs for better draft positioning, which lead us here. But that's not the point of my original comment. My original comment is that you changed the idea of what the other poster was saying. Just being happy making the playoffs is not the same as preferring to make the playoffs than miss the playoffs. They're fundamentally different ideas. Whether you think their stance is correct or not wasn't the point. The point was you changed what was being said. I also prefer they make the playoffs to not making the playoffs (in part because of what we've discussed since), but that doesn't mean I'm "happy just making the playoffs." Getting swept out of the playoffs doesn't make me happy. But it makes me happier than being the Tigers or Royals or Rockies and not making the playoffs at all. There's a difference between those 2 thoughts. That was my original point.

This is most definitely my biggest fear for him. His body has been telling him "no" pretty frequently for his whole career, and I'm concerned it may be giving him his final "no" in real time. I just really hope that's not the case. He deserves better.

If there was a higher correlation between draft picks positioning, or even first round success rates overall, then I'd buy that. But the draft is such a crap shoot that it doesn't actually work that way in reality. The Dodgers, Braves, Rays, etc. never pick high, but they're always good. The Rockies, Pirates, Royals, etc. always pick high, but they're always bad. So I disagree with your macro argument all together. And I'd argue this team should/could be up-and-coming if they'd make different (better?) decisions on their down-and-going players. If the Twins had made the playoffs last year they'd have less of a need for the #5 pick since they'd be a more talented team. Being less talented isn't an automatic way to become more talented. Being more talented is.

A little surprised not to see Lee headed to the futures game. He's not exactly lighting AA on fire, but would have guessed he'd be someone they targeted. Totally possible they had too many IFers from other squads so he didn't fit (I haven't checked the rosters to see who made it). I really enjoy that game, and look forward to seeing what Festa can do against some big names.

More than fair points. I don't really know what the right answer is. Probably isn't one. No matter what they do there's going to be corners of fandom, and the internet, that light everyone involved on fire. I just hope we get to see the real Buxton again someday.