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
    I'd be doing everything I can to get Keaschall for 8/50-60. That's Ceddane Rafaela and Christian Campbell money. A 6 year deal doesn't buy out any free agent years for Keaschall. The Luis Robert deal has 2 option years on it for 20 mil a piece that would make it an 8 year, $88 million deal to get any of his free agent years (apparently Chicago intends to pay him 20 mil next year, I wouldn't). Ke'Bryan Hayes deal is 8 years, $70 million. With an option for a 9th year at 12 mil. But he signed that at the start of the 2022 season after having played in the majors for half of the 2020 season and the 2021 season. Not the same thing as what extending Keaschall would be. I think 8 years and 50 to 60 million is the contract comp for Keaschall and they should try to get that done if they can. I don't think I'd extend Ober. They already control him into his 30s, and at his size he carries extra risk. I'd look to get him right and trade him.
  2. chpettit19
    A lot of it is minor league pitchers and catchers are both not very good at controlling the running game. Minor league stolen base numbers should be taken very lightly. Julien had a 34 steal season, for example. I don't think any of us look at him as a guy we'd expect to steal 30 bags in the bigs. The Twins have more athleticism in the minors (by far) than the majors, but they aren't loaded with Chandler Simpson type players. If you have halfway decent speed and just take off like crazy you can steal a bunch of bags down there.
  3. chpettit19
    I don't know what your point is. @jmlease1 pointed out well that Sano's numbers did translate. And to respond to your claim that his "'eye' never made it to the majors", I'll just point out that he had a career 11.6% walk rate. MLB average is roughly 8%. His "eye" absolutely "made it to the majors," fans just didn't like that he got fooled by pitches just like every other hitter in baseball history. He didn't make it to the Hall of Fame, but Miguel Sano was a very good major league hitter. But, even if he didn't meet expectations, or if he hadn't been a good hitter, or completely failed, I still don't get your point. Prospects fail? Is that your point? Of course they do. What does that have to do with Gabriel Gonzalez and the post you quoted? Are you suggesting we shouldn't call him up this year because Miguel Sano didn't meet expectations? I mean, if your argument is that the odds are against Gonzalez, or any prospect, then I agree. That is true. You should always take the under on a prospect because the odds are always that they'll fail because the vast majority of them do. But that doesn't mean we should just never call them up. I've never claimed GG is going to be a star. In fact, quite the opposite. I've been one of the more "realistic" posters about him. He has limited defensive abilities (at this point), no speed, limited power, but big time bat to ball skills. That's a difficult profile to build a career around. The odds are definitely against him. But that doesn't mean the best option for his development can't be calling him up in September to get his first cup of coffee in the bigs. I'm very confused by your post and how it relates to what I'd said in my post that you quoted.
  4. chpettit19
    This is not how it works. Go check out Garrett Crochet and his career. The short version is he was a 1 inning reliever, got hurt, came back as a 1 inning reliever and was then put straight into the rotation last year and was immediately an ace who was traded for a massive haul and given a huge contract and is about to win the Cy Young. Because how you described pitching development isn't how it actually works. People around here wanted Griffin Jax put into the rotation this year, and there's a very real possibility Tampa does that next year with him. Jordan Hicks and Reynaldo Lopez recently switched from being 1 inning relievers straight into the rotation with success. The Twins are about to face Seth Lugo tonight, guess how many starts he made from 2019 through 2022 out of the 185 games he pitched in? 7. He threw 228 innings in 185 games. That's barely over 1 inning per appearance. San Diego turned him directly into a starter in 2023 where he had a 3.57 ERA in 146.1 innings (only 1.2 innings shy of his previous 3 years combined) and he then threw over 200 innings for KC last year in a league leading 33 starts that gave him a 2nd place finish in the Cy Young award race. He has a 3.06 ERA this year. He started 38 games his first 7 seasons and has started 80 in his last 2 plus. Piggys do just fine when they're released from the pen.
  5. chpettit19
    Jackson Merrill and Jackson Chourio last year. Michael Harris II. Dansby Swanson. Andrew Benintendi. Nolan Schanuel. Off the top of my head. Varying degrees of success. But station to station. Level by level prospect development is not the only way to do it.
  6. chpettit19
    Yes, he'll need to be protected this offseason.
  7. chpettit19
    The point of the 2.000 OPS question was to point out the lack of usefulness of the .558 OPS number. You used it as an argument to show he wasn't ready and would "get his butt kicked in MLB." I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was countering your argument with an OPS on the other side of the spectrum to show that his current OPS should have no bearing on anything as it's proof of nothing. The benefit is that if that's the level he's ready for that's the level he should be at. What's the argument for keeping him in AAA? He started in A+ ball so he shouldn't go further than AAA? Who cares where he started? What does that have to do with his current abilities? I'm legitimately asking. My argument for calling GG up absolutely isn't "screw Roden, Gasper, Larnach, Outman, etc I wanna move on to 2026 now!" It is that an argument can be made that calling him up to get him MLB experience in a lost season IS what's best for his development. I wouldn't call him up now necessarily, my argument has been to call him up in September. My argument is against the idea that his current AAA OPS means anything at all. My argument is against the idea that him starting the season in A+ should have any bearing on his callup at all. My argument is against the idea that his age should matter at all. None of that should matter. What is best for his long-term development? A very reasonable argument can be made that getting him MLB experience this season to allow him to have an offseason to make adjustments to what he learns and come back as best prepared to challenge for an opening day spot next year is what's best for his development. This default that everybody needs to go level by level and hit some magic number of ABs or OPS or whatever is nonsense. Plenty of other teams completely ignore that. The Twins seem to have convinced people that that's the only way it can be done, though.
  8. chpettit19
    That's a 5 game sample. I don't think it's the end of the world that he isn't called up, and don't expect him to be called up at all this year, but if he had a 2.000 OPS after 5 games would you be calling for him to be called up because he solved AAA? I don't think pointing to a .558 OPS after 5 games is proof that he'd be overwhelmed by major league pitching. Luke Keaschall never tore AAA apart either. .727 OPS when he first got called up. .693 OPS during his rehab. Career .710 OPS in that hitter's league and I don't see anyone suggesting he should be sent back down. Malpractice is an incredibly strong word to use because of a 5 game sample size. Did you watch those 5 games? Or are you basing the idea that he'd get his butt kicked in MLB off of his 5 game OPS of .558? If he homers today and his OPS skyrockets beyond anything Keachall ever did should we call him up? Again, I'm not saying it's the end of the world that he isn't in the majors, and I don't expect him to see the majors this year. But the certainty with which you're saying he'd "get his butt kicked in MLB" and calling it malpractice to call him up right now based on a 5 game OPS is pretty wild. There's plenty of 21-year-olds who've skipped AAA altogether and succeeded in MLB. Many even had worse AA numbers than Gonzalez.
  9. chpettit19
    I like this general idea for this year. I'd like to get some of the young guys experience this year depending on their specific situations. It sounds like they have some specific work they want to do with Bradley on his splitter. That's probably best done in AAA. If they don't have specific work like that with Abel, I'd get him up after another start or 2 and start getting him more MLB experience. Raya I could go either way on. As for the big picture, moving forward, using this kind of idea in 2026 and beyond, I think it's far more complicated than some people think it is. I do wish they'd be more successful in using some guys for more than 1 inning but managing a bullpen with "long relief" gets far more complicated as those guys are unavailable and then when they have a blowup game and don't cover their allotted innings things get really ugly. The more spots you have reserved for guys who throw 3+ innings, the more guys you have to have who can do it. And those guys are harder to develop and have sitting and waiting in AAA to be switched in and out. It's not as easy as it sounds to have a guy who can come in a pitch 3 or 4 shutdown innings in a close game every 4 days.
  10. chpettit19
    Why would implementing this for the last 2 months of the season make it difficult to adapt pitchers to "the traditional starter role?" If you go with that first option and have 8 guys getting 4 or 5 innings an appearance for the rest of the season, that is 8 guys getting essentially the modern-day starter role. The 3 inning one would be further off the mark but giving all these guys 4 or 5 innings and appearance for the last 2 months wouldn't have a significant impact on their ability to be a starter next year at all. I mean, it wouldn't have any impact at all in terms of being a starter verse a reliever. None. You're talking about taking 5 to 10 innings off their season total. The first option Seth presents wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on their ability to be a starter next year. I don't understand the "you make it too hard to adapt pitchers that turn out to be excellent into the traditional starter role" argument at all. Many teams have debuted starter prospects as 1 inning relievers and transitioned them instantly back to starters the next year.
  11. chpettit19
    I'm confused by a lot of the responses here. Isn't Seth just suggesting this for the rest of the season? That's very different than implementing this as your go forward plan for a pitching staff in 2026 and beyond. Isn't Seth just trying to get exposure for the young arms at the major league level so the Twins can get them experience and gain information on them while giving them all as many innings as possible but also giving Ryan (and possibly Lopez and Ober) their normal starts?
  12. chpettit19
    Oh, they could market the heck out of Mauer. 1.1 pick. Lived up to expectations immediately. HoF career. Hometown kid. Absolutely. You can market that like crazy. But you can market the heck out of Kirby Puckett, too. As it turns out, people show up for Hall of Famers. But, yes, I agree. Mauer had extra juice being the local kid HoFer. But nobody is going to games for relievers. And the average fan doesn't know where players are born. Especially ones who aren't even marketed by the team. Maybe I'm just not the Twins target market despite being a former season ticket holder and 40 years old (typically expected to have some money to spend on things like sports teams) so I haven't seen any of the vast amounts of "come see local reliever Louie Varland at Target Field!" marketing that was out there. The Twins didn't just trade away some marketing gold mine. Louie Varland was well known around TD, but we're die-hard baseball/Twins nerds for the most part. I'm not head over heels in love with their deadline decisions, but from a cold, hard value perspective they absolutely made a good trade with Varland. It may not turn out if Roden flops and Rojas never clicks, but trading relievers for position players and starting pitching prospects is smart baseball decision making.
  13. chpettit19
    I have never once in my entire life watched a baseball game because of where a single player was born. If you're just talking players, I watch the Twins more for Byron Buxton than I ever watched for Louie Varland. Byron wasn't born anywhere near MN. Pitchers? I watched far more for Joe Ryan, Bailey Ober, or Pablo Lopez starting games. None of them were born in MN, nor did they have any "human MN connection." If you just want to go with the pen, I watched infinitely more in anticipation of seeing Jax strike out the side or Duran throw 100 MPH "splinkers" than Louie Varland. The only "human MN connection" I have to the Twins is that my dad was a Twins fan, so I was taught to be a Twins fan. I have multiple friends who are from MN but are fans of teams from other states because that's where their parents are from so it's the teams they watched and were taught to cheer for. My niece and nephew cheer for some Chicago teams and some MN teams despite being from Milwaukee because my sister is from MN and my brother-in-law is from Chicago. Where the players are from have nothing at all to do with my connection to the MN Twins. Does it make Varland, Wallner, or Mauer types cool stories? Absolutely. But it doesn't make me watch any more than if they'd been born anywhere else on the planet. The Twins weren't exactly selling out Target Field because of their 2 home grown players this year. Because, as it turns out, that isn't actually why people watch the Twins or go to games. I'd bet most of the people who've walked through the Target Field gates this year don't even know the Twins had 2 home state players on the roster for most of the year. Because that isn't why they go to the games.
  14. chpettit19
    That's part of the strategy. It's how Atlanta got Albies and Acuna for crazy cheap. It's why Boston has Campbell and Rafaela locked up for 60 and 50 mil for 8 years a piece right now. It's why Milwaukee has Chourio under control well beyond his arb years for 82 mil. It's a risk. You can be against taking that risk, but don't tell the rest of us to put our heads in the sand because of it. It is a strategy that is used often. Boston just extended Roman Anthony today, too. Jackson Merrill in San Diego, Rodriguez out in Seattle. Teams sign youngsters very early quite often. Teams do this. Because it saves them money. Lots of money. But it comes with risk. So, no, I will not put the extension talks on hold. Chourio was signed before he ever stepped foot on a major league field. As a 20-year-old. It's a good strategy when used correctly.
  15. chpettit19
    Austin Riley and Matt Olson aren't the same thing as what we're talking about with Luke Keaschall. Austin Riley got extended after back to back 6 WAR, 30 HR, top 10 MVP seasons. Matt Olson, as you point out, is a much older player than any of these guys. Acuna, Albies, and Harris are more of what we're talking about and I think Harris is the only one Atlanta has any question at all about. Even with Albies injury struggles the last couple years that have really hurt his overall performance, I think Atlanta would do that deal all over again. He has far out performed that contract. Same with Acuna. Injuries have taken his games played numbers down, but those are 2 of the most team friendly deals in recent memory when it comes to WAR per dollar, if you believe in that kind of thing. Michael Harris II is making them nervous now, I'll give you that. If he continues on with his level of performance from this year, that's going to be a bad deal. But if he gets back to what he was last year, that deal is just fine. Not a massive win, but not a problem at all. I wouldn't say they're regretting it yet, though. 1 bad year shouldn't have them giving up on him. Their 3 super early contracts that are comparable to what extending Keaschall right now would be are 2 for 3 with Harris still up in the air. In terms of their situation right now, sure, it's not great if Riley doesn't bounce back, but in terms of the results of the extensions similar to what extending Keaschall would be the results are actually quite positive. There's always risk. But there's risk in not extending, too. I think Keaschall is different than Miranda, Lewis, and Julien. Miranda and Julien are/were 1 tool players. Bat only guys who brought no speed or defense to the plate and relied entirely on their bats to carry them. Not the kind of long-term bets you want to make with extensions. Lewis had the obvious injury concerns. Star upside but was all small sample sizes and serious injuries. Again, not the same kind of bet as Keaschall. I agree many fans had those conversations, but I think those 3 were very different guys. If you can extend Keaschall for 8 and between 50 and 60 mil I think it's a no brainer. That's Christian Campbell, Cedanne Rafaela money. Depending how you structure it, there shouldn't be any years where that's killing any budget if he completely flops and it's giving him guaranteed money. If you choose not to (the very likely choice they make) there's risk he blows up and you lose him in a max 6 years or have to pay him considerably more money. There's risk in every decision. Extending and not extending. The challenge is getting most of your decisions right.
  16. chpettit19
    I'm all for locking up young talent, but 8/100 for Keaschall is significantly high. Jackson Chourio got 8/82. Christian Campbell got 8/60. Ceddane Rafaela 8/50. Roman Anthony is not the right guy to be comparing to. Campbell or Rafaela are the much better comps, in my opinion.
  17. chpettit19
    I had the same take on Martin, so I guess you're supposed to believe me? Like I said, agree to disagree.
  18. chpettit19
    I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Gabriel Gonzalez will be in Omaha, NE next week. He's with the Saints now. But enjoy Kaelen and Walker. They're fun to watch.
  19. chpettit19
    Well, just on Friday you said Austin Martin wasn't going to be on the 2027 roster. Those extra 19 PAs this year really push you over the edge on him? Or why do you have him locked into getting DFA'd next year? Because he'll still be pre-arb come 2027. Why have you quit on him already? I'm not going to go through your entire history to see exactly what words you used, but you spent all offseason telling anyone who would listen that Austin Martin wasn't a major leaguer and had no chance to improve his fielding, correct? If you want to play semantics and act like that's significantly different than my stance on Roden, cool, have at it. You don't think it's possible a new front office will DFA non-major leaguers they didn't trade for, I do. Agree to disagree. And, no, that isn't me saying Roden is absolutely not a major leaguer, but if he falls on his face the rest of this year and into next year then it's entirely possible a new FO will come to that conclusion.
  20. chpettit19
    Zero chance? You would've DFA'd Martin last year/this year and Roden is putting up essentially the same bWAR with significantly worse offensive numbers at the same age. I didn't guarantee he's DFA'd nor have I given up on him, but suggesting there's "zero chance" he's DFA'd is just as crazy as you think giving up on him would be. It's absolutely a possibility if he has a repeat performance and there's a new front office here who didn't bring him here.
  21. chpettit19
    He has a 119 OPS+. .812 OPS. There isn't a front office in baseball that would DFA him.
  22. chpettit19
    If it's a new FO I could see Outman and Roden being possible DFA/non-tenders, but I don't see any way possible this FO would even consider that. You're essentially suggesting the Twins traded Brock Stewart and Louie Varland for Kendry Rojas at that point. They aren't cutting those guys 2 months after trading for them. Larnach is definitely on the non-tender/trade block. I don't see any chance Keirsey makes it through the winter on the 40-man. Unless they actually give McCusker a chance in the majors over the next 2 months or shift him to 1B, I'd be shocked if he makes it through. Mendez will be interesting to track. I expect Pereda to make it through the offseason on the roster. Martin likely playing for his Twins career the rest of the season. May only have to show signs of life, but can't have a bunch more games like last night. Buxton, Rodriguez, Wallner, Outman, Roden locked in if this FO still in charge. The rest probably fighting for their 40-man lives.
  23. chpettit19
    I'd be shocked if he was. Why trade for him at all? They weren't saving money. He's league minimum. They have to believe in him to some extent and can't just non-tender him without giving him some run. I think he has the 4th OF spot in 2026 locked up already. I think he could hit .000 for the rest of the AAA season this year and be the 4th OF next year. Assuming this FO is still in charge. If they're all fired it changes everything.
  24. chpettit19
    I'd be very surprised to see any of these 8 shifted to the pen before 2027. Travis Adams, Pierson Ohl, Corey Lewis, Andrew Morris, Darren Bowen. Those are the types of guys I expect to see getting shifted to 1 inning roles next year to see if they can build some back end relievers out of them.
  25. chpettit19
    Luckily for the Twins, the Red Sox fixed Jorge Alcala (or so I've been told repeatedly around here) and he is now available to be brought back. Step 1 of the pen rebuild is just waiting for them to claim! 2026 is back in play, folks! Stop the tear down! We're back!
×
×
  • Create New...