chpettit19

Buxton gets hurt on offense and our response to that should be to have him only play the offensive side of the game to fix the problem of him getting hurt on offense? Yikes. Also some inaccuracies in this article. Buxton has served as DH, just last week actually. It was a big discussion point on this site as he DHed and Correa sat on the same day. And suggesting he was stretching a single into a double on the play he was hurt is quite a stretch in itself. He was jogging on what should've been a standup 2 base error and that's what caused him to slide.

This is the internet...we're all smart enough! Or so I'm told...

Larnach hitting fastball after fastball the other way right now is very encouraging. He still looks lost against changeups, but he seems to have a solid plan at the plate and has put some very nice swings on the ball lately.

I went bats. I expected a relatively slow start for the bats, but a team avg under .200 going into today? Didn't see that coming. Correa and Polanco both looking pretty bad for much of the early going is far more surprising to me than Bundy and Archer being able to throw together 3 solid starts of 14.1 innings. With the starters only being asked to get about 4 innings worth of outs each game I was relatively hopeful they could get off to a good start. I did not expect the offense to look so inept so often. They've looked terrible far more than they've looked good in the early going I think.

Totally agree there are some arms that could be cut loose, but I'm not seeing any position players I'd be dying to have on the Twins right now. Mark Contreras, Jake Cave, Jermaine Palacios, Curtis Terry, Chance Cisco and Jose Godoy are not guys I'm DFAing anyone for until an injury happens and they need to fill a hole. Now if Martin were in AA hitting .380/.520/.550 I'd be willing to cut loose a Vallimont or Stashak type for sure. But those other position players aren't worth DFAing anyone 2 weeks into the season. Especially with Lewis looking good in his return to action. I'd call him up before any of those other guys and not have to make any 40-man moves.

I'm working so only half watching, did that HR land basically on the wall, but like 15 feet behind Garlick? Like if he went to the right spot he could've just put his glove up and caught it or did I just catch a glimpse of a weird replay?

I didn't say it was new. Ted Williams was shifted against a bunch. But I promise you are the minority if you were using a high number of shifts through grade school, VFW, high school, and legion ball. It having been done before doesn't mean we should keep doing it or that it's not a problem now. I don't know if your 3 ball, 4 strike suggestion is real or not, but that's a drastically greater change to the game than having the fielders play where 99% of kids playing the game today play the entire time. And 3 ball walks wouldn't fix the problem of a lack of action, it'd add to it. Would more runs score? Probably, but would the action and excitement grow? Not at all. It'd be like watching basketball games that turn into free throw contests at the end. The score keeps going up, but there's nothing exciting about watching teams shoot free throw after free throw like there'd be no excitement in watching teams take walk after walk. No problem with you appreciating an out on a hard hit ball. I appreciate it, too. Just not when the out is recorded because the 2B is playing 40 feet in the grass in right or standing directly behind second. The question isn't increasing offense, it's increasing excitement and action. It's not about keeping fans like us around, it's about adding fans. It's about keeping the younger generations engage and tuning in. The shift is part of what hurts the excitement and action (certainly not the only thing), and it's a pretty simple fix that doesn't really change the game since it's actually going back to what the average kid relates to.

Pretty much my exact thoughts. If they're competing it's because the starters are doing well (be it the guys they have now or the young guys that come up throughout the year) and the offense is scoring runs. The most likely moves would be pen arms or depth pieces for the bench so you're not talking giving up any of those big time prospects.

Boston is going to fire Cora mid-game right? They've used 3 pitchers already. What kind of awful manager would do that?! Fire Cora!

And that's totally fair. I certainly wouldn't look at those first 6 games and try to tell you that opinion should have changed. Although even if they were 6-0 I still wouldn't make that argument. Baseball just isn't a sport that lends itself to big statements over small samples. Unless you're just admiring or being angry about a dramatic stat in that small sample (like 0-19 for Sano or that kid in Cleveland getting on base constantly).

6 games has zero to do with team strengths and weaknesses. Is your plan to change your mind about the team every 6 games? If it is then by all means continue to base all opinions on each 6 game stretch. I hope you have some good blood pressure meds because that can't be good for your health. I honestly don't care about your opinions on a healthy Alex Kirilloff. He is a more than reasonable 5 hole hitter on a playoff major league team. But you can feel free to disagree. To each their own. And I didn't say losing just 1 RH reliever was crippling, I said losing your 5 hole hitter and one of your late inning arms could be crippling to a team that is such a borderline competitive team. I didn't say any of that in general baseball terms. I said for this specific team in this specific season losing those 2 specific players for a lengthy amount of time could be crippling. That's because they weren't that deep to start with, yes. It doesn't change the fact that losing them could cripple this team. Would you like to have a deeper conversation about team building and the depth of the 2022 Twins cuz I'm happy to have either of them. But that's not what this thread is about and not what I was saying so this probably isn't the place for that conversation. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. You notice that the people on this site with the strongest opinions right now are the ones who spent the offseason complaining about the FO and saying the team was doomed? That's what trying to draw conclusions from a 6 game span gets you. It gets you people who want to say "see, I told you they sucked, the season is doomed!" 6 games is not enough to draw any conclusions from. Especially coming off a short spring and then having the games played in terrible conditions. This thread is about drawing first impressions about the 2022 Twins. My first impressions are that those 2 injuries could be very bad for the 2022 Twins, but beyond that there simply isn't anything to draw impressions about because the info we have is not enough to draw reasonable conclusions. Unless one just wants to yell about the Twins.

Short spring training followed by going and playing in 30 degrees and rain isn't exactly the best sample of data for drawing conclusions. Feel free to disagree with that, but I'm going to go ahead and wait for some better data before I declare the season lost. The LA Dodgers lost their opening series to the Rockies. Should we expect them to be doomed now? I mean if 6 games is enough to draw real conclusions why isn't 3? Alex Kirilloff has been an elite hitting prospect for years and then came up and did exactly what he was expected to do when he was healthy in the majors. Relying on him was more than reasonable. And, yes, losing your 5 hole hitter for maybe months or the season and 1 of your best late inning relievers for maybe months or the season can be crippling. That's not an outrageous statement about a team walking a tightrope of contention.

Kepler was up the other night with guys on 2nd and 3rd and 2 outs and they went extreme shift on him (maybe just after he had 2 strikes?) and I was begging for him to just lay 1 down anywhere on the left side to score possibly 2 runs on an infield bunt, but certainly score 1 run. But he grounded into the shift instead. End of inning. But I'm on board with banning the shift. It's the missiles up the middle that get caught that actually frustrate me the most so I'm actually coming to terms with the idea of having specific areas infielders can stand. Celestino hit one about 105 off the bat right past the pitcher's head the other day and the 2nd baseman was just standing there for an easy 3rd out. Going back up the middle is how hitters are taught to do things from the second they pick up a bat. As @Brock Beauchamp says, it's a spectator sport. On TV I don't know where the fielders are playing so when the ball comes off the bat and is a scorcher back up the middle (someone hit one right past Kershaw the other day, too that was a groundout but should've been a hit) I am excited for that split second because for the first 30+ years of my life that was a single, but then the camera flips and a guy is standing there for an easy out. Pitchers are getting too good. Throwing too hard with too much movement. Hitters could maybe adjust over time, but it's by no means as easy as some make it sound to "just go the other way" on the ground. Put the infielders back where they "belong" and get back to the game that we all grew up playing. The game looks far too different than the ones kids play on little league fields everywhere. The kids know the ball back up the middle should be a hit, but then they're disappointed that a ball that's a hit at any other level is now an out. Hard to build new, young fans when they don't even know what to be cheering for. Weak grounder the other way? My coach has never taught me to do that so why is my favorite player doing that? And no kid wants to tune in to watch their favorite lefty hitters lay down bunts or hit a liner into short right that's caught by the "second baseman" playing rover in right. I'm fully on board with banning the shift. Put the infielders back where they belong.

First impressions? It's been 6 freaking games in miserable conditions. I haven't made any impressions about anything because it's been 6 freaking games in miserable conditions against a playoff hopeful and the world series favorites. The Alcala and Kirilloff injuries could be crippling, though, if they're long-term things. That's an impression I've made. They need those 2 if they really want to compete for a playoff spot.

Probably have to see how a second week goes before we render much judgement on anything. They played 6 games in just about the worst conditions you can play 6 straight major league baseball games in. Let's go ahead and give them double digit games before we start talking contraction.

I'm not arguing about the payroll. They could have done things differently if they'd been chasing him. But, again, I'm not suggesting they should've had him as a top priority during the offseason. I'm stating right now he is an option and it wouldn't cost 20M this season to bring him in. The FO had no contact with Larnach or Kirilloff (or Rooker) for 99 days. They weren't talking to doctors about players they weren't even talking to. But I'm sure they had all of their medicals before the lockout started. Yes, they spoke with coaches and of course they looked at metrics, and those coaches and metrics told them Trevor Larnach wasn't ready for the major leagues when he was called up last year, took very limited ABs at St Paul after he got sent down and was then injured and the coaches and metrics were unable to provide any other information on him. So they went into the offseason believing Trevor Larnach was unable to hit major league pitching at the time, didn't talk to him for 99 days, saw him in spring training where they assessed he was still unable to hit major league pitching and sent him to AAA where he again got limited ABs before having to be recalled due to injury. Where in there do you think they thought Trevor Larnach was the answer in LF on a contending team? And what does having drafted and developed those players have to do with whether or not they should have been the plan for LF? Rooker made no case to be the everyday LFer so I'm not sure why he would be brought up at all. Kirilloff was ready, but got hurt. That happens. Michael Conforto WAS looking for a deal bigger than Castellanos' before he had a "bad" year, before he was tagged with a QO, before the lockout. before he was injured while training, and before the season started with him remaining unsigned. That 120M deal he turned down was offered to him before last season. He then went on to have a down year. Conforto has no leverage to force a team to sign him to a deal better than 5/100 right now and certainly won't have the leverage if he sits out an entire year. He's not currently going to cost more than that and wouldn't have had he signed after the lockout when he was hurt and coming off a down year with a QO attached to him. It will not cost 20M to sign Conforto for the rest of this year.

Why would they assume Larnach was going to take a step forward? He ended the year very poorly in AAA and then got hurt. They had no contact with him all offseason. They were supposed to blindly assume he was getting better at recognizing major league breaking balls? The Twins aren't a low budget team, they're a mid budget team and 130M is plenty to build a team without having to blindly assume a prospect who just flopped at the majors is going to magically turn it around over the offseason. I have no problem counting on Kirilloff as he showed when he was healthy he could hit major league pitching very well. Yes, it'd likely cost 15-20 a year for Conforto depending on how many years they went. They have Sano and Correa both coming off the books next year and Kepler and Gray the year after. I'm not blaming the FO for not signing him during the offseason as LF rightly wasn't their top priority, but if you can get him on a deal that doesn't pay him much this year since he's coming off an offseason injury and is missing time as we speak then have his salary jump for the next few years they can absolutely afford him and I'll sacrifice a 3rd round pick for a guy with a 124 wRC+ every day of the week. Plus, if the league and PA agree to an international draft by the deadline they don't lose a pick at all.

Why should they have assumed Larnach was going to hit? I'm a Larnach fan, but he was figured out at the big league level last year and if I'm trying to compete (as they stated they are) I'm not assuming he's figured it out yet when he went back down and was bad at AAA then ended the year hurt. AK was coming off wrist surgery and they prefer him at 1B anyways. All that being sad, I'm not even saying they should've signed someone during the offseason. I've never said that (in this thread at least). I am saying today they have the option of signing Michael Conforto and plugging the hole that has clearly been opened up. Big picture hope is Larnach or Martin I'd guess. Lewis is the big picture hope at SS. But I'd much rather sign a guy with a career 124 wRC+ than hope Larnach figures it out. I'm a prospect guy, but they would never be my plan A if I could help it. Prospects take jobs when spots on the major league roster open up from injury or bad performance from veterans. Prospects as plan A means plan B is a worse prospect and plans C through Z are even worse prospects. I don't see how signing Conforto to a 5 year deal messes with the big picture plan of Larnach/Lewis/Martin/other draft pick/signee either. Kepler's run as the everyday RFer is coming to an end. As I already stated Lewis is the SS plan since Correa is most likely 1 and done. Chances are 1 of Martin and Larnach don't make it. And by the time another draft pick is ready Conforto will be getting to the end of his deal. LF wasn't the biggest hole they had this offseason, but it was a hole. And now it is the biggest hole. Fill it with Conforto. No reason not to (other than money).

That shouldn't be the plan right now either. Carrying both Larnach and Celestino in the bigs seems like a worst case scenario. Hopefully they get some answers on the wrist today and if it's a big problem Kirilloff goes on the 60-day and they can call up someone like Garlick and at least 1 of Larnach and Celestino can go to AAA and get the ABs they need.

Realistic to fill most of the time Kirilloff is going to miss and let Larnach get straightened out in AAA for a while? Michael Conforto. But I think Gordon and Celestino are the realistic plan at this point. I'm not saying they shouldn't be the starting LFers based on the current situation, I'm saying they shouldn't be the big picture plan for LF for the Twins moving forward. And I hope Celestino gets to the 2+ WAR player level. Ceiling maybe isn't the right word. Should have said most likely outcome.

I agree. He shouldn't be. And neither should Gordon. But unfortunately that's the situation they seem to have put themselves in.

If he develops into a piece that can bring back a "real starting pitcher" Byron Buxton is the only CFer in the org that'd be better than him. I'm not trading that player if that's what Celestino turns into. Nobody is giving up a "real starting pitcher" for a 4th OFer which is probably what Celestino's ceiling is.

I've never understood the "he's X age, was a Y round draft pick, and he's been in the system Z amount of time so we need to just call him up and see if he's good and if he's not cut him" narrative. That's an awful way to develop prospects or manage a roster. If the Twins FO can't decide which guys in the minors are ready for the bigs or have a big league future without calling them up simply because a certain amount of time has passed they need to be fired. Celestino and Larnach were both called up before they were ready last year because of injuries and it showed. Not sure why you'd want to run that back as the strategy this year. There's 40-man and options reasons why some moves and decisions need to be made at certain times, but until you're forced to there's no reason to do it. "Hey, I haven't finished developing this engine yet, but I've been working on it for Z amount of time so I better put it in my car and see if it runs and if it doesn't just toss it aside as a failed project." Doesn't make sense. Prospect development is not linear. That isn't how it works.

Why is the goal to turn Celestino into a trade chip? Why would the goal not to be to turn him into a player the Twins can use to win major league baseball games?

When Killebrew struck out 142 times in 1962 he lead the league. Ken Hubbs was second at 129. Eddie Bressoud third at 118. Bob Allison (2 Twins in the top 4, oh the horror!) was 4th at 115. Nobody else broke 110 and barely 10 guys struck out even 100 times in 1962. In 2021 when Sano set his personal record with 183 Ks he was 6th in the league. Joey Gallo struck out 213 times to lead the league with Matt Chapman joining him over 200 at 203. Sano hit 30 HRs, Gallo had 38, and Chapman had 27. So I say again, you're complaining about modern day baseball and you not liking the approach doesn't make Sano a bad hitter in the 21st century when by any measure of overall hitting he's an above average hitter. This is a make or break year for his $14M option being picked up, but not for him remaining in the league. Miguel Sano will continue to get jobs in major league baseball as long as he continues to have some of the best batted ball data in the entire league. You don't have to like it. I don't like the 3 true outcome approach. But that's modern baseball. You can complain about that, but when it comes to Sano you have to accept that he's an above average hitter in today's game because he slugs and gets on base. Killebrew was before his time, but when it comes to being strike out prone for his era Killebrew blows Sano out of the water. It isn't even close actually.