chpettit19

We traded a prospect for Odo and an MLB ready prospect for Maeda. And that's just the 2 most obvious answers. Wade for Anderson was a prospect for a major leaguer. They've also made minor in season trades of prospects for major leaguers. Luis Gil and Huascar Ynoa are brought up on this site weekly if not daily. So the idea that they're not willing to trade prospects for major league players is false. And, yes, major league players have proven themselves. The major league player being discussed here has proven he can't pitch a full major league season. He's literally never done it. Now he's going to be coming off TJ surgery and you seem to be suggesting that the assumption should be that for the first time in his entire career 2023 will be the year he finally pitches an entire season. A "true ace" pitches more than 100 innings in a season. So your thoughts confuse me.

I seem to remember a trade with them for a pitcher a few years back, too. Something like Jake Odorizzi for Jermaine Palacios. If I'm remembering correctly Mr. Palacios is back in the Twins system now. I think we could call that a win for the Twins ?‍♂️ If it's not clear I'm being sarcastic about not remembering the details of the trade. The Rays are great at what they do, but they are certainly not "winning" 100% of their trades. They win enough and develop better than just about anyone, but, I agree, the current Twins FO has "won" their trades with the Rays.

No idea what the record is. Depends on how well the young guys perform. If they come up and pitch like Ober and Ryan did last year they'd be quite competitive. If they come up and pitch like Barnes and Jax they'd be quite bad.

What do you expect out of Glasnow in 2023? Since 2018 he's thrown 111.2, 63, 57.1, and 88 total innings per season. Next year he will throw 0 innings. What kind of workload do you think he'll be ready for in 2023 and do you think he hits the ground running or will have to spend time knocking the rust off?

Way too early to give up on a kid with 1 year of professional experience. Not predicting he's Mark McGwire in 2 years, but let's not write him off after 1 year either. My bigger take away from these comments is people's takes on MLB draft strategy. I don't know of a single team who drafts "for need" in the MLB draft. It's basically universally "best player available" with some lean towards organizational depth charts when the evaluations are close enough. What team doesn't need pitching and SSs? You won't find a single ML organization that says they have enough pitching or SSs in their system. Not one. By this logic the first round of the MLB draft should just be teams picking the top rated SS or pitcher on their board. The Twins approach is to go after "difference making bats" in the first round if they feel someone available could be one (per Thad Levine). They believe it's easier to get pitchers and improve their velo, spin rates, command, etc. than it is to take a hitter and improve his hand eye coordination, pitch recognition, or sprint speed. So they go after offensive/athletic tools at the top of the draft. They take homerun swings in the attempt to find superstar offensive players as you find far less of them later in the draft than you do pitchers. I like the approach. And it's the approach most teams take (within reason when it comes to their evals of players). The draft is an absolute crapshoot. I mean people are angry the Twins took Lewis over Greene, but if you'd asked them at this time last year they'd have been praising the pick with Greene coming off Tommy John and Lewis coming off an AFL MVP award (with the covid year in there for both). There's a reason teams don't care about top 100 lists or make spur of the moment decisions on prospects. Development is far from a linear process. Draft for tools and stick out the ups and downs of a baseball career. That's all teams can do.

No thanks. Would I love an arm like that in the Twins rotation? Absolutely. But trading top prospects for 100 innings of Glasnow in 2 years doesn't sound like a win in any way to me. It's similar to the Buxton situation in that if it weren't for injuries Glasnow would never be in the Twins price range, but this FO is already super against long-term deals for pitchers. I don't see any chance they'd extend Glasnow with his injury risk. Add in that this FO is not likely to just let him rip in 2023 after coming off a lost season after 2 shortened seasons and I don't see any reason to think the Twins would be acquiring any more than 100 innings from him. If he spends 25 innings getting his feet under him again then you're looking at 75 innings of nasty Glasnow. Having someone like him would be a move to make for a playoff run. Coming off 63, 57.1, 88, and 0 inning pitched seasons do we really think Glasnow is going to throw an ace's workload in the regular season then have elite production still in the tank for a playoff run? I'm not betting any real future assets on that.

I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd put my money on them bringing back Pineda and signing maybe one more Bundy/Pineda type. I don't see them making any trades for the types of arms people are asking for. Maybe instead of the 2nd Bundy/Pineda signing they do a Maeda or Odo type move. But I don't see them spending big money or making a big trade before the season. And I'm good with that. Prospects, prospects, and more prospects is the answer to the rotation question from here on out. They'll have enough "veteran" guys to start the year and delay service time on all their arms, but we'll get a look at half a dozen or more starting pitcher prospects this year. Some will end up as bullpen guys (I still think Duran has BP written all over him), but I think they'll go "creative" this year. We'll see a whole bunch of young guys getting piggy back starts with each guy expected to get through the order 1+ times before turning it over to the pen. As guys separate themselves they'll get more leash and get more innings, but they're all going to be limited on innings outside of maybe Ober or Ryan. I don't think we can frame this conversation in a 5 man rotation sort of way. Don't think we'll be seeing that this year. So to answer your questions: 1. 5 man rotation wise it's a disaster. Bigger picture it's a gigantic question mark. 2. Creative use of youngsters who show they're ready for the majors. 3. Cycle through everyone who shows they're ready without having to DFA any young guys before they get a real shot to establish themselves. 4. I think they'll get guys through, but whether or not that makes them competitive is a complete unknown.

I'm biased because the lasting image I have of Nathan is that bomb to right center A Rod hit off him in the bottom of the 9th in the ALDS. Nathan was among the elite relievers of that time, but never the best. Santana was the best pitcher in baseball for years. In my eyes whenever you're the best in the game for more than a season you get a boost. This particular round of HOF voting pretty much ruined the process for me. Even if these 2 never made The Hall, they deserved far better than 1 and done. That's an embarrassment to the writers. Mixed with Selig being in The Hall and the hypocritical move of then not putting the players he allowed to juice in just destroyed any credibility the writers had left for me. I think it's time we start a new HOF and make it the baseball museum that actually tells the story of baseball.

Honest question, do you see other teams doing this? I most certainly am not following the pressers of other orgs closely, but I don't get the feeling that openly speaking about what went wrong is something any org in any sport really does. It's all rumors and leaks that I see. If I'm a FA and decide to sign with MN instead of Mil I wouldn't want Mil FO telling their fans what happened beyond "we tried but couldn't sign him." Not their place to speak about my decision making process. If I choose to tell why I chose MN that's on me. And if I'm a FA who knows Mil is likely to put my business out there for everyone to see I'm thinking twice before I even engage them in contract talks.

I'd say there's a lot of context missing in that description of their strategy. They sign those types of pitchers because they're not really interested in long term deals for pitchers. The real plan is to develop pitching. And that is the best plan for any team. They had their timeline altered with covid then an injury filled season last year. The plan has never been to build a sustainable winner by continually signing cheap vets to short contracts. It was an interim strategy while executing the bigger one in the minors. Also missing that they brought in Odo and Maeda during offseasons. But their tab has come due and it's time to see the real plan play out. The next season or 2 will tell us if they were good at executing their plan. But developing pitching by acquiring minor leaguers through the draft and trades is the plan for every smart team. Just a matter of who can execute. And how long you can hang onto the ones you do develop once they start getting expensive.

The minors have a 60-day as well. They'll have to use an option year on him, but they'll put him on the 60-day after that and he'll accrue no service time this year while also not counting towards the 40-man until he comes off the 60-day. The only time someone in the minors isn't able to be taken off the 40-man while on the 60-day list is if they're on an optional assignment. Enlow won't be on an optional assignment because he has option years left so the Twins can option him to the minors, wait 20 days, put him on the 60-day, and take him off the 40-man. At least that's my understanding of the rules.

The interesting third part that I don't know is always lumped into 1 side or the other is the technology and data we get on the actual physical movements of players, the ball, etc. Spin rates, exit velo, sprint speed. I see those as a marrying of the 2 sides to some degree. They're quantifying what the scouts are trying to do in deciding if a pitch has good break or a guy hits the ball hard or hits the ball with loft or is fast, but also putting context to the analytics of the stats that a player produces. Maybe people see that as analytics, and if that's the case I'd say analytics are much more important. I see it as a 3rd side to help tie the other 2 together. How players get to their stats is important. Hitting .320 in AAA looks nice, but doesn't mean you're a MLer depending how you go there. Hitting .320 with top exit velos, launch angles, and contact rates means you have a much better chance of surviving the next step. The scouts also provide context in how the player is reaching their numbers. The data companies are gathering now with defensive positioning on every ball in play for every level of the minors and college adds even more context.

The 40-man is in an interesting spot. I count 22 pitchers and 16 hitters right now. I believe the rule is still that you can carry no more than 13 pitchers so the Twins need at least 13 hitters on the roster. So right now they'd only have 3 40-man hitters starting in the minors. That feels awfully unbalanced. Especially because I see 4 guys likely to be in AAA on opening day (Miranda, Lewis, Larnach, Celestino). If I'm Garza, Jax, or Strotman I'm certainly not feeling great about my spot on the 40-man yet. Enlow and Maeda go on the 60-day asap so that frees 2 more spots. So they really have 4 open spots. I'd guess 1 is being held for a SS (which then pushes the 4 I listed before to St Paul). The other three really going to pitchers to where they have 25 pitchers and 17 hitters? Feels like they've painted themselves into a tough 40-man spot and are going to be losing some guys this year. And I definitely wouldn't be trading a hitter for a pitcher at this point and pushing those numbers to 16 hitters and 26 pitchers. A tough start injuries wise to the season leads them to losing a bunch of guys to waivers/trades. The 40-man situation isn't great and has me even further into the "youth movement" group. Can't risk losing controllable young talent for a long shot at contention in '22.

The challenge is figuring out what "caught the plate" means. We've all heard and said that a million times. But what does it mean that a pitch "caught the plate?" Caught the front corner? Caught the back corner before it angles to the point? Is the zone 3D or 2D? Is it just where it hits the front corner or can a breaking ball still "catch the corner" at the right angle if it's off the plate at the front of the plate? A big complaint was breaking balls that hit the dirt being called strikes because they hit the front of the plate in the zone, but were sharp enough they continued down into the dirt before reaching the catcher. In my opinion they should be called a strike. It's where it crosses the plate, not where the catcher catches it. I hate "pitch framing." There should be no such thing as pitch framing. The catcher shouldn't "steal strikes" on the corners. Home plate is 17 inches wide. The ump doesn't get to decide it's 18, 19, 16, 15, 12, 25, whatever from game to game or pitch to pitch. It is 17 inches. Figure out if the zone is 2D or 3D and the technology is pretty good already. Fine tune it a bit and let's go.

I mean the players get the ultimate credit. Do you disagree that Ryan was not someone who believed in the analytics of pitch mix or the technology used in pitch development now? I'm not suggesting he wouldn't have been convinced to get on board eventually, but those were the first things Falvey did when he arrived. He updated the systems the Twins used to develop players and added technology. Rogers and Duffey are 2 players that saw serious spikes in performance after using ideas and coaching that Falvey has as staples of his system. You can go on baseball savant and see when Rogers started using a slider (2018) and that he has done nothing but increase the usage. You can see that it's his most dominant pitch. We know sliders are a big part of what Falvey believes in, along with using your best pitch more frequently. Rogers deserves credit for working on it and being able to use it the way he does, but if we're comparing FOs I think it's more than reasonable to give Falvey credit over Ryan for that advancement from Rogers. Its hard to imagine Terry Ryan was suddenly going to start investing in trackman systems and having his pitchers work on pitch tunneling and changing their pitch mix. It's impossible to believe he had the knowledge to get it implemented as quickly as Falvey did. I think it's quite reasonable to give Falvey credit for such things. The Rogers example is absolutely cherry picked. But there's a hard line where his stats improved drastically and clear evidence to what lead to the improvement. That isn't the case with most players. Duffey is the same way. I'd think you could do the same thing the opposite direction and find players with a hard line of stat drop and find clear evidence as to why. Blame should then be handed out. I think we should all put negative points on Ryan and Falvey for Buxton being mismanaged as terribly as he was until he just said "F it, I'm doing this myself." But Buxton's power is the opposite of what Ryan and his people wanted from him. They wanted him to "use his speed" and not worry about lifting the ball so much. Falvey is the opposite. Again, Falvey gets negative points with Buxton for me, but at least he didn't have him trying to pound the ball into the ground and beat out infield singles. Terry Ryan was a great GM in his first go with the Twins. The game passed him by in his second stint. Falvey has done a great job modernizing the organization that Ryan simply couldn't have done effectively. Not Ryan's fault. And I'm not trying to bash him unnecessarily. I think he was one of the best in the game his first stint. But he couldn't keep up in his second go and Falvey deserves credit for what he's done. Now it's time to see if he's put in a system that can develop young arms. I have faith.

I'd say it should go both ways. I don't have anyone off the top of my head who has taken drastic steps back since Falvey took over. A large part of that is that the guys who were here under Ryan and are still here now are the big name guys. I'm sure there's some examples of people taking steps back, but I don't have any off the top of my head. I have concrete data of changes made by Rogers and Duffey, for example, of changes that they made under Falvey that can very easily be attributed to his approach and the system he built. Doesn't mean Ryan and his coaches wouldn't have helped them, too, but we also shouldn't assume Ryan would've done something completely different than he'd ever done. Pitch mix and teaching the slider are the core principles of Falvey's system. Those things changed the pitchers Rogers and Duffey were. He needs to get some credit for that (certainly not 100%). So I agree they should be held accountable for players taking a step back that can be reasonably attributed to his approach to the game and systems he setup. Failure is a weird middle ground, though. I pretty much would call that a wash. Can't give anyone credit or dock them points for players that failed under both regimes.

I think I'd wait and see how things go this year. They have a ton of arms hitting the 40-man roster and some of them will have to move to the pen. There's enough question about his ability to keep being dominant and his injury that I wouldn't extend him before the year. Unless, of course, he's willing to sign for something crazy low, but being a player rep makes me think that won't happen as the union would be really mad with an elite reliever not going after elite money. His being lefty is certainly a point in his favor as they have very few young lefty arms, but I still wait. Take our chances with him on the open market after the year. I don't want to get stuck with 10+ mil a year on the books for a guy who never recovers from this finger thing. If he's back and shredding lineups I approach him midseason if he's willing to talk then or see what happens on the market after the year.

I'm not a fan of trading for relievers during the offseason. Midseason is a different story as you can see who's having a good year and who isn't. Relievers are so volatile that giving up any sort of prospect capital for them during the offseason doesn't make much sense to me (see Wade for Anderson). And with a number of relievers on the open market as good or better than the trio listed here I'd much rather the Twins sign some guys if they're intent on bringing in outside arms for the pen still. They're running awfully low on 40-man spots, too (and we still need a SS). I'm guessing we'll see a whole bunch of young arms in 2022 as somebody would be getting fired if they move more young guys for vets and the young guys outperform on their new teams. Time to see what's been developed.

Depth is absolutely supposed to be impressive when the discussion is whether or not to trade a proven major league player. Which is the discussion here. If the depth isn't impressive and can't reasonably be expected to replace that player you have no depth in regards to the discussion at hand. The Twins don't have Arraez replacing depth. That's the point. The list you provided shows how little depth the Twins have at any position and this idea that they're so deep offensively that they should be trading offense for pitching isn't based in reality. That's the discussion. They have no proven depth at any position. Best argument is Jeffers and Garver, but Jeffers is far from proven and Garver is far from a sure thing to stay healthy. Plus you need 2 catchers. Now there's always risks to be taken and that changes the discussion a little, but not drastically in this case. Martin looks like Arraez at the plate with much more athleticism. I have very high hopes for him, but he's not even close to proven. And I'd prefer him in LF over the IF (I'm not a "you need to hit with power to play here" person so I'm sure many will disagree with that stance). At some point some chances need to be taken on young guys replacing established major leaguers. It's usually a financial situation that leads to that. The Twins aren't in that spot with Arraez. The question here is really about putting your faith in the young pitchers to perform or the young hitters. Either you need a young hitter to replace Arraez or you need a young pitcher to fill a rotation spot. With the Twins having drastically more near MLB ready arms than bats I'd prefer they see what they have in the arms.

I'm not against going year to year with Arraez. I don't know that pre/mid-arbitration extensions that don't really go into much FA years are things I'd be concerned about trading shortly after signing. Arraez is "under contract" for another 3 years with the Twins whether they sign him to anything or not due to the arbitration process. I don't see that there's a great difference in him being in arb or him having a 4 year deal. Unless he's taking what's perceived to be a very team friendly deal. But also don't think its crazy to not want to trade someone shortly after any extension. That's a more than fair stance. Overall, I don't see any reason to trade Arraez right now. The Twins have plenty of names for 2B, but only 1 of them is currently better than Arraez and only Polanco and Arraez are proven ML hitters. I'm not a fan of trading established guys, especially with 3 years of control left, because you have prospects you hope can be as good as them. Until Miranda, et al prove they can hit ML pitching the Twins don't have depth at 2B. They have Polanco and Arraez. With injuries and rest days that combination is a minimum need, not surplus. I'm ok trading Arraez, or anyone, for the right return. The idea that we should be shopping Arraez because we have "plenty of middle infielders" doesn't make any sense to me.

Plenty of middle infielders? Who? At this point we have an All Star 2B and no starting SS. We have Gordon who can play 2B and SS in a pinch. We have Arraez who can play 2B, but not SS. That covers the extent of ML talent for the middle infield. 2 starting caliber 2Bs and a utility guy who can play 2B isn't what I'd consider "plenty" of middle infielders.

Does anybody know what his knee problems actually are? That'd be a vital piece of information to me if I'm running the Twins. Does he have a chronic, degenerative situation or has he just been pushing through an injury that could be completely healed and he'd be good moving forward with no more risk than the average player? I feel like I heard it was a degenerative thing, but can't remember for sure. If it's a chronic, degenerative thing I have my medical people tell me how many good years he likely has and extend him if they're relatively sure he can play out that next 4 or 5 years without a real plummet. Then am open to trades if that makes sense down the road. Arraez won't demand a huge salary. There's very little relative risk to extending him beyond his knee problems. Even if you're not buying out many FA years you can extend him for 4 or 5 years even and just lock in expenses. It's helpful to know where your payroll is without worrying about arbitration. Then you can move him later if it makes sense. The talk of depth and him not having a spot on the field/in the lineup is premature to me. If all the guys we're hoping on reach their potential then move guys at that point. Don't be afraid of extending a proven ML player because you might have some prospects ready in the future. Hoard all the talent you can and move guys once you have too many proven guys for ABs. Especially the way the Twins rotate guys. It's not a "starting 9 and 4 bench guys" situation in MN anymore. It's more like a starting 5 and 8 rotation guys now.

Such a tough topic. And the real answer is there's no way to know. If we're just talking about the 2019 and 2020 Twins records I'd probably go 65/35 or 70/30 Falvey over Ryan. No player is "just too talented" or "always going to be this good." Well maybe the Trout, Junior, Mays elite of the elite guys, but not the guys we're talking about here. Sano, Buxton, Polanco, Rogers, Duffey weren't "always going to be this good" no matter what. That isn't how things work. The new FO changed the pitch selection on Duffey to get him to become an elite reliever. The new FO hired coaches that taught Rogers his slider that became his best pitch to make him an elite reliever. You can't just assume they would've succeeded under Ryan when the things that made them as good as they were in 19 and 20 were taught by people brought in under Falvey with Falvey's systems and approach. May was terrible under Ryan. Got a year under Falvey's system and became a big time reliever. But Ryan was the one who brought this core in so he certainly needs some of the credit. And I do think that core would have still been good, just not sure how good. Buxton basically fixed himself so can't give credit to anyone but the previous regimes there since they brought him in. Maybe Polanco, Sano, and Kepler would have been just as good in 19 and 20 with Ryan in charge, maybe they wouldn't. I give them a 50/50 split cuz there's just no saying. I'll go 60/40 for Ryan if you want to give him extra credit for bringing them in. Odo. Maeda. Pineda. Cruz. JD. Wisler. Cron. Schoop. Marwin. Castro. Cave (19 version). Jeffers. Hill. Clippard. Thielbar. Romo. Those are the guys off the top of my head that Falvey brought in and played significant roles in helping either the 19 or 20 team substantially. Falvey's regime gets credit for all of that and that gets me to 65-70% in Falvey's favor (if not more). Ryan didn't leave the cupboard completely bare, but Falvey improved some of the pieces left behind and brought in those 16 guys I listed plus others. Plus he modernized the system and development approach, but I'd suggest that is about to pay off as we move forward and wasn't as big in 19 and 20.

There's a lot of names, but that list is not impressive to me. Garver- Can't stay healthy and is on the wrong side of 30 already playing the most demanding position physically. Stud when he's healthy, though. Jeffers- Are we sure he can hit? Nobody can claim he's proved it yet. Rortvedt- Are we sure he can hit above .180 even? Kirilloff- Are we sure he'll suddenly get over his almost yearly wrist injuries? Very likely stud if he can stay healthy. Sano- Is most likely gone after this year. Rooker- We know he can't field, are we sure he can hit? Certainly hasn't proved he can hit. Larnach- Won't kill you in the field like Rooker, but isn't very good. We sure he's the first month Larnach and not the last 3 months Larnach? Polanco- Stud. Arraez- Hits/OB machine we know isn't above average at 3 positions, but isn't embarassing. Gordon- Brings much needed speed and athleticism. Can he hit? Certainly not an everyday guy. Miranda- We sure his 1 year sample is the real deal or the rest of his career when he wasn't even good enough to get picked in the rule 5? I have faith, but there's been better prospects who have failed. Donaldson- Not getting any younger. Will spend more and more time at DH for next 2 years if he doesn't get traded before then. Palacios- Why do we think he's a major leaguer? If that's what anyone thinks he'll be taken in the rule 5 and won't be here anyways. Celestino- Looks like a very good option as future 4th OFer. Cave- Really? Cave's part of the reason we can afford to move Arraez? He's not even on the 40-man and no major league team claimed him. Buxton- Can't stay healthy, but is a stud when he is healthy. Kepler- Big time defender, some time hitter. I don't see the depth here. Arraez is a proven ML hitter. He's 1 of 6 or 7 on your list. That's not even a full starting lineup! I love prospects and have high hopes for many of the young guys we have, but we need to quit acting like Jeffers, Rortvedt, Kirilloff, Rooker, Larnach, Gordon, Miranda, and Celestino are any sort of sure things. Kirilloff looks every part the future star, but wrist injuries are killers for hitters. The rest of them have had almost no major league success at all let alone sustained success. So yes, we have a lot of names. But, no, we don't have great depth.

Teams know him. There's no secrets to a player who's been in the league for 2 years. They have his spray chart, exit velos, and every tendency you can think of plus 20 you can't. And he still gets hits. The OP has his spray chart. I'm confused as to how someone can look at that chart and say good defenses can limit his hits. He literally has hits from line to line. And lots of them. Teams have been playing their outfield in and infield back on him his entire career and he still finds the holes. I won't be upset if they get a good return (people mention one of the young Marlins pitchers as a possible return and I'd be good with that) on a trade for Arraez, but suggesting he's suddenly going to stop hitting because defenses will "get to know him" isn't based on the reality of the situation. The only thing likely to stop Arraez from hitting in the next handful of years is his knees. And that may be reason enough to trade him now, but you don't get figured out and stopped by defensive positioning when you have a spray chart like his.