chpettit19

I'm in the "I'll believe it when I see it" crowd. The Twins have 2 lefties who, assuming health, we all know will make the roster. That's Larnach and Wallner. Julien is often named as a 3rd lefty, but I think that's far from a sure thing (although I saw some video of him swinging yesterday and he does look to have flattened that swing out a little). But there's no other lefty even really mentioned as possible for the opening day roster. You can platoon 3 lefties with no problem. Can really platoon 2 lefties. I don't see how those statements from Rocco are a good thing for Wallner. Castro in right. Martin in the OF. Just because Rocco mentioned LF being bigger at Target Field doesn't mean he's going to put the lefties out there and sit righties when they face a lefty starter. They're going to play everyone. They always do. But those comments don't make me think "oh, he said left so obviously Wallner and Larnach are playing right against lefties." What those statements make me think is that Larnach is going to DH and Bader will get real playing time in left against righties. Castro at 2B and Miranda and France fighting it out at 1B. Bader was on Hot Stove on MLB Network last week and when they asked him about signing with the Twins he mentioned that a big part of the decision was playing time. "The biggest thing is I want to play." He also talks about how in order to keep his career going and get paid he needs the opportunity to play. I think these statements are about far more than platooning in LF. I think Bader is the starting LFer more often than not.

I hope he's a 120 OPS+ player again. I wanted them to go after him last year as a potential bounce back. But he didn't bounce back. Maybe it was the injury. The Twins signing him to a non-guaranteed deal suggests they don't believe as much as Rocco sounds like he does. But part of that is just that you always try to sign a guy for as cheap as possible. So, really, it's the rest of the league that doesn't believe. I don't know what France is going to do. I hope he does great. I don't expect him to, but it's a possibility. Miranda can still get lots of DH PAs, assuming Bader truly is just the Buxton backup and platoon corner guy and doesn't push Larnach to the DH spot. Injuries will happen and free up some other PAs. I don't like the offseason moves (shocking news, I know), but Spring Training is upon us and it's time to shift to optimism mode! I think there's talent on this team and they'll fight for the division with a win total in the mid-80s. But I still don't think they're much of a postseason threat. They've signed who they've signed and traded for who they've traded for. Maybe they swing a move or 2 during ST. But I'm now cheering for them all to be their best selves and give us a fun season to follow. Here's to hoping France puts up an .800 OPS

I don't think you need to establish a closer and have them only throwing in the 9th. But you do need to know when, where, and how your players succeed. Duran has significantly better stats in the 9th than the 8th and 7th, although the 7th are good numbers but in a super small sample (12.1 innings). It's been true every year of his career, albeit in very small samples each year. I don't have access to Duran himself and can't talk to him about what his thoughts and feelings are on the 8th vs 9th so I can't make as strong of decisions as Rocco and Maki, but, based on the numbers, I'd put him in a more strict 9th inning role and let Jax be the fireman as he seems to do quite well in that role. Ideally you just have enough arms in your pen that you can count on that you can lock guys into more defined inning roles because the difference between your best and your 4th best isn't significant, but the Twins need a few more guys to prove themselves before that's the case, in my opinion. If you can get to the point where you trust 5 or 6 guys in high leverage situations your pen decisions start coming down to who is on the most rest and you stop worrying so much about needing to use your top 1 or 2 guys in certain situations. As for Duran or Jax being mad at how they're used and clearly going to leave because of it, that's not based on anything. If they were that upset, they'd demand a trade. Why would they wait until they're free agents if they think the Twins are holding them back? Buxton stayed even though people were convinced he hated the Twins. Sonny Gray has had nothing but good things to say about his time here even though fans were convinced he absolutely hated every second of it because the Twins were holding him back. Players are more empowered now than ever. If they hated it so much, they'd force their way out with 1 post on social media or comment in the media. The more likely situation is they'll leave because the Twins won't want to invest in them in their 30s.

The Twins are paying Vazquez, Paddack, Castro, Bader, Coulombe, and France about 33 mil. That's not "well short" of anyone but Bregman. Like last year when they paid Vazquez, Farmer, Santana, Paddack, DeSclafani, and Margot 32.25 mil. Or the year before when they paid Vazquez, Farmer, MAT, Pagan, Paddack (to rehab) and Gallo 32.85 million. Now people will argue about each of these guys individually and can make very reasonable arguments about each and every one. And their failure to develop is the bigger problem. But my belief is that part of their struggles in developing is that they don't let young guys take their lumps and learn because they keep having 6 or so veterans on the team who don't raise the bar and they won't move on from no matter how they play. And I'd argue you could get reasonably close to the production of that collection of "talent" pretty easily with in house guys. Or you should be able to, at least. You can get a defense only catcher for 3-6 mil. So, even if you go on the high end of that you have 27 mil to spend each of the last 3 years while still having your defense only catcher. Take another 3 mil for 4 league min deals and you have 24 million each of the last 3 years. That means you could've given out a 3 year deal 3 years ago and still be sitting here with that same real difference maker today. I understand there's far more to it than this very simple breakdown, but I don't agree that the numbers don't add up. And I understand that this strategy comes with far more risk of the bottom falling out. But you're never going to win the world series by stacking up 6 guys making 4 to 12 mil a year who don't provide any real ceiling. In my opinion.

Welcome to Twins Daily! I won't claim to be an expert on all things streaming, but I've streamed MLB.tv for years for both major league and minor league games and they've all been through the MLB app on my Roku (as far as TV goes). Online you can get to MLB.tv through MLB's website which also gives you access to MLB Network.

I'm not sure how we'd have any way at all to determine how good he is at this particular part of his job. But to each their own.

I have some bad (well, I'd argue good) news for you...Rocco has this kind of info and so much more. The teams have everything we do and so much more you wouldn't even believe. They have their own teams designing different metrics and hire outside agencies (Sports Info Solutions, Inside Edge, etc.) to track certain things for them. They can track these kinds of things in real time. Rocco (and every smart MLB team) has been using pitcher data to make decisions for years. It's part of why the Twins have had such a healthy rotation for so many years. They track release points (arm angle and extension) as part of the decision making process for when to pull pitchers as it's a clear sign the pitcher is getting tired when their release points start changing enough. If you're into this kind of stuff, I'd definitely suggest playing around on Baseball Savant's page for bat tracking. You can sort by pitcher handedness, batter handedness, count, pitch type, all kinds of things. It's fascinating stuff. At least I find it fascinating.

It's the manager (and coaches) job to know what each player wants and needs to perform. Not every player gets the same info. Correa loves this stuff and wants all the data he can get. How good each coach/manager is at disseminating the information is the question. But it's an individualized thing. If Buxton only wants to see X, Y, and Z but Correa wants A through Z then Buxton gets X, Y, Z and Correa gets A through Z. It's only a curse if the manager is bad at their job.

Except you're watching a team that performs the way you're worried that "AAA team" would perform. I meant it was a cheater ball for all offenses. But we can add that season in, too, if you want. Sky rockets the team to an average of 83 wins. You're so afraid of young players that instead you're rooting for a strategy that has resulted in a team that, on average, is 2 games above .500. And has finished below .500 in 3 of 7 seasons. All those vets you love were rookies and young players, you know that, right? It's part of the process of developing young talent. Whether you like it or not. The players you despise are the key to every team (expect maybe the Dodgers now). You're getting the results you want to avoid yet you argue they're doing what's right. Take that fact however you want, I guess.

Thats a 1 year deal just like Correa's was. Yep, was 10 mil short. Was long on Alonso, though. And long on multiple other impact players if they were willing to go more than 1 year. The point is the same, they can get impact players if they stop paying multiple non-needle movers each and every year. They invest 25+ million in non-difference makers every year. And they end up being slightly below to slightly above average every year. Then everyone is disappointed. But, sure, let's keep rolling with all the non-impact moves that keep making no impact. It's been thrilling so far! The Twins have averaged 83 wins a year in non-2020 seasons with this strategy. That includes a 101 win season. Its 80.5 wins without that season. Why anyone would want this to continue is beyond me. But to each their own. Let's keep watching a strategy designed to just make sure you aren't much worse than average keep us right around average. In an awful division. With 3 playoff game wins in 7 (8 if you include 2020) seasons. I want an title. Or at least a legit shot at one. Just not being bad doesn't do it for me.

As opposed to the 85-78-101-73-78-87-82 we've seen out of them the last 7 non-2020 seasons? The super-ball driven bomba squad is the only thing keeping them from being exactly what you laid out. That 70s "semi-continuous rebuilding" team averaged 80 wins (79.8 to be exact). The non-cheater ball Twins have averaged 81 (80.5 to be exact). 0.7 win difference. What point is it you're trying to prove with that 0.7 win difference?

Those high dollar teams don't need to worry so much about where every dollar goes. They don't have to take the high variance route because they can spend so much. Their floor is a secondary thought because they're already setting it higher because of their ceiling raisers. I've said in other threads that I'm not arguing there isn't logic in what they're doing. Reasonable arguments can certainly be made for every move they've made. But they also topped out at 87 wins in 2023. In a division where no other team won more than 78 games. I know MAT is remembered fondly by many for that season, but I'm not so impressed with him being a complete black hole in the lineup. He played good defense, but they should be able to get the equivalent of good defense and a black hole in the lineup out of a collection of pre-arb guys. Combined that trio made about 14 mil in 2023. Add in rehabbing Paddack at 2.5 and Joey Gallo at 11 and you're at star level money. This year they have 33 mil in 1 year vet deals I think could be shed and spent on a star. The Twins (and every team) need to develop to win. But, I think, part of developing is letting them play the minor roles and learn over long stretches of time. France is a true low risk guy because I don't think they'd hold him all year. But it also cost them Helman, Henriquez, or Headrick to bring him in for just a ST look at maybe raising the floor. I understand the "raise the floor" idea. I don't think it's outlandish. But I don't think it wins you a title as a mid-market team. So I'd prefer extra risk chasing ceiling.

The Twins won 82 games last year. You've spent all offseason saying they're going to be below .500 this year. You've admitted these signings don't make them good. Me saying I'll risk 79 wins is not a rebuild. In fact, it's better than you've spent months saying they'll do. Especially not the way I've described my strategy multiple times to you. A rebuild would include trading away the known talented players. My strategy is to add another talented player instead of the collection of average players they have collected instead and let the kids learn in the smaller roles. And, as we keep saying over and over and over this isn't a one year thing. They do this every year which has made it a multi-year middle of the road team because they've made it so there's always a need for the next 4-10 mil 1 year vet. Which is why we don't like the strategy.

"Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next." Stop deleting all the parts of my posts you don't like and read the context and answers I've already provided.

I don't believe these moves made the Twins meaningfully better. And I don't care about any marginal improvement. Marginal improvement doesn't get them any closer to a world series and that's what I want. They need to develop the marginal guys and quit paying millions for them. Part of developing them is letting them work through struggles in the majors. Over long periods of time sometimes. I know that means they may lose more games during those stretches, but I'm ok with that. You don't have to be. But a number of us are. Going from 83 to 84 wins with a bunch of marginal vets every year isn't what I want. I'll take 79 wins for a year for an increased shot at 90 the next. I'm not asking for hundreds of millions. That isn't realistic. I'm asking for better strategies with the 140-145 they have. I don't believe these veteran signings improve the Twins team in the pursuit of a championship. And the pursuit of a championship is what I care about. You're welcome to disagree with any or all of that. But every argument we've made has been reasonable and defended well.

I'm not hating on any player on any team. I am hating on team/FO strategy that continues to bring in players that don't raise the ceiling on the team in the name of making sure the floor doesn't fall away. We want the front office to take chances on guys who can raise the ceiling instead of stockpiling guys who just "won't be terrible." We're just going round and round at this point. I explained to you what I mean by "floor setting" players in another thread. I'm not going to do it again. You want to make it all about Bader while we continue to tell you it's about the overall strategy. I think we should all be upset that the standards in the Twins' front office are so much lower than those in the Mets'. We want the team to upgrade on their potentially average but not likely more than average players, not just add more potentially average but not likely more than average players. You like Bader. Nobody is telling you not to. I think we've all acknowledged that he's likely going to be an overall average player. We want more. We want the Twins to raise the bar like Steve Cohen has done. Again, you're proving our point.

That team didn't think he was good enough. That team actively trying to win the world series said "you're not good enough to even be our backup" based on firsthand knowledge of the player and I'm supposed to be excited about that? I think the Twins would've continued the every other game catcher situation. If Jeffers was so clearly the number 1 why wouldn't they have played him more down the stretch while they were in the middle of tanking? We don't need to go back to 2023 to see what they'd do when the chips were down in 2024 and the season was on the line. We watched it in real time. The Twins played 28 games in September with their season on the line. Ryan Jeffers caught 14 of those games. I'm pretty sure you can figure out the math there, but I'll do it for you anyways, Christian Vazquez caught the exact same number of 14 games while the season crumbled before their eyes. They got into must win games and they continued to split the catching duties 50/50. 2023 doesn't hint towards anything. We watched what they'd do when the chips were down and they were playing must win games. They kept going 50/50.

If Siri is starting that means Taylor is the 4th OFer there. The same Taylor that beat out Bader and took his job last year. You're making our point for us as the Mets actively traded for a guy who isn't very good because they thought Bader wasn't even good enough to be their 2nd CFer because Taylor had already beaten him out. Come on now, Jeffers caught 4 more outs than Vazquez last year. What more do you want to see before you say Vazquez is clearly the #2? 2 entire innings of separation?!

Soto, Miller, Petty, Sabato, Wallner, Rooker, Leach were their other picks in this late 20s through 30s area of the draft. Soto is too early to tell but is getting top 100 buzz. Miller looks like a bust. Petty is likely to debut in Cinci at some point this year and is top 100 on 2 lists. Sabato was a complete and utter bust. Wallner is a potential star. Rooker already is a star. Leach was a miss. I think that's an awfully impressive track record for this area of the draft. If they get 2 stars and 2 other top 100 prospects out of 7 picks in this segment of the draft I think we should be more than happy. Unfortunately, 2 of those guys are realizing their potential with other teams (but Gray and DeBarge for Petty is a solid trade).

🤷‍♂️

Zoll said on Inside Twins about a month ago that they were going to keep him as a SP but then reports started coming out that they're going to put him in the pen more or less as long as they get through spring with a healthy rotation. So kind of mixed messages.

It'll be an interesting situation to follow. The reports that came out after the Rule 5 were that the Twins tried to trade for him before the draft and couldn't come to an agreement, so they just took him in the draft. I'd certainly think they'd try again but wonder what the cost will/would be.

I wasn't thinking about trades, but that's a good point. And I don't think many of us considered those guys "low risk, low reward." The FO has taken some swings, and I appreciate that, but it feels like they did half the job and now have been taking fewer and fewer real swings. The payroll certainly plays a part in that, but my argument has been that the 33ish mil spent on a handful of "low risk, low reward" vets could be better spent on a bigger swing and pre-arb guys. I categorize Vazquez as "high risk, low reward." I think that was pretty much the feeling around most of the industry when that contract was announced because it was reported for a while before he signed that he didn't want to come here, and after he signed it was pretty universally accepted that he came here because they were the only team to offer him a 3rd year and were by far the biggest contract. If they signed him for about 5 a year like the rest of the glove only guys get he'd be more of the "low risk, low reward" signing. Instead he was the worst type of contract (like Gallo) of "high risk, low reward." There's logic in their strategy. One can make a solid enough argument for most every player they've brought in (including Gallo and Margot). I don't think anyone is saying there's no logic in anything they do or there's no good reason at all for any of these individual moves, some of us just prefer the higher variance methods that come with the increased chance of being great. I always say I'd prefer a team that can be anywhere from 75 to 95 wins over the team that's in the 80 to 85 win range. Not everyone agrees, and that's why we all come on here and share our thoughts.

I like the added athleticism and bat to ball skills. Kind of a shorter version of Neto or Wilson from the last couple years in my mind. Maybe more Wilson than Neto as Neto has added some real pop, but they're those athletic, scrappy, small college guys who just know how to put the bat on the ball. I like it.

It means players who aren't likely to OPS+ 60 but also aren't likely to OPS+ 110+. They're guys who's likely outcome are slightly below average to league average. They make it so you don't have a White Sox season because you're not risking completely inept play but instead are getting yourself just slightly worse than average. But you're also not giving yourself a realistic shot at a 95 win season and the ability to make real noise in the playoffs because you're limiting the ceiling of your team by adding numerous guys who nobody would bet will break out with a 120 OPS+. They're players the FO hopes will narrow their variance by raising the lower end of the likely possible outcomes but also lowering the upper end of the likely possible outcomes. And outside of the Correa, Donaldson, and Cruz signings have they brought in anyone who wasn't a "low risk low reward" vet? We describe nearly all of them that way because it's what nearly all of them are.