Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,226

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    168

 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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    The cost per WAR stuff is kind of my point. They were a "success" because they were cheap and not terrible. Not because they raised the team's ceiling. It's hard to judge the "other options" because there's no direct comparison. Minor leaguers that never got real playing time can't be compared to these guys, but they're part of the "other options." If you drop all the veterans on the Twins who make about 10 mil or less over the last handful of years you get over 30 million per year. So, another star level player is also part of the options if you're willing to run with league minimum guys in the other spots. Not an easy comparison to make.
  2. chpettit19
    I think the definition of "success" is important here. Is the definition of success for these types of additions just not being bad? It's a relative thing, right? They're "successful" because they weren't bad while being "cheap." Carlos Santana had the 2nd most plate appearances on the Twins last year. He was 129 PAs ahead of the 3rd spot (that's about 1.25 months worth of PAs). Is a 109 OPS+ from your 1B and 2nd most used hitter really a success? Or is it just better than what the vast majority of us expected and "good" relative to his contract? MAT was 6th on the Twins in PAs in 2023. Is a 92 OPS+ for your 6th most used hitter really a success? Or is it just better than what the vast majority of us expected and "good" relative to his contract? Both of those players played really good defense which is absolutely a thing they need to get credit for, but I don't know if I'd call them any sort of great success stories. They're just successful when it comes to the Twins complete lack of ability to produce a single guy who can be a usable glove in CF or hit well enough to claim the 1B spot. They were helpful in that they didn't completely bomb and provided a floor stabilizing presence for their 1 year here. But they didn't provide any sort of great help when it comes to possibly winning a World Series. They didn't raise the ceiling. They simply didn't crater the floor. Which certainly has value. But it isn't a team building strategy that's going to lead to a real shot at a championship parade marching down any Minnesota streets anytime soon.
  3. chpettit19
    Willi Castro has 332 innings in 44 games in right field in the majors. This isn't a surprising development in the least. Harrison Bader is going to play a lot of games for the Twins. Target Field may have a bigger left field than right field, but not every park does. And they play half their games in other parks. Bader will get time in all 3 outfield spots. How they choose to mix and match 1B/DH and cOF/DH will determine how much time he gets.
  4. chpettit19
    That's about 3 runs a week between having the best of the best OF defense and the worst of the worst. About 1 run a week between having the worst of the worst and an average defense. It's effect on wins and losses is dependent on when the outs were missed. 2 outs nobody on? Nobody out bases loaded? Defense absolutely matters, just not as much as offense. You don't want negative defenders all over the place, but if you have an average defense you're doing just fine. And a below average defense doesn't kill you if they're also offensive weapons. And a great defense without offense isn't going to win games (go ask a Mariners fan about that one).
  5. chpettit19
    I'm not sure why Miranda is on this list. Has there ever been a question about him making the roster? Hasn't he had the 1B/3B/DH rotation spot locked up the entire time? The other 5 are the ones fighting for the last opening day jobs. By my count there have been 11 spots locked up since they signed Bader and France. The 5 non-Miranda guys on this list are fighting for the last 2. I think Keirsey has the longest odds and likely has almost no shot at making the roster without multiple injuries to others. The other 4 are fighting over the last 2 spots. Hard to handicap it at this point as none are running away with it and none are completely blowing their chances. The final roster decision probably comes down to where they feel comfortable playing each of them and how they can make the pieces fit in the platoon and rest heavy style they prefer.
  6. chpettit19
    The best Batting Run Value in baseball last year was Aaron Judge at 97. The worst was Brandon Drury at -25. The best Fielding Run Value in baseball last year was Patrick Bailey at 22. The worst was Nick Castellanos at -14. The best Baserunning Run Value in baseball last year was Corbin Carroll at 12. The worst was Vladimir Guerrero Jr. at -6. These are absolutely not exact science numbers that should be used as proof positive of anything, but the people at Baseball Savant and Statcast are real smart and have a lot of really high-tech gadgets they're using to put this stuff together. I think they're good numbers to give rough ideas on how valuable each phase of the game is to offensive players, though. I'll leave it to you and others to decide how much weight everyone feels needs to be given to defense vs offense. I'll mention that the best Outs Above Average in baseball last year was Andres Gimenez with 21. The worst was CJ Abrams at -17. If we just do outfield like this article is talking about the best was Jacob Young at 19 and worst was Bryan Reynolds at -13. That's a 32-out difference between the best and the worst outfield defenders in baseball last year. I believe the MLB season is about 27 weeks long. So, just over 1 out per week difference between the very best and the very worst. Call it 3 and a half outs, or round up to 4 if you want, per week for an outfield of 3 of Bryan Reynolds vs an outfield of 3 of Jacob Young. Do what you want with this info.
  7. chpettit19
    I think leaping and bat throwing are too aggressive for MN fans. The thumbs up is probably as wild as we should get.
  8. chpettit19
    His overall OPS may have stayed up, but he didn't have an OPS over .718 in any month after April. His OPS by month went 1.063, .654, .674, .567, .718 and then he got 10 PAs in September. Those are OPS+ of 81, 81, 52, and 96 the rest of the way. His overall OPS absolutely wasn't telling the story into July, it was just seeing how far his first month could stretch in terms of carrying his overall OPS to respectability. Margot's OPS last year was .626. After the first month of the season Gallo was barely better than Margot. Carrying either of those players for the full season was nonsense. My concern over them doing the same with France is lower as he's on a much cheaper deal, but it's still a very real worry that they'll hold onto him in the name of "depth" even if he were to string together multiple months of below average production. Just like they did with Farmer, Margot, and Gallo. France is a different kind of hitter than Gallo, and a flat out better hitter than Farmer and Margot when they're all going right. He has the better chance to be productive and his spring is looking like he may be back to his old self. And that'd be huge for the Twins.
  9. chpettit19
    Did you go ask mom instead?
  10. chpettit19
    Here's where Wallner ranks amongst all MLB players last year in 5 ft splits. He's above average at every single one. Here's where Brooks Lee ranked. Well below average at every distance. Agreed Wallner doesn't have the instincts of Lee, but he's a far better athlete and far faster from the first 5 feet to 90 feet.
  11. chpettit19
    Yeah, I'm going to repeat my statements about raw power being a useless "tool" (and isn't even accounted for in this article). If you take out guys like George Wolkow (30 hit tool, 40 FV) and Wilfred Veras (35 hit, 40 FV) you've wiped out 33% of your 6 already. Their game power (the tool people actually care about and that actually matters and is actually in this article) grades are 60 and 55. Suddenly not so impressive. Then let's look at speed. A tool that doesn't get you to the majors on its own. Hendry Chivilli is in the Twins system on that board and has a 70 speed so your statement that the Twins don't have anyone with a 70 grade tool is already wrong, but he's a 30 hit, 40 FV guy. Just like Jose Ramos of the A's who's 70 speed, 35 hit, 40 FV. Denzel Clarke has 70 raw power and speed but a 30 hit and 50 game power to go with his 40+ FV. On that 2024 list of the 4 teams you mentioned there were 4 guys with 60 or better hit tools. Twins had 2 of them (Martin and Pena). 8 guys with 60 or better game power. The Twins had 2 of those as well (Emma and Jenkins). 12 guys with speed grades of 60 or better. Twins had 3 of them (Chivilli, De Los Santos, and Schobel). 12 guys with 60 or better field. Twins had 4 of them (Emma, Gonzalez, Chivilli, and Mercedes). By my math that's 50% of the hit tool guys, 25% of the power guys, 25% of the speed guys. And 33% of the field guys. And I believe the Twins being 1 out of 4 teams would mean they should be at 25% of the players in order to be average. So they're at least average in all 4 spots, while above average in 2. Of the 36 total 60 or better grades the Twins had 11 of them. That's 30.5%. Which is higher than the 25% that it would take to be considered average in that grouping of 4 teams.
  12. chpettit19
    But it's not 300, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Emma is on 2 of them as I said in there. And he's not even one of the super elite prospects. I think you're well aware that there are many prospects that are on multiple of those lists. Like raw and game power. I know you don't think there's 103 guys with 60 grade raw power and entirely different set of 38 guys with 60 grade game power. And I'll confirm right now that all 38 game power guys are on both lists. I'd bet you're aware there's a number of guys with 60 grade speed and field. 25 guys on both those lists, to be exact. How many 65 grades do you think there are? 4 hit tools, 9 game power, 32 raw power, 23 speed, 8 field. And in that list Starlyn Caba is on both hit and field while Chandler Simpson is on both hit and speed. Most of the time people don't really distinguish between raw and game power, they just talk about, and grade, game power. So we can reasonably take those numbers out and you're down to less than 1 guy per org with a 65 grade. I don’t think the Twins are out of the norm at all when it comes to the amount of 60+ grades they have.
  13. chpettit19
    Is it? I think it depends on where you're getting your scouting reports from. MLB, in my estimation, is far freer with handing out 60s and 70s in scouting reports than other publications. Number of players on Fangraphs with a 60 or better future grade at any of the following tools: Hit: 21 (Jenkins is one of them) Field: 60 (Emma is one of them) Raw Power: 103 Game Power: 38 (Emma is one of them) Speed: 82 Arm: 0 (they don't seem to have any arm grades) Fangraphs has a nice tool for easily filtering by tool grades so that's why I used them. Flat out, raw physical tools like raw power and speed have a decent number of guys, but the others aren't very big numbers. 21 guys with 60 grade hit tools? That's less than 1 guy per org. Field is only 2 guys per, and game power (only power that matters) is barely over 1 per org. It's not 10 guys at each tool, but it's not 100. Guess it depends on your definition of "common." Twins aren't overflowing with 60s on Fangraphs, but nobody really is.
  14. chpettit19
    They should definitely be offering Paddack to all these teams to just see what they could get in return. Whether or not you actually do the deal depends on what you get offered. Clearing payroll space means nothing now. The Twins aren't stashing any saved cash now for possible deadline deals. They aren't going to give up the prospect pieces to bring in a high-priced vet anyway. Clearing payroll space mattered 4 months ago, not now. See what you can get for Paddack and go from there. Any player is tradeable for the right price, but I don't see them trading any of their top 3 starters for anything less than an obvious overpay. Chris Archer to the Pirates style.
  15. chpettit19
    I've thought Gasper has had an inside track to a roster spot since the second he got here. He's 29. They didn't bring in a guy on the 40-man at that age for the future. They have to see what he has now. If he keeps performing like this (steady, not spectacular) for the rest of camp I fully expect to see him on the opening day roster. I think that's been the plan from the day they acquired him.
  16. chpettit19
    If the Twins are just interested in clearing Lopez's money and getting a prospect or 2 in return they could just put him on the market and get plenty of Lombard or Jones type prospects offered to them without taking on any Stanton money. Crochet is better, and currently cheaper, than Lopez, but he also has less team control left before he gets crazy expensive. He brought back 2 top 50ish global prospects and 2 other top 15ish system prospects. Why would the Twins trade one of their top 3 arms and take on Stanton to possibly get a borderline top 100 global prospect? The Yankees system is not good. Being the 2nd or 3rd ranked prospect in their system doesn't mean they're worthy of this kind of trade. The Yankees should be getting a call from the Twins and seeing if they want Paddack, not Lopez. That's what I expected to see when I clicked on this blog. The Yankees don't have the pieces to get Lopez as many other teams could easily beat the package they could put together, even without taking on Stanton. Paddack is who the Twins should be offering the Yankees.
  17. chpettit19
    If another team bought Falvey dinner during the winter meetings, he'd give them Randy.
  18. chpettit19
    I appreciate the offer, but I worked in baseball for 5 years. Not the lifestyle I want so I'll just stick with talking about it on the internet and in group chats with my friends who are still working in the industry. I'm sorry the league has decided Randy Dobnak isn't worth a 40-man spot for $3 million. He's lived a dream of a life though, so I'm sure he'll be alright.
  19. chpettit19
    The Twins see value in keeping him around as emergency depth instead of just paying him to go away. That is very, very different than the value you're suggesting the Rockies, or any other team, may see in him. And very, very different than letting Rosario and Sano go instead of giving them a new contract. They will just let Dobnak go after this season by not offering him a new deal, like they did with Rosario and Sano. Those aren't the same situation. This is a nonsense back and forth so I'm done. $3 million is a nothing contract for any MLB team for a guy they think has any shot at being on their 26- or 40-man rosters. No team thinks Dobnak is good enough to pitch in the majors. None. If they did they'd have claimed him at any time in the last 3+ seasons. Giving Colorado 3 players just to clear $3M is nonsense. No team would do that. You couldn't find one single example of that ever happening in the history of baseball. No team would give up 2 positive assets just to clear 2% of their payroll.
  20. chpettit19
    The source of Randy Dobnak having been on outright waivers numerous times over the last 3 years and no team claiming him. #5 starters on major league teams make more than $3 million a year. The last 2 years Dobnak was making 1.5 and 2.25 million. Those are not numbers that would stop a team from giving him a shot if they thought he was a major league pitcher. Not very good relievers make that. Every time the Twins DFA him (I'm not going to look up every instance, but it's been multiple times a year for years now) every other team in the league has the opportunity to claim him and not have to give up anything in trade for him. Just have to pay him his very low salary. If any team in baseball thought he could be a #5 starter they'd claim him and pay him that salary. None of them have. The only logical conclusion is that no team believes Randy Dobnak can pitch in the majors. It's not insulting. I don't know if you know Randy personally or why you have such a strong feeling on this, but this is what talking sports is like. He's far more talented than any of us on this site when it comes to playing baseball, but that doesn't mean he's talented enough to be in the majors. That's not disrespectful. It's not "hating." It's not insulting. This isn't little league baseball we're talking about. Not everybody gets to play. This is professional baseball. And the guys who run teams in professional baseball have decided he isn't good enough.
  21. chpettit19
    Even the added sentence doesn't answer the question. You want to "obtain players we do (need) & bring down payroll." Attaching Dobnak means the other team wouldn't give the Twins players they "do (need)." Are you trying to suggest trading good players at spots you think have too many players for good players in spots you don't think have enough good players? Why would the Twins attach Dobnak to a deal attempting to do that? If they were trading a B level player from a position of perceived excess they'd want a B level player back for a position that's lacking. Attaching Dobnak would free a useless (on its own) $3 mil this season while dropping the return to a C or D level player. That is not a good strategy. No team being willing to pay Randy Dobnak a whopping $3M while giving up nothing is all you need to know about the situation. No MLB team thinks Randy Dobnak is a major league pitcher. None. 0. Zilch. Nada. The Rockies don't care about his groundball abilities. #5 starters get paid 2 to 3 or even 4 times what Randy is being paid this season. If any team in the entire sport felt he was a #5 starter he would've been claimed after last season when he was waived again. Nobody thinks he's good enough. Attaching that player to a player you expect to get an actual return for just to clear 3 million is an awful strategy.
  22. chpettit19
    The first post from that poster was referring to Dobnak thanking God for life changing wealth. Nobody is mad at Dobnak. Nobody is being rude or insulting Dobnak. This is a website that exists to talk, discuss, and debate the Minnesota Twins, their affiliates, and baseball in general. Part of that is always going to include saying certain players aren't good enough to be major league players. Nobody is attacking Dobnak in a personal way. This is just part of talking sports. Dobnak retiring when he got hurt would've meant leaving millions of dollars on the table. Instead he's done what millions of us wish we could and played AAA baseball with a couple trips to the big club for a few years while making 7 figures. You don't have to doubt Toby. You can just believe all 30 major league baseball teams not putting Dobnak on their major league team for any real amount of time in years. Randy has been put on outright waivers many times. No team wants him. Has any minor league manager ever said their guys have no shot at making the bigs? That doesn't sound like a great thing for managers to be saying. The league has spoken. Nobody wants to pay Randy that contract because nobody thinks he's worth it. That's not a personal shot at Randy, it's just the reality of the situation.
  23. chpettit19
    I think it all comes down to their defense. If either of them are deemed ready with the glove then I have no problem moving Vazquez, although I'm not a fan of it being for essentially nothing since they wouldn't spend the money cleared and they wouldn't get anything real in return. At this point I think you just ride with him to start the year since you're trying to win the division and make the playoffs. That doesn't help for next year if both Vazquez and Jeffers stay healthy, but it's about this season now and I don't see many ways that trading Vazquez helps with the 2025 team anymore. The last 3 months? Yes. Now? No. And to put a bow on the Cesar Salazar talk from before, he turns 29 in 5 days. He's not the catcher of the future.
  24. chpettit19
    That doesn't even remotely answer my question. Are all the players they "could & should trade" negative assets? If that's the case then why would any team ever give anything for them? In order to get the Rockies (in this example) to take on Dobnak and the contract they don't want the Twins should add another negative asset and then the Rockies will want Dobnak? Or are the players they "could & should trade" positive assets? If that's the case, then my question remains and you didn't even attempt to answer it. If they are trading a positive asset why would they want to tie Dobnak to that asset and bring down the return they'd get?
  25. chpettit19
    Why would the Twins do that? If the Twins want to trade other players who are positive assets, why would they tie a negative asset to them to bring down the return they'd get?
×
×
  • Create New...