Article: Twins Position Battles: Backup Catcher

[David HK]

 

  On 3/1/2017 at 3:23 AM, Linus said:

Umm..no. it had nothing to do with it. MLB organizations have scouting resources well in advance silly sample sizes but rip away if you want.

Heh... sorry, forgot to include the tongue-in-cheek icon with that post.  Wait, there isn't one.... Dang.

[Linus]

  On 3/2/2017 at 4:22 AM, David HK said:

Heh... sorry, forgot to include the tongue-in-cheek icon with that post. Wait, there isn't one.... Dang.

Sorry. I caught it after I posted.

[David HK]

 

  On 3/2/2017 at 12:02 PM, Linus said:

Sorry. I caught it after I posted.

Nyuk, nyuk, no worries-  sometimes I think I'm funnier than I really am.  Comes from being funny-looking, I suppose!

[Oxtung]

With Berrios and Mejia to start the season and hopefully Jay, Stewart, Gonsalves, etc... at some point I think AAA is where "Veteran Leadership" is truly needed.

 

Gimenez to AAA to help our young pitchers and mentor Garver while JRM gets one more shot to show he has what it takes in the majors.

 

I'd be surprised if Gimenez makes the MLB opening day roster unless JRM looks absolutely lost.

[zach.jezierski]

 

  On 3/1/2017 at 5:40 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

Mauer will never catch another game in Major League Baseball.

 

The guy had his brain rattled pretty severely. His catching days are done.

I could not disagree more. I could see him playing 16-20 games behind the bish. Any more than that would be very unlikely

[DocBauer]

Personally, I believe Garver ranks ahead of Murphy in just about everyone's mind, IMO. By all reports, he's quality behind the plate and is definitely quality AT the plate. But with a pitching staff filled with questions, coming off injury and poor performance, I can see the initial thought being a veteran BACKUP catcher with experience and acumen while Garver gets to play almost every day for Rochester to begin the season. I want Garver on the team and have high hopes for him...but I get it.

[Thrylos]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 2:23 PM, DocBauer said:

Personally, I believe Garver ranks ahead of Murphy in just about everyone's mind, IMO. By all reports, he's quality behind the plate and is definitely quality AT the plate. But with a pitching staff filled with questions, coming off injury and poor performance, I can see the initial thought being a veteran BACKUP catcher with experience and acumen while Garver gets to play almost every day for Rochester to begin the season. I want Garver on the team and have high hopes for him...but I get it.

 

Molitor spoke about the back up catchers during the game last night and called Garver "bit more of a long shot" FWIW.  Still think that the job is Gimenez's to lose. 

 

Not what I would do, but these are the signs I am picking from the Twins.

[Mike Sixel]

It's important that 26 year olds be in the minors for more seasoning....they are just too young to be in the majors.

[ashbury]

  On 3/1/2017 at 5:36 PM, zach.jezierski said:

I think Mauer has a great shot to be the backup catcher. Move Sano over to first and insert Vargas at third and if the pitching can hold up like it did last year this team has a outstanding shot of winning 80-82 games. 

  On 3/9/2017 at 1:31 PM, zach.jezierski said:

I could not disagree more. I could see him playing 16-20 games behind the bish. Any more than that would be very unlikely

The backup catcher needs to be on-call for far more than 16-20 starts a season, even with an All Star as the starter, which we don't have. Coincidentally, we have such a comparison to look at - 2008 Joe Mauer was rested for 28 starts, and as a 25-year old that was his high water mark as a starter.

 

Appearances by a third catcher, if that's what you really have in mind, in fewer than two dozen games doesn't move the needle on winning lots more games, and amounts to more of a publicity stunt if done using Mauer.

 

Which is all aside of the statements from the team that Mauer's health isn't going to be risked by playing behind the plate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 3:20 PM, Mike Sixel said:

It's important that 26 year olds be in the minors for more seasoning....they are just too young to be in the majors.

Well, catching works on a slightly different timeline. And is it more important for Garver to get reps two out of three nights in Rochester or one out of three nights in Minnesota?

 

Given the roster construction and the signing of Castro, I don't see a reason to push Garver... but I don't really like the idea of Gimenez getting those reps, either. Run with Murphy and then make a decision on Garver as the season unfolds.

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 3:34 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

Well, catching works on a slightly different timeline. And is it more important for Garver to get reps two out of three nights in Rochester or one out of three nights in Minnesota?

 

Given the roster construction and the signing of Castro, I don't see a reason to push Garver... but I don't really like the idea of Gimenez getting those reps, either. Run with Murphy and then make a decision on Garver as the season unfolds.

 

If he never comes up, because it is important to get AAA reps and have depth....I'd rather have him here if he's better than Murphy or Gimenez this year or next year...

[Willihammer]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 2:48 PM, Thrylos said:

Molitor spoke about the back up catchers during the game last night and called Garver "bit more of a long shot" FWIW.  Still think that the job is Gimenez's to lose. 

 

Not what I would do, but these are the signs I am picking from the Twins.

Caught that. Provus also mentioned Castro's career .190 batting average against lefties and asked if a  platoon was an option. Molitor gave kind of a weird answer. He said that he'd be okay with a catcher who is 2 for 12 with a 3 run homer and run scoring single. A guy who can produce runs even with a low batting average. Which doesn't describe Castro against lefties at all (.097 ISO).

Edited March 9, 2017 by Willihammer

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 3:56 PM, Willihammer said:

Caught that. Provus also mentioned Castro's career .190 batting average against lefties and asked if a  platoon was an option. Molitor gave kind of a weird answer. He said that he'd be okay with a catcher who is 2 for 12 with a 3 run homer and run scoring single. A guy who can produce runs even with a low batting average. Which doesn't describe Castro against lefties at all (.097 ISO).

 

so, basically judge a hitter by RBI. 

 

And people think Molitor is going to be a great manager....

[Willihammer]

Yeah I almost swerved into a median when I heard that.

Thing is, Molitor wants Castro to play 120 games. He wants him to be the main guy. Ok, it just so happens the Twins will face a righty about 115-120 times per season. I get that there are day game after night games and whatnot but the situation screams for a platoon as much as possible.

[bird]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 3:20 PM, Mike Sixel said:

It's important that 26 year olds be in the minors for more seasoning....they are just too young to be in the majors.

 

 

I get your point that you'd prefer one over the other based on their age. But let's not project the reverse preference on the organization. If Garvey gets sent to AAA, it will have absolutely nothing to do with his birth date. Rightly or wrongly, they will have decided either that someone else will help the team more at the moment or that Garvey has a few things yet to work on. Obviously, we'd all like to hear that Garvey is ready to go and is a solid regular in the making.

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 4:18 PM, birdwatcher said:

I get your point that you'd prefer one over the other based on their age. But let's not project the reverse preference on the organization. If Garvey gets sent to AAA, it will have absolutely nothing to do with his birth date. Rightly or wrongly, they will have decided either that someone else will help the team more at the moment or that Garvey has a few things yet to work on. Obviously, we'd all like to hear that Garvey is ready to go and is a solid regular in the making.

 

Well, we've seen pretty clearly by their actions they want veterans, right? Their pursuit of 41 year old DH options, their signing of multiple bad/mediocre RPs, and the likelihood of Gimenez being on the roster over Murphy or Garver.

 

It wasn't about his age, it's about their preference for veterans, on a rebuilding team that is already not all that young....

[Mike Sixel]

I'm going to quote myself on this:

 

Some say "Garver has to play every day"....well, he won't likely be asked to do that next year, either, assuming Castro is healthy. How many years will you hold him back, so that he can play every day in AAA?

[Mr. Brooks]

  On 3/9/2017 at 3:34 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

Well, catching works on a slightly different timeline. And is it more important for Garver to get reps two out of three nights in Rochester or one out of three nights in Minnesota?

 

Given the roster construction and the signing of Castro, I don't see a reason to push Garver... but I don't really like the idea of Gimenez getting those reps, either. Run with Murphy and then make a decision on Garver as the season unfolds.

Given the contract we just gave to Castro, how old will Garver be when we are able to give him 2 of 3 nights catching in MLB?

Catcher is the one spot where there is plenty of playing time available for the backup.

I'd be fine with a 60/40 split with Castro and Garver. That would give Garver about 65 starts, which is only about 20 or 25 less than he'd likely get as the primary at Rochester.

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 5:00 PM, Mr. Brooks said:

Given the contract we just gave to Castro, how old will Garver be when we are able to give him 2 of 3 nights catching in MLB?
Catcher is the one spot where there is plenty of playing time available for the backup.
I'd be fine with a 60/40 split with Castro and Garver. That would give Garver about 65 starts, which is only about 20 or 25 less than he'd likely get as the primary at Rochester.

 

heh....I just re-posted pretty much the same thought....

[Dr. Evil]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 1:31 PM, zach.jezierski said:

I could not disagree more. I could see him playing 16-20 games behind the bish. Any more than that would be very unlikely

I'm warming up to this "Mauer behind the dish thing." You might be on to something with this idea.

[Physics Guy]

 

  On 3/1/2017 at 3:42 PM, Mike Sixel said:

Fair. I just have a REALLY hard time liking the roster not adding 1 young player to a 59 win team, and adding a bunch of mediocre veterans. All so something nebulous can maybe happen.

 

And, while I like wins, I don't care about 78 vs 72 wins. I care about 2018 and beyond being good to great.

From previous posts on other threads, I know you are not happy with the Berrios situation.    In a vacuum, I would want Berrios up with the Twins in April.    From what I see, I believe they think they have 5 other starters who are better right now.    Having Berrios and Meija in AAA to replace one of those five when they falter is more preferable than having Santana, Gibson, May, Berrios and Meija in the rotation to start the year and then no fallback.    I'm not sure I see any other options that are ready.  

 

As for the other positions, I think many of those changes were made during the season.    At catcher you add Castro for Suzuki (getting younger in the process).    I can handle Gimenez and #2 because both Murphy and Garver will get more playing time, even if they equally split, than they would with the Twins.

 

1B and 2B stay the same as last year, but SS and 3B get younger.    This year Polanco gets the AB from Nunez.    Sano takes over for Plouffe.

 

The OF stays the same, except Kepler is full-time in RF instead of Sano/Kepler.    The OF and left side of the IF can't get much younger. 

 

In the bullpen, I see Chargois making it.    He was on the team last year, but only threw 23 innings.    I am also hoping Haley will be added. 

 

I guess my point is that the Twins have already added a bunch of young players.    I think I am OK with having some veterans on this squad to start the season.    Six of what I anticipate to be the starting lineup are what I consider to be young.    My issue will be in May if those vets are sucking it up and the FO doesn't start bringing in younger options.    This needs to happen in both the rotation and the bullpen. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 5:29 PM, Physics Guy said:

From previous posts on other threads, I know you are not happy with the Berrios situation.    In a vacuum, I would want Berrios up with the Twins in April.    From what I see, I believe they think they have 5 other starters who are better right now.    Having Berrios and Meija in AAA to replace one of those five when they falter is more preferable than having Santana, Gibson, May, Berrios and Meija in the rotation to start the year and then no fallback.    I'm not sure I ...........

 

options.    This needs to happen in both the rotation and the bullpen. 

 

all fair, we just disagree. Garver won't get more than 60 ABs in 2018 if Castro is healthy. At some point, you need to call him up.

 

As for the depth in AAA thing....I'd rather the best LT options were in MN, learning about the majors, now, rather than later. 

 

We've had depth preached to us for the last several years, that we should keep the crappy veterans in MN and have depth in AAA.....how's that worked out? not so great, imo.

[Physics Guy]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 5:34 PM, Mike Sixel said:

all fair, we just disagree. Garver won't get more than 60 ABs in 2018 if Castro is healthy. At some point, you need to call him up.

 

As for the depth in AAA thing....I'd rather the best LT options were in MN, learning about the majors, now, rather than later. 

 

We've had depth preached to us for the last several years, that we should keep the crappy veterans in MN and have depth in AAA.....how's that worked out? not so great, imo.

I agree, I don't want crappy veterans either.  I'm OK with them starting the veterans in April, but kick them to the curb if they aren't doing the job. 

[bird]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 4:41 PM, Mike Sixel said:

Well, we've seen pretty clearly by their actions they want veterans, right? Their pursuit of 41 year old DH options, their signing of multiple bad/mediocre RPs, and the likelihood of Gimenez being on the roster over Murphy or Garver.

 

It wasn't about his age, it's about their preference for veterans, on a rebuilding team that is already not all that young....

 

 

Yeah, I get this, but my own take is that in past years they have often preferred "better" players over the ones they had available from their own system. And better players they could attract were going to be veterans. I mean, if I had a buck for every time you reminded me over the years how crappy our talent pipeline was, I'd buy you your own golf course. That said, I would concede that Gardy and others had a bias towards veterans, but not as exaggerated a bias as we all have towards projecting MLB readiness on to these prospects. The caution here being about Garvey over JRM or Giminez, and I imagine maybe soon about Berrios over Santiago. If I had a buck for every time someone mentioned that Berrios was ready to light the MLB world on fire last year and the year before...or Burdi, or Reed, or Chargois, or...

 

I feel somewhat comfortable that this FO, when the decision is a close one, will almost always go with the inexperienced player over the veteran, especially if the kid has a higher ceiling in the long term. When it comes to Garver, I wonder what their thoughts are regarding his ceiling.

Edited March 9, 2017 by birdwatcher

[Mike Sixel]

CamdenWarehouse
12:56 Do you think that fans are expecting more from young guys than they have in the past? If so, is it irrational and we're being colored by recent successes or is the aging curve moving to the point where we should expect more?

 

Eno Sarris
12:57 There's evidence that peaks are coming earlier than we thought. Might be as early as 24-25. And with velo declining from day one, you might just want to take a guy with some polish (can be a little less than Urias) and get him to bigs as quick as possible.

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 5:53 PM, birdwatcher said:

Yeah, I get this, but my own take is that in past years they have often preferred "better" players over the ones they had available from their own system. And better players they could attract were going to be veterans. I mean, if I had a buck for every time you reminded me over the years how crappy our talent pipeline was, I'd buy you your own golf course. That said, I would concede that Gardy and others had a bias towards veterans, but not as exaggerated a bias as we all have towards projecting MLB readiness on to these prospects. The caution here being about Garvey over JRM or Giminez, and I imagine maybe soon about Berrios over Santiago. If I had a buck for every time someone mentioned that Berrios was ready to light the MLB world on fire last year and the year before...or Burdi, or Reed, or Chargois, or...

 

I feel somewhat comfortable that this FO, when the decision is a close one, will almost always go with the inexperienced player over the veteran, especially if they an eventually higher ceiling. When it comes to Garver, I wonder what their thoughts are regarding his ceiling.

 

I would love to have my own golf course, let's do this!

[Dr. Evil]

I would platoon Castro/Garver at a 65/35 percent rate. Nice mix of a veteran catcher and an emerging catcher. If Garver isn't ready, then Murphy comes up. I would not have two vets on the major league roster this year.

 

Plus, if zach.jezierski is right, Mauer will catch a few games too!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 5:00 PM, Mr. Brooks said:

Given the contract we just gave to Castro, how old will Garver be when we are able to give him 2 of 3 nights catching in MLB?
Catcher is the one spot where there is plenty of playing time available for the backup.
I'd be fine with a 60/40 split with Castro and Garver. That would give Garver about 65 starts, which is only about 20 or 25 less than he'd likely get as the primary at Rochester.

This is the timeline I'd aim for if I was the Twins:

 

June-July 2017: Garver gets a call-up, potentially earlier if Murphy is struggling and Garver is playing well.

 

2018: Garver starts as the back-up catcher, may play more often based on both his and Castro's performance.

 

2019: Garver begins to take more playing time from Castro, again based on performance.

 

Castro is elite defensively today and his offense is good enough to play as the full-time catcher. As that changes, Garver can begin taking playing time from him. There's no reason to cut Castro's playing time to a partial role before he's played a single regular season game for the team.

 

Well, not for Mitch Garver, anyway. The guy looks to have an adequate bat for the position but it's far from overwhelming. As a 25 year old, he posted a .750 OPS in AA over 400 plate appearances. That isn't exactly lighting the world on fire.

 

An added bonus for putting Murphy out there, finding what he looks like, and gaining an extra year of service time for Garver in the process.

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 7:45 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

This is the timeline I'd aim for if I was the Twins:

 

June-July 2017: Garver gets a call-up, potentially earlier if Murphy is struggling and Garver is playing well.

 

2018: Garver starts as the back-up catcher, may play more often based on both his and Castro's performance.

 

2019: Garver begins to take more playing time from Castro, again based on performance.

 

Castro is elite defensively today and his offense is good enough to play as the full-time catcher. As that changes, Garver can begin taking playing time from him. There's no reason to cut Castro's playing time to a partial role before he's played a single regular season game for the team.

 

Well, not for Mitch Garver, anyway. The guy looks to have an adequate bat for the position but it's far from overwhelming. As a 25 year old, he posted a .750 OPS in AA over 400 plate appearances. That isn't exactly lighting the world on fire.

 

An added bonus for putting Murphy out there, finding what he looks like, and gaining an extra year of service time for Garver in the process.

 

He's a 26 YO catcher, I doubt service time will matter much....especially if he can't hit, as you posit.

[Thrylos]

 

  On 3/9/2017 at 7:45 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

This is the timeline I'd aim for if I was the Twins:

 

June-July 2017: Garver gets a call-up, potentially earlier if Murphy is struggling and Garver is playing well.

 

2018: Garver starts as the back-up catcher, may play more often based on both his and Castro's performance.

 

2019: Garver begins to take more playing time from Castro, again based on performance.

 

Castro is elite defensively today and his offense is good enough to play as the full-time catcher. As that changes, Garver can begin taking playing time from him. There's no reason to cut Castro's playing time to a partial role before he's played a single regular season game for the team.

 

Well, not for Mitch Garver, anyway. The guy looks to have an adequate bat for the position but it's far from overwhelming. As a 25 year old, he posted a .750 OPS in AA over 400 plate appearances. That isn't exactly lighting the world on fire.

 

An added bonus for putting Murphy out there, finding what he looks like, and gaining an extra year of service time for Garver in the process.

 

Not bad; however Castro is a treadable asset and at the point that the Twins decide they can have Garver at 100%, they should trade Castro for controllable pitching or Garver's replacement in 5 years...   That can happen in 2018

 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Thrylos