40 Man Roster Management October Update

[Danchat]

1 hour ago, wsnydes said:

But they've already got guys that are better all around players at both of those positions.  Therein lies the problem.  While I agree completely with the last sentence, there's other context to consider with Arraez.

Though, by that same logic it may make more sense to move Donaldson if they do believe Arraez can handle 3B and they have Miranda near-MLB ready. Yes, Donaldson is a nice asset (3.2 WAR is nothing to scoff at), but if we're considering 2022 a retool season it makes sense to move him for what they can get, since I don't think he's going to get better with age. Now that the playoff window has slammed shut, it makes more sense for him to play for a legitimate contender, just like how Cruz is with the Rays now.

[DJL44]

It is probably time to move Donaldson to 1B. Sano should be a full time DH next season and gone after next season.

[wsnydes]

23 minutes ago, Danchat said:

Though, by that same logic it may make more sense to move Donaldson if they do believe Arraez can handle 3B and they have Miranda near-MLB ready. Yes, Donaldson is a nice asset (3.2 WAR is nothing to scoff at), but if we're considering 2022 a retool season it makes sense to move him for what they can get, since I don't think he's going to get better with age. Now that the playoff window has slammed shut, it makes more sense for him to play for a legitimate contender, just like how Cruz is with the Rays now.

I agree.  There are several pieces on the roster that don't fit.  At some point, it simply makes more sense to start dealing guys instead of trying to fit square pegs into a round hole.  I wouldn't have a problem with either of them being dealt.

[KirbyDome89]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

RField says he's above average at 3B and average at 2B. He's a good utility infielder. Put the crappy fielders at DH and keep the defense as good as possible.

Fangraphs has him as average at best at 2B and below average at 3B. Defensive metrics can be noisy so I guess there's that. I'm all for having the best defensive alignments, but I think you can do that while also rotating Arraez, Donaldson, ect through the DH spot in a 162 game season. 

[prouster]

15 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Brent Rooker is not Nelson Cruz. He's not even Miguel Sano.

If the Twins can move Sano or someone else and keep Rooker, great... but where do you fit Rooker into this roster and who do you release to keep him? Let's make this more practical; tell me who you drop to keep Rooker on this roster in 2022.

I think the idea is to see what you can get for him in a trade, since the NL will very likely adopt the DH next year. I think that’s a much better option than simply releasing him. If no one offers anything worth trading for, you can still cut Rooker. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

55 minutes ago, prouster said:

I think the idea is to see what you can get for him in a trade, since the NL will very likely adopt the DH next year. I think that’s a much better option than simply releasing him. If no one offers anything worth trading for, you can still cut Rooker. 

I mean... maybe? The thing is that Rooker isn't going to bring back much, if anything, and keeping him causes some awkward 40-man issues if the front office is unable to work out a trade.

It seems like a lot of fuss for very little gain when the team has significantly bigger fish to fry, and a lot of them.

[jmlease1]

49 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I mean... maybe? The thing is that Rooker isn't going to bring back much, if anything, and keeping him causes some awkward 40-man issues if the front office is unable to work out a trade.

It seems like a lot of fuss for very little gain when the team has significantly bigger fish to fry, and a lot of them.

I'm just not sure that Rooker is where the inflection point is on the 40-man? he's a fringe 40-man guy at this point, but probably doesn't need to be ejected immediately. he's unlikely to develop into Adam Dunn (which sure looks like his ceiling), but there's still a chance because of his power. But if asked who would I keep out of Ralph Garza, Yunior Severino, Charlie Barnes, or Brent Rooker...I think I'd keep Rooker, for now. And I think that's essentially the kind of player he's competing with for a spot on the 40-man. And to me, any of those guys are easy enough to move on from if/when better players are traded for/signed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

53 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

I'm just not sure that Rooker is where the inflection point is on the 40-man? he's a fringe 40-man guy at this point, but probably doesn't need to be ejected immediately. he's unlikely to develop into Adam Dunn (which sure looks like his ceiling), but there's still a chance because of his power. But if asked who would I keep out of Ralph Garza, Yunior Severino, Charlie Barnes, or Brent Rooker...I think I'd keep Rooker, for now. And I think that's essentially the kind of player he's competing with for a spot on the 40-man. And to me, any of those guys are easy enough to move on from if/when better players are traded for/signed.

The problem as I see it is that you listed two pitchers and an infielder as potential Rooker swaps.

The Twins also need better pitchers, and a lot of them. I don't see Rooker and the guys you listed as even a little bit interchangeable.

The Twins can't carry that many corner guys on a 40-man roster again. Here's the list as I see it now:

Kepler
Donaldson
Sano
Kirilloff
Larnach
Arraez
Rooker
Astudillo
Garlick
Cave

Then there are the guys who need to be added:

Lewis
Miranda

Cave, Garlick, Astudillo, and Refsnyder are pretty easy choices to be removed. One of them will need to be replaced with a legit CF option. Two more will be replaced with Lewis and Miranda.

That leaves one remaining spot. Does that go to Rooker? Maybe, but given some of the non-versatility in the above list, is there room for another terrible outfielder who's really a DH?

And if Rooker takes that final spot, that leaves no space for position players in free agency. The 40-man space for pitchers is even more convoluted than the position players, as there are many (MANY) pitchers coming off the 60-day IL that will need to be protected or lost.

[DJL44]

Brent Rooker = Tyler Austin

[Brock Beauchamp]

15 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Brent Rooker = Tyler Austin

There's a good chance of it, yes. I'd say maybe even 50% or higher.

[jmlease1]

35 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The problem as I see it is that you listed two pitchers and an infielder as potential Rooker swaps.

The Twins also need better pitchers, and a lot of them. I don't see Rooker and the guys you listed as even a little bit interchangeable.

The Twins can't carry that many corner guys on a 40-man roster again. Here's the list as I see it now:

Kepler
Donaldson
Sano
Kirilloff
Larnach
Arraez
Rooker
Astudillo
Garlick
Cave

Then there are the guys who need to be added:

Lewis
Miranda

Cave, Garlick, Astudillo, and Refsnyder are pretty easy choices to be removed. One of them will need to be replaced with a legit CF option. Two more will be replaced with Lewis and Miranda.

That leaves one remaining spot. Does that go to Rooker? Maybe, but given some of the non-versatility in the above list, is there room for another terrible outfielder who's really a DH?

Hang on, I'm not really tracking here. Is it really a problem to carry 8 "corner guys" when you're counting RF, LF, 1B, and 3B (and DH, really)? Lewis isn't a corner guy at this point; even if he can't stick at SS (jury is out), CF is the next most likely option for him. Arraez does have positional flexibility at 2B as well (he's a limited defender at any position, but you can live with him at 2B if you don't force Polanco to play SS)

I also have a lot more confidence in Celestino as a CF option next year after he played so well at AAA, so maybe that's coloring this for me? If Buxton is gone/hurt, I have more confidence in the twins minor league options to fill in now between Celestino, Lewis, Martin (with kepler being an option as well). and if Buxton is traded, well that opens a space on the 40 man.

I think there's room for Rooker (especially when you clear out Cave, Astudillo, Garlick, etc) but his rope is short. And it should be. 

[jmlease1]

19 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Brent Rooker = Tyler Austin

You think brent rooker is as good as tyler austin? or that rooker's spot gets taken by tyler austin? The second one I probably agree with, the first I think is basically insane...

[Brock Beauchamp]

8 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Hang on, I'm not really tracking here. Is it really a problem to carry 8 "corner guys" when you're counting RF, LF, 1B, and 3B (and DH, really)? Lewis isn't a corner guy at this point; even if he can't stick at SS (jury is out), CF is the next most likely option for him. Arraez does have positional flexibility at 2B as well (he's a limited defender at any position, but you can live with him at 2B if you don't force Polanco to play SS)

I also have a lot more confidence in Celestino as a CF option next year after he played so well at AAA, so maybe that's coloring this for me? If Buxton is gone/hurt, I have more confidence in the twins minor league options to fill in now between Celestino, Lewis, Martin (with kepler being an option as well). and if Buxton is traded, well that opens a space on the 40 man.

I think there's room for Rooker (especially when you clear out Cave, Astudillo, Garlick, etc) but his rope is short. And it should be. 

To be clear, there's *room* for Rooker if trades happen, and they probably will. But I can't predict those or what they will look like so I'm just going with the information we have right now.

The reason I'm adding Lewis to this list is because the Twins chose to run "middle infielders" in roster spots that are really "corner guys" and those players are locks for 2022 (Arraez, for example). The Twins' closest thing to a backup SS is Nick Gordon and they may want to add someone in front of him... I'd certainly consider it. That means Lewis is probably going to have to bump one of the many corner guys.

There's a lot of complexity to the 40-man right now because the 2021 roster was cobbled together. There are a bunch of guys are really don't have a position and many of them overlap over the same positions (Sano/Kirilloff, Sano/Rooker, Donaldson/Arraez/Miranda). That's a problem and some house cleaning will need to happen, particularly with an eye on defensive improvement.

But if the front office manages to move Sano, this entire situation changes in an instant.

[prouster]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I mean... maybe? The thing is that Rooker isn't going to bring back much, if anything, and keeping him causes some awkward 40-man issues if the front office is unable to work out a trade.

It seems like a lot of fuss for very little gain when the team has significantly bigger fish to fry, and a lot of them.

I agree that he’d bring back virtually nothing on his own, but he could be a decent piece in a larger package. I just think it’s short sighted to not at least see what’s out there if and when the DH expands. I’d guess there are a few NL teams who don’t currently have anyone they’d want DH’ing regularly.
 

There’s certainly the Rule 5 to consider, but outside of that I don’t see much difference between releasing Rooker in November or in February/March. Like you (or was it someone else?) said, there are a handful of guys who are much clearer options for DFA or release at this point than Rooker. 

[gunnarthor]

I think Rooker's future sort of depends on what the FO thinks about 2022. If we're rebuilding, trading Buxton, and going to be a sub-.500 team again, it makes sense to hold onto him, give him the starting DH spot for the first three months and see what we have. If the Twins think they can compete for the Central, he's probably a 40 man casualty. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

50 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

I think Rooker's future sort of depends on what the FO thinks about 2022. If we're rebuilding, trading Buxton, and going to be a sub-.500 team again, it makes sense to hold onto him, give him the starting DH spot for the first three months and see what we have. If the Twins think they can compete for the Central, he's probably a 40 man casualty. 

I think this is probably right, though I will say once again that if they trade Buxton I'm going to be ****ing furious.

Pay. The. Man.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Cave, Garlick, Astudillo, and Refsnyder are pretty easy choices to be removed. One of them will need to be replaced with a legit CF option.

Then omit Cave from the discussion, until that new CF option is found. Cave is unlike Refsnyder and Garlick when discussing corner players.

I can't believe I keep having to woof for Cave, one of my least favorite players.  But a team just can not leave itself with its back to the wall for up-the-middle talent.  And I'm not ready to roll with just Celestino as the sole legitimate backup.  Dispose of Cave when an improvement is in hand, not when trying to decide whether to hang onto another pitching suspect or a corner bat.

[Sousy]

4 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think this is probably right, though I will say once again that if they trade Buxton I'm going to be ****ing furious.

Pay. The. Man.

If it comes to pass, I'll go kick the dirt with you.

[gunnarthor]

1 minute ago, ashbury said:

Then omit Cave from the discussion, until that new CF option is found. Cave is unlike Refsnyder and Garlick when discussing corner players.

I can't believe I'm woofing for Cave, one of my least favorite players.  But a team just can not leave itself with its back to the wall for up-the-middle talent.  And I'm not ready to roll with just Celestino as the sole legitimate backup.  Dispose of Cave when an improvement is in hand, not when trying to decide whether to hang onto another pitching suspect or a corner bat.

How about Gordon as a back up CF? I was impressed by him when he got the opportunity to play there but that's just the eye test. I don't know how well the defensive stats liked him. I'm also not sure how much more we can expect out of his bat. Over a full season, his bat was so bad he'd acquire something like .6 WAR. But if he could duplicate his AAA numbers (or something close to them), he could be a solid back up at many positions. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

5 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Then omit Cave from the discussion, until that new CF option is found. Cave is unlike Refsnyder and Garlick when discussing corner players.

I can't believe I'm woofing for Cave, one of my least favorite players.  But a team just can not leave itself with its back to the wall for up-the-middle talent.  And I'm not ready to roll with just Celestino as the sole legitimate backup.  Dispose of Cave when an improvement is in hand, not when trying to decide whether to hang onto another pitching suspect or a corner bat.

The problem is they need to offer Cave arb well into seven figure territory and there's no way I'd go that route.

I'd prefer a no-bat defensive guy (think Billy Hamilton or the like) over seeing Cave in a Twins uniform again. Cave is at best a CF tweener and I never want to see him play there again. Defensive specialists with no bat are available pretty readily every offseason.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, gunnarthor said:

How about Gordon as a back up CF? I was impressed by him when he got the opportunity to play there but that's just the eye test. I don't know how well the defensive stats liked him. I'm also not sure how much more we can expect out of his bat. Over a full season, his bat was so bad he'd acquire something like .6 WAR. But if he could duplicate his AAA numbers (or something close to them), he could be a solid back up at many positions. 

I also like Gordon in CF, relatively speaking given his complete lack of experience, though I'm not sure I'm ready to rely on him as option #2 next season. Maybe in 2023.

[ashbury]

5 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The problem is they need to offer Cave arb well into seven figure territory and there's no way I'd go that route.

I'd prefer a no-bat defensive guy (think Billy Hamilton or the like) over seeing Cave in a Twins uniform again. He's at best a CF tweener and I never want to see him play there again. Those guys are available every offseason for similar money to what it would require to retain Cave.

Okay, but if disposing of Cave now is a solution to any kind of 40-man pressure, that pressure returns when a Hamilton type gets signed, doesn't it?  Or is this a timing thing that gets us past the Rule-5 draft?

[ashbury]

7 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

How about Gordon as a back up CF?

Ben Revere without the hit tool.

I actually was pleasantly surprised by Gordon, but that's largely because my expectations were so low.  I just don't know how much more of a ceiling he has, and if this is it, it isn't much.

[Major League Ready]

I am not so sure we have much of a 40 man problem.  There are a number of guys that can come off.  Simmons replacement will be after the Rule 5 draft.  I hope they decline Colome’s option.  They can do better for the same money.  If Pineda is resigned, they can time that after the Rule 5.

Charlie Barnes and Beau Burrows do not look like MLB pitchers to me.
Danny Coulombe  / Luke Farrell & Ralph Garza Jr. are fringe guys.
Devin Smeltzer and Lewis Thorpe need to go.
Rob Refsnyder or Kyle Garlick can go. Maybe both in favor of a more formidable RH bat in free agency or bring up Miranda and let him fill that role as part of a utility role.
It might be time to let Astudillo go too.

How does the 60 day IL work in the off-season? I am assuming Maeda won’t be counted on the 40 man roster.
 

[LA VIkes Fan]

22 hours ago, RonCoomersOPS said:

You're probably right. I just don't have any interest in finding out that you are wrong while not getting _something_ back for him.

As for who I would drop to keep Rooker, maybe Astudillo. I'm not opposed to keeping him as a depth piece in St. Paul and letting a Kyle Garlick or Jake Cave go to keep a roster spot open for him.

I don't think this is real choice because I think it is very unlikely that Astudillo or Cave is anywhere near the 40 man roster. I think the real choice is do you want to keep Rooker and take the risk of not protecting and losing someone like Gordon, Palacios, or Garza, Jr. If you look at the list put together there are 26 players who are considered "Locks", all of whom I'm confident will be on the 40 man roster. There are then 5 "Notable Prospects", all of which I'm also very confident will be on the 40 man roster. That's 31, so that leaves you nine spots for all of the other players, including the players listed in the not so "notable" prospect list plus you have to leave at least 2 or 3 spots for free agent signings because I think we all agree that this team needs to sign at least 1 or 2 free-agent pitchers and probably will sign a free-agent shortstop unless they decide to put Polanco back at that position. Leaving 3 open spots for free agents gets you to 34 and you probably want to leave a couple more open spots if you can. That leaves you with somewhere between 4 and 6 spot for everybody not on the "Locks" and the "Notable" prospects list.  

So who are those 5 or 6 guys and do you include Rooker in that group? I look at that group and I see Rooker is somewhere around number 9 or 10 behind Pineda, Minaya, Gordon, Garza, Jr., Palacios, Vallimont, Jax, and Barnes, and probably behind Thorpe and Smeltzer.  Others may add guys like Cave or Astudillo to the list of players to keep. So the real question here is of these 10 or 11 players (or even 13-14), which are the 4-6 that you think we should protect/keep? The rest are going to be exposed either through waivers or the Rule 5 draft. It is just hard to see how Rooker can be in those 4 to 6 protected players based on his performance to date.

I sympathize with those who are concerned that we will expose a player, lose him, and then he will go off and be good or better somewhere else. The reality is that happens to every team and we all just need to get over it. Every single team makes the mistake of keeping a player who turns out not to be not an MLB asset at the guy at the expense of a player who goes on to be a contributor or even a star elsewhere. At some level, that's the game and we just all need to get over it.  The way to judge a Front Office is are they right on their choice more often than wrong and, even better, are they generally right and not often wrong. That's the true measure IMHO.

[ashbury]

35 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

How does the 60 day IL work in the off-season?

Disappears the day after the World Series is over. No hiding bodies on that list - you get 40 spots, period.

[stringer bell]

22 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Brent Rooker = Tyler Austin

With one significant difference. Austin had very good splits against left handers. Rooker never has, in the minors or in his time with the Twins.

[stringer bell]

19 hours ago, ashbury said:

Then omit Cave from the discussion, until that new CF option is found. Cave is unlike Refsnyder and Garlick when discussing corner players.

I can't believe I keep having to woof for Cave, one of my least favorite players.  But a team just can not leave itself with its back to the wall for up-the-middle talent.  And I'm not ready to roll with just Celestino as the sole legitimate backup.  Dispose of Cave when an improvement is in hand, not when trying to decide whether to hang onto another pitching suspect or a corner bat.

Agree with this, Ash. I am wondering how much confidence the Twins have in that famed 50s comedy team of Martin and Lewis. If Buxton were to go down for more than a week, would the most ready of the top two position player prospects be stationed in CF? We know that Martin played more center field than shortstop in Wichita and he is in the top three of prospects for the team and he isn't real young (24?).

Lewis taking over in center is a longer shot. He hasn't played since 2019 and is coming off knee surgery. He'll need quite a bit of time (I think) before he's ready to advance. I would not be so sure that Martin is not on the radar.

[Brock Beauchamp]

19 hours ago, ashbury said:

Okay, but if disposing of Cave now is a solution to any kind of 40-man pressure, that pressure returns when a Hamilton type gets signed, doesn't it?  Or is this a timing thing that gets us past the Rule-5 draft?

I’m not even saying they need to drop Cave right now, I simply don’t want him here next season or for the Twins to pay him another dime. However they get there, I’m not really sure I care. 

[DJL44]

55 minutes ago, stringer bell said:

With one significant difference. Austin had very good splits against left handers. Rooker never has, in the minors or in his time with the Twins.

So Brent Rooker <= Tyler Austin? That's not a guy worth keeping.