Twins Video
Ryan Jeffers was seen as a bat-first player when the Twins drafted him, and there were questions as to whether he’d ever stick behind the plate. Fast forward to where we are now, and Jeffers has turned himself into one of the better receivers across the league. Unfortunately, the bat that played over 26 games in 2021 has been nonexistent the past two seasons.
Garver and Jeffers split time last season, with the latter getting in 85 games. Across 293 plate appearances for the Twins last season, Jeffers put up a .670 OPS which translated to an 84 OPS+. In 206 plate appearances thus far this season he owns a lesser .666 OPS but given offensive decline as a whole, that translates to a better 92 OPS+. That means Jeffers has failed to be a league-average hitter for either of the past two seasons.
Maybe that works as his framing plays, but it’s not as though Jeffers is a stalwart in all areas with the glove. Jeffers has already allowed five passed balls in 230 less innings than he recorded six last season. Although the Twins receiving style doesn’t necessarily put emphasis on catching base stealers, Jeffers has thrown out just six of 35 base runners. That 17% falls well below the 24% league average, a mark that Jeffers was within one percent of last season.
Then there’s Gary Sanchez.
It’s been peaks and valleys with the former Yankees backstop. Sanchez owns a better .702 OPS and has basically been league average with his bat the past two seasons. Offensively he’s not the complete non-factor he was in 2018 or 2020, but at league-average, his approach leaves plenty to be desired.
Through 67 games, Sanchez has hit 10 homers, a bit behind his pace from last season that resulted in 23 longballs. His on-base production has dipped significantly however, in that he owns an ugly 73/17 K/BB. Last season, despite a .204 average, he posted a .307 OBP. This season there’s just a 60 point split between the two, and his .281 OBP has resulted in a power-or-nothing approach.
Defensively Sanchez has fewer passed balls than his teammate, and throwing out seven of 23 would-be-base-stealers has him above league average at 30%. He’s not as good of a receiver, but has made notable strides that Minnesota no doubt appreciates.
These two players combined could probably provide something of more use, but on their own each is coming up just short. That leaves the front office with a question as to whether this is a position to address before the trade deadline flies by.
One of the biggest names available from a hitting standpoint is veteran catcher Willson Contreras. The Chicago Cubs backstop is all but certain to be moved as he’s a free agent following this season. His .867 OPS is otherworldly at a position not typically ripe with offense production. He’s also solid behind the dish defensively, and would give Minnesota an option to upgrade their worst position.
How a catcher factors in for the Twins remains intriguing. Jeffers, Sanchez, and a third player would not all fit on the active roster. Someone would almost have to be moved in any deal that acquires the position, but that could send ripple effects through the clubhouse. There’s also the reality that Minnesota’s 40-man roster is incredibly thin behind the plate after the two included on the 26-man roster, and having options for the future needs to be a focus.
I still think it’s unlikely the Twins trade for a bat, especially in needing so much pitching help, but if they do, adding to a position of need and swinging for one of the best in the game at it would hardly be unwelcomed.
What do you think? Should the Twins add a catcher at the deadline? Is someone like Contreras going to cost too much?
MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
— Latest Twins coverage from our writers
— Recent Twins discussion in our forums
— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
— Become a Twins Daily Caretaker
Recommended Comments
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.