SSTN Mailbag: Catching, Relievers, And Coaching!

It's been a busy offseason. No, not from a player movement perspective, but it's been busy for me. You see, I have been working on a reasonably comprehensive offseason plan for the Yankees, one that is taking much more time than the surface dive I did last offseason (I was traveling close to 100% of the time for work for about 6-7 months beginning last November, so doing my normal diligence on an offseason plan proved impossible). I read through that plan, and I found that I was really disappointed by how thin that post was, so I'm taking a much deeper dive. Maybe not as deep as Mike Axisa has always gone both for RAB and his Patreon, but something far more akin to previous offseason plans I've written since SSTN began in 2018. 2023-2024 was an anomaly for me, one I don't plan to repeat if at all possible.

For that reason, you won't see my offseason plan prior to Thanksgiving, but I'm on track to beat last year's December 5th posting date. I've made some small edits for moves the Yankees have already made (for instance, as I've noted in this space, I would have called Cole and Boras' bluff and let them re-negotiate on the open market when he opted out of his deal, but the Yankees weren't going to do that, realistically). That's the core understanding necessary for this exercise: I am not just making moves that I would make, but I'm trying to be realistic in terms of what I think the Yankees will do and accept. You won't find a $400 million budget or trades that completely empty the farm system, because that just doesn't match the Yankees' standard mode of operation. Can I make some trades that hurt a bit? Yes, but with some discretion.

Anyway, I think this post is shaping up to be a deeper dive than I've done in a number of years. It's been fun to get back into the weeds of roster building and evaluate some players on other rosters. This post should run sometime in the week following the Thanksgiving holiday, so I hope you all enjoy it, and for those of you that follow the SSTN Mailbag and my other posts, you might already have some hints as to what I would do if I were in the GM chair.

As always, thanks for the great questions and keep them coming to SSTNReadermail@gmail.com. In this week's SSTN Mailbag, we'll talk about catching, relief arms, and coaching! Let's get at it:

Steve G. asks: Watching Trevino try to make even basic throws this season was painful, but I know the Yankees love him. Is there any chance that the Yankees go in another direction this offseason and if he were moved either through release or trade, who would the Yankees replace him with? Thanks!

Catcher is one of the core areas of focus in my offseason plan. I fundamentally agree that Trevino's arm has slipped to the point where he cannot be trusted as either the backup catcher or Austin Wells' platoon partner. I have seen multiple people opine that Trevino could be a non-tender candidate this offseason, and I fundamentally disagree with that plan. Trevino does enough other things well that there are teams out there that would almost certainly pay for his services. Trevino starts to get a bit expensive this offseason, not in a way that would be problematic for most teams, but on a team that's sticking to a budget and trying to sign Juan Soto to a contract that will likely have a record-breaking AAV, the Yankees will have to get thrifty elsewhere. I see the Yankees' options as the following:

1. Non-tender Trevino and re-sign him at a lower cost. This is risky, as they could lose him for nothing. Another team could swoop in and offer him his raise and more playing time. Even if this plan works, the Yankees will again employ a catcher who can't throw better than most decent amateur catchers.

2. Non-tender Trevino and let him walk. Sure, this is a possibility, but then you get nothing for him.

3. Offer Trevino in a trade, either as the primary piece for a seemingly small return or as the secondary piece in a larger return.

Given available resources, Option 3 looks best to me. Look around baseball; the catcher position is really thin around the league. Teams still value framing, blocking, and game calling from the catcher position, and Trevino does all of those things extremely well. Given his contact profile from the right-side of the plate, he has even proven to go on some BABIP-driven heaters at the plate, a nice bonus from a position that doesn't produce a ton of offense in the modern game.

The Yankees have a thin relief group at the moment. I think that Trevino would almost certainly net an interesting relief arm if the Yankees dangled him in a trade. Maybe not someone whose numbers jump off the page, but an arm that could have more in the tank with some pitch design and usage work. Trevino is an imperfect asset, but not one without value.

If the Yankees move on from Trevino, I think they should stay in-house for the next backup/platoon catcher. Carlos Narvaez gets excellent reviews for his defense and he throws well. My personal favorite is JC Escarra, who is far better back behind the plate than I ever expected, and he can play both corner infield positions competently. He also has a feel for hitting around the zone from the right-side with some pop. I would open it up as a competition between those two, and see who grabs it.

Fuster asks: assuming that they secure Soto's services, the team still needs to sign relief pitchers.

will Tanner Scott be realistic?

is Puk available in trade?

As I stated in my answer to the previous question, the Yankees will need to acquire some help in the bullpen this offseason even if they wind up converting some of their minor league starters to relief, which is likely to happen this offseason. As I wrote in a recent article, there are some ways to find wiggle room in the budget even if the Yankees sign Juan Soto. Depending on how the Yankees choose to use those resources, yes, I think Tanner Scott would be a realistic target this offseason. Again, it really depends on how much money they want to allocate to a single player after the Juan Soto signing.

Scott is elite in most ways. He throws hard from the left side and has very similar release points and arm angles on his four-seamer and slider, so they tunnel really well; those two pitches help him rack up strikeouts at elite levels; even when he doesn't strike guys out, he's become a king of soft contact while also generally forcing guys to make contact at suboptimal launch angles; and he's been very durable. The one knock is that he walks a lot of guys, but much of that is because he really works the edges of the zone as opposed to a true control problem. I would bet on Scott remaining elite for a little bit, as much as you can trust relievers, anyway.

Scott would be a good buy, but it would suck up some payroll to do so, and given that the Yankees need more than one reliever, I would be surprised if they went this route. If they go for Tanner Scott, then I think the Yankees will run a budget higher than any of my projections.

As for Puk, no, I think that ship has sailed. Like Fuster, I really liked the idea of trading for Puk last year, but I think the D'Backs will be quite happy to have his services in 2025.

Alan B. asks: Andy: I believe every team has in some form a Director of Pitching, in whatever title the decide to give it, in hopes I'm guessing of doing it the same way whether in the Bronx or the FCL. Why don't any teams, including the Yankees don't have a Director of Hitting?

That's a really interesting point, and I think Alan's query has a fair amount of merit until very recently. Just this offseason alone, we've seen the Marlins and the White Sox name people to the position of the Director of Hitting, and if I look around the league, I have a hunch a few more have that role listed on their payroll (I haven't checked, but I seem to remember that the Dodgers were one of the first to employ a Director of Hitting, but I could be wrong there).

Many teams employ coaches with similar philosophies between the minors and Majors specifically so that there is alignment as prospects move through the system. Often times, it falls on people with titles, such as, Minor League Hitting Coordinator, to coordinate philosophies with the Major League staff.

To answer Alan's question, I'm not sure why it took more time for positions on the hitting side to match what we've seen on the hitting side. Among people in baseball, I can tell you that there is an overarching perspective that there is more avant-garde research that has been done on the pitching side of the ball, more acutely requiring alignment throughout the system, but I'm not sure that's a good answer anymore. There are clearly philosophies to hitting the same way that there are to pitching, so I think we will see more teams, including the Yankees, employ a Director of Hitting in the coming years.