PDA

View Full Version : Hot Stove Time Machine



Teflon
11-16-2012, 08:49 AM
What if the Twins, with the 22nd overall pick in the 2009 MLB June Amateur draft, had taken Mike Trout (drafted three picks later) instead of Kyle Gibson? Would Trout have made as quick a debut and as immediate an impact with the Twins as he did with the Angels or would he just now be getting promoted to New Britain?

minn55441
11-16-2012, 09:03 AM
What do we need another toolsie outfielder for? We need pitching. Oh wait, time machine, this is 2009. What do we need another toolsie outfielder for? We need pitching.

Yes, I do believe that he could have progressed through the Twins farm system just as quickly. When someone dominates at a level they will move, regardless of the organization. I don't think it will be fair to compare Buxton to Trout. He will get promoted when he is ready. He should not get promoted through levels just in an attempt to match the success of Trout.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 09:03 AM
What if the Twins, with the 22nd overall pick in the 2009 MLB June Amateur draft, had taken Mike Trout (drafted three picks later) instead of Kyle Gibson? Would Trout have made as quick a debut and as immediate an impact with the Twins as he did with the Angels or would he just now be getting promoted to New Britain?

I don't believe he'd be in the majors if he had been drafted by us. Funny thing is, I looked at his numbers in high school and Buxton's numbers in high school. The major difference was Trout actually was already showing some HR power, so it makes me wonder how he was missed by so many teams when Buxton, who had lesser numbers against easier competition was viewed as the supposed best player in the draft this year.

Having said that, I wasn't that familiar with him coming out of high school, and I'm not really an advocate of drafting toolsy H School OFs in the first round anyway, so I'm not gonna dog the Twins for missing him. I wasn't, however, thrilled with the Gibson pick. Too risky with injury history before he was drafted.

I will, however, continue to dog the Twins for not getting Pedroia cause I wanted them to draft him with their first pick in 2004...and their 2nd pick, 3rd pick, 4th pick, 5th pick and 6th pick... :-)

SpiritofVodkaDave
11-16-2012, 09:16 AM
I don't believe he'd be in the majors if he had been drafted by us.

Well then you'd be wrong.

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 09:16 AM
Yes, Trout would be in the majors if he was drafted by the Twins. That's not even up for debate. The guy absolutely raked at every level of the minors.

Would he have been called up in May of this year? I don't know about that but we would have seen him by the end of the season. There is a ridiculous myth surrounding the Twins that they coddle their players in the minors... News flash: those players they "coddle" just aren't that good (yet). The last time I was really irritated with the Twins about a minor league player was Jason Bartlett. Before that, it was Justin Morneau. Right now, it's Slama.

That's three players in a decade, one of which turned into a middling position player while the jury is still completely out on the other. The only sure thing of the bunch was Morneau and he stumbled quite a bit in his first cup of coffee.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 09:51 AM
I don't believe he'd be in the majors if he had been drafted by us.

Well then you'd be wrong.

Sure I am

SpiritofVodkaDave
11-16-2012, 10:03 AM
I don't believe he'd be in the majors if he had been drafted by us.

Well then you'd be wrong.

Sure I am

See: Joe Mauer (who ended up having only about 20 more games in the minors then trout, and didn't come close to matching his dominance during that time.

SpiritofVodkaDave
11-16-2012, 10:08 AM
Yes, Trout would be in the majors if he was drafted by the Twins. That's not even up for debate. The guy absolutely raked at every level of the minors.

Would he have been called up in May of this year? I don't know about that but we would have seen him by the end of the season. There is a ridiculous myth surrounding the Twins that they coddle their players in the minors... News flash: those players they "coddle" just aren't that good (yet). The last time I was really irritated with the Twins about a minor league player was Jason Bartlett. Before that, it was Justin Morneau. Right now, it's Slama.

That's three players in a decade, one of which turned into a middling position player while the jury is still completely out on the other. The only sure thing of the bunch was Morneau and he stumbled quite a bit in his first cup of coffee.
I thought they handled Morneau for the most part correctly, seeing how they had doug mientkiewicz coming off a very solid year in 2003, the prob waited a bit to long to trade mientkiewicz, but I have a feeling they were wanting his value to get up a little as he really was struggling by the time they traded him.

Bartlett, and Slama aren't exactly the most talented players in the world, so even though its frustrating its not a huge deal.

It also should be noted that rushing prospects for the sake of rushing them fails more then it succeeds: See:Carlos Gomez

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 10:18 AM
I thought they handled Morneau for the most part correctly, seeing how they had doug mientkiewicz coming off a very solid year in 2003, the prob waited a bit to long to trade mientkiewicz, but I have a feeling they were wanting his value to get up a little as he really was struggling by the time they traded him.

Bartlett, and Slama aren't exactly the most talented players in the world, so even though its frustrating its not a huge deal.

It also should be noted that rushing prospects for the sake of rushing them fails more then it succeeds: See:Carlos Gomez

I was of the opinion that JR should have done what he did with Pierzynski/Mauer for Mientkiewicz/Morneau. Maybe he learned his lesson from sticking with Mientkiewicz too long and that's why we saw Pierzynski dished to the Giants.

The Twins should have received more for Mientkiewicz but whatever, that situation is long gone. My point is that there have been very few players who have sat in the minors for too long.

Gardy's management of some of these players (Cuddyer, Kubel) early in their careers once they were on the Major League roster was more problematic, in my opinion.

Teflon
11-16-2012, 11:43 AM
To me, Brian Dozier looks like an apt comparison of how Trout might have progressed with the Twins. Also taken in the 2009 draft, Dozier moved through the minors at the same speed and was given an MLB starting position in a similar time frame as Trout. The difference is that Dozier was drafted as a 21-year old while Trout was 17 - although I don't know that the Twins would have a different strategy for the development of collegians versus high-schoolers. Or international players.

ScottyB
11-16-2012, 11:59 AM
I decided to take the time machine back to 2000 and look at the drafts since then - I almost threw up when I saw what our rotation could have been. There is no way we would have lost 90+ games. Let's see what could have been.



Year

Round

Pick

Available



2000

1

Adam Johnson

Chase Utley




2

Tagg Bozied

Xavier Nady




3

JD Durbin

Chad Qualls



2001

1

Joe Mauer





2

Scott Tyler

JJ Hardy




3

Jose Morales

Scott Harriston




4

Angel Garcia

Ricky Nolasco



2002

1

Denard Span





2

Jesse Crain





3

Mark Sauls

Josh Johnson



2003

1

Matt Moses

Chad Billingsley




2

Scott Baker





3

Johnny Woodward

Jonathan Papelbon



2004

1A

Trevor Plouffe





1B

Glen Perkins





1C

Kyle Waldrop

Gio Gonzolez




2A

Matt Fox

Reid Brignac




2B

Anthony Swarzak

Dustin Pedroia



2005

1

Matt Garza





Sand A

Hank Sanchez

Clay Buchholz




Sand B

Drew Thompson

Taylor Teagarden




2A

Paul Kelly

Chase Headley




2B

Kevin Slowey

Jeremy Hellickson




3

Brian Duensing




2006

1

Chris Parmelee





2

Joe Benson





3

Tyler Robertson




2007

1

Ben Revere





2

Danny Rams

Jonathan Lucroy




3

Angel Morales




2008

1A

Aaron Hicks





1B

Carlos Gutierrez

Lonnie Chisenhall




Sand

Shooter Hunt

Jason Kipnis




2

Tyler Landedorf

???




3

Bobby Lanigan

???



2009

1

Kyle Gibson

Mike Trout




In the 3 drafts since 2009, it's still too early to judge. But our scouting was terrible from 2000-2005. We could have had a rotation of Chad Billingsley, Gio Gonzolez, Jeremy Hellickson, Clay Buchholz, and Josh Johnson. And we could have had other options including Matt Garza, and Ricky Nolasco, and then we could have drafted Mike Trout instead of Gibson. And the infield would not have been the problem it is today. Boy, talk about woulda, shoulda, coulda.

SpiritofVodkaDave
11-16-2012, 12:14 PM
Going back and playing captain hindsight on the freaking baseball draft is a futile endeavor. You act like guys like Josh Johnson etc were clearly "can't miss" guys and everybody but the Twins knew this, when it clearly isn't the case. Also shouldn't the other 31 teams be embarrassed they didn't Take Jason Kubel in the first 16 rounds or whatever?

Would it have been nice to get Trout? No doubt, but Gibson at least is looking like a potential very good #2, if you can grab that in the draft its a success. Hopefully Plouffe continues to produce, two years ago the 2004 draft class was looking like a complete lost cause, if Perkins ends up being a good closer and Plouffe at least a average starting 3B with pop it turns out to be somewhat of a win.

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 12:18 PM
Going back and playing captain hindsight on the freaking baseball draft is a futile endeavor. You act like guys like Josh Johnson etc were clearly "can't miss" guys and everybody but the Twins knew this, when it clearly isn't the case. Also shouldn't the other 31 teams be embarrassed they didn't Take Jason Kubel in the first 16 rounds or whatever?

Johnson was an obvious "can't miss" prospect. After all, it's not as if every team in baseball passed on him.

Twice.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 12:37 PM
See: Joe Mauer (who ended up having only about 20 more games in the minors then trout, and didn't come close to matching his dominance during that time.

Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF. And then there's the OFs we have in the system too.

In any event, NO ONE can say with CERTAINTY he'd be in the majors by now or not if we had drafted him...which is why I said I don't think he would instead of being 100% decisive. My crystal ball isn't as good as some I guess...

ScottyB
11-16-2012, 12:45 PM
I wasn't trying to play "Captain Hindsight" as you say - I was just having fun and looking at what could have been. I know we never would have had a rotation like I laid out, or the potential team. It would have been way too expensive for the reality which is our Twins. My main point is that the Twins are a team that lives and dies on their farm system. And because of that, they live and die by the draft, and a number of those players would have been very tradable to restock the farm clubs once they got too expensive.

Obviously, the Twins had a number of very good to great (or potential) first round choices as well - Torri Hunter, Michael Cuddyer, Joe Mauer, Denard Span, Ben Revere, Trevor Plouffe, Glen Perkins, Chris Parmelee, Aaron Hicks, Kyle Gibson, and Byron Buxton. But, the Twins had way too many early round draft busts from 2000-2005, guys that didn't even smell AAA, let alone MLB. That's why we're in the place we are today. I also believe that the last several years have been better, but only time will tell.

old nurse
11-16-2012, 12:55 PM
All sorts of "We could have had" players out there. Don't get too hard on the Twins drafting, Oakland hasn't drafted a player that latter had a + WAR in the majors since 2006. The players from 06 were all traded, too. The same for Boston with Bill James to help them. The Yankees have less in numbers produced than the Twins since 2000. The SABR people do no better than the money people. In 2005 Tampa Bay drafted Longoria and Hellickson. 2006, they got Price and Jennings. Not much help since then either.

SpiritofVodkaDave
11-16-2012, 01:04 PM
Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF.

What do those two things have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Yes, Mike Trout would be in the majors by now with the Twins (assuming he produced similarly in the minors-plus no injuries), it's really not that difficult of a concept. The Twins front office isn't the bumbling bunch of idiots that geniuses like Thrylos and others on this board try to make them out to be.

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 01:12 PM
See: Joe Mauer (who ended up having only about 20 more games in the minors then trout, and didn't come close to matching his dominance during that time.

Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF.

Which makes Dave's case stronger, not weaker. It's far more difficult for a catcher to move through any farm system quickly than it is for an outfielder to do the same. It usually takes a few years for a catcher to learn how to call the game on a professional level. An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

CDog
11-16-2012, 01:49 PM
An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Oh, and he doesn't have to close his glove at just the right time? Hmmmm???? C'mon, man, you're smarter than that!

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 01:52 PM
See: Joe Mauer (who ended up having only about 20 more games in the minors then trout, and didn't come close to matching his dominance during that time.

Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF.

Which makes Dave's case stronger, not weaker. It's far more difficult for a catcher to move through any farm system quickly than it is for an outfielder to do the same. It usually takes a few years for a catcher to learn how to call the game on a professional level. An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Not necessarily...not for a #1 overall pick with no one in front of him worth a darn in the minors. And it's not like they didn't know what they had in him all along. With us being supposedly very strong in OF prospects, that would have factored into Trout's rise to the majors as well.

We can keep arguing this all day long...but we don't know. I don't, you don't, Dave doesn't. No one can say with certainty and be taken as fact. It's all hypothetical.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 01:52 PM
An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Oh, and he doesn't have to close his glove at just the right time? Hmmmm???? C'mon, man, you're smarter than that!

Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 01:56 PM
What do those two things have anything to do with the topic at hand?



You're comparing hitting by a catcher and an OF and you're discounting the PR value in having Mauer, the #1 pick from the local area, up as soon as possible...impacting revenue and such with the local boy done good. Obviously he'd have to perform too, but they knew he'd do that. I'd think that'd be pretty obvious as to how it affects the topic at hand...

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 02:27 PM
An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Oh, and he doesn't have to close his glove at just the right time? Hmmmm???? C'mon, man, you're smarter than that!

Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

It's actually quite hard.

But when compared to playing catcher, it's absurdly simple.

USAFChief
11-16-2012, 06:16 PM
An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Oh, and he doesn't have to close his glove at just the right time? Hmmmm???? C'mon, man, you're smarter than that!

Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

It's actually quite hard.

But when compared to playing catcher, it's absurdly simple.

It's simple when compared to any other defensive position on the diamond, except for probably a pitcher, who can and often does get by with doing little or nothing after he releases the baseball toward the plate.

Fielding fly balls is childs play compared to fielding ground balls.

h2oface
11-16-2012, 06:30 PM
thanks for that summary, scottyB. as painful as it is to see, it is fun to see. it took some work on your part for sure, and i appreciate that, and i don't see you presenting it as "captain hindsight" at all, but as a treat for your fellow fans.

whydidnt
11-18-2012, 05:52 PM
I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

diehardtwinsfan
11-18-2012, 08:04 PM
Going back and playing captain hindsight on the freaking baseball draft is a futile endeavor. You act like guys like Josh Johnson etc were clearly "can't miss" guys and everybody but the Twins knew this, when it clearly isn't the case. Also shouldn't the other 31 teams be embarrassed they didn't Take Jason Kubel in the first 16 rounds or whatever?

Would it have been nice to get Trout? No doubt, but Gibson at least is looking like a potential very good #2, if you can grab that in the draft its a success. Hopefully Plouffe continues to produce, two years ago the 2004 draft class was looking like a complete lost cause, if Perkins ends up being a good closer and Plouffe at least a average starting 3B with pop it turns out to be somewhat of a win.

Pretty much this. Looking back and condemning the front office for every guy the draft they missed is incredibly foolish. None of these guys were can't miss guys. If they were, they'd all have gone 1 or 2 overall. FWIW, Albert Pujols was drafted in the 13th round. The greatest hitter in our generation was passed up 13 times by most teams. Think about that... It isn't rocket science. Not even close.

diehardtwinsfan
11-18-2012, 08:06 PM
I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to remember them also leading the league in actually getting players to the majors during that same time span.... something else to think about before you simply condemn them for being conservative.

johnnydakota
11-18-2012, 08:36 PM
I don't believe he'd be in the majors if he had been drafted by us.

Well then you'd be wrong.

Sure I am
sure you are , the twins wouldnt keep a kid in the minors just so he didnt hit free agency till he was already in or past his prime ...

biggentleben
11-18-2012, 08:36 PM
All sorts of "We could have had" players out there. Don't get too hard on the Twins drafting, Oakland hasn't drafted a player that latter had a + WAR in the majors since 2006. The players from 06 were all traded, too. The same for Boston with Bill James to help them. The Yankees have less in numbers produced than the Twins since 2000. The SABR people do no better than the money people. In 2005 Tampa Bay drafted Longoria and Hellickson. 2006, they got Price and Jennings. Not much help since then either.

Bringing it up again because they're so lauded in their development, but the Rays have not drafted a player that's made the major leagues since 2008, and they're the only team in baseball that can say that.

biggentleben
11-18-2012, 08:40 PM
Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

So simple a caveman can do it:

2709

johnnydakota
11-18-2012, 08:43 PM
Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF.

What do those two things have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Yes, Mike Trout would be in the majors by now with the Twins (assuming he produced similarly in the minors-plus no injuries), it's really not that difficult of a concept. The Twins front office isn't the bumbling bunch of idiots that geniuses like Thrylos and others on this board try to make them out to be.
yes they are.... plain and simple

ThePuck
11-19-2012, 09:37 AM
I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

Interesting

darin617
11-19-2012, 11:36 AM
So how about instead of a time machine theory how about spending some big money to get someone who can actually scout and evaluate players so we could draft better. Throw some insane money at the scouts of Tampa or San Francisco, just the first 2 teams I thought of that always seem to develop young talent.

TwinsFanInPhilly
11-19-2012, 12:12 PM
I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

So you have no evidence that slow is bad?

righty8383
11-19-2012, 01:01 PM
Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF.

What do those two things have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Yes, Mike Trout would be in the majors by now with the Twins (assuming he produced similarly in the minors-plus no injuries), it's really not that difficult of a concept. The Twins front office isn't the bumbling bunch of idiots that geniuses like Thrylos and others on this board try to make them out to be.
yes they are.... plain and simple

You're the one who thinks that Ken Griffey jr would not have made the bigs until he was 25 if he was a member of the Twins, so you're opinion on this subject is pretty much worthless as far as I'm concerned.

twinsnorth49
11-19-2012, 02:49 PM
All sorts of "We could have had" players out there. Don't get too hard on the Twins drafting, Oakland hasn't drafted a player that latter had a + WAR in the majors since 2006. The players from 06 were all traded, too. The same for Boston with Bill James to help them. The Yankees have less in numbers produced than the Twins since 2000. The SABR people do no better than the money people. In 2005 Tampa Bay drafted Longoria and Hellickson. 2006, they got Price and Jennings. Not much help since then either.

Bringing it up again because they're so lauded in their development, but the Rays have not drafted a player that's made the major leagues since 2008, and they're the only team in baseball that can say that.


So how about instead of a time machine theory how about spending some big money to get someone who can actually scout and evaluate players so we could draft better. Throw some insane money at the scouts of Tampa or San Francisco, just the first 2 teams I thought of that always seem to develop young talent.

See above, how would that help?

old nurse
11-19-2012, 03:07 PM
I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13018.



Interesting

Do the Twins draft/sign more high school and international players than other organizations? That would skew the numbers up for time of service. Do the Twins stick longer with pitchers trying to make them starters before deciding to make them relievers? Those are factors that could make your numbers meaningless.

ThePuck
11-19-2012, 03:18 PM
Arcia, the last three years:

.375/.424/.672, 14HR, 51 RBI
.291/.335/.531, 13HR, 51 RBI
.320/.388/.539, 17HR, 98 RBI.

Those numbers are pretty impressive...he's been in the minors for 5 years...he'll be 22 a month into the season...yet doubtful he'll be in the majors this year...at least not till September.

whydidnt
11-19-2012, 03:37 PM
Do the Twins draft/sign more high school and international players than other organizations? That would skew the numbers up for time of service. Do the Twins stick longer with pitchers trying to make them starters before deciding to make them relievers? Those are factors that could make your numbers meaningless.

The study was over 10 years, not just a year or two, and the end conclusion agrees with what many respected sites such as BP, Fangraphs, etc. have commented on from time to time which is that the Twins are slow to promote players.If you want to argue with facts feel free, but in this case the facts are what they are. Yes, the items you mention could impact how long a guy is in the minors, but the fact remains guys stay in the minors longer with the Twins than any other team in the league and it's not even close. Other teams also draft high schooler's etc.

Like I mentioned, we can argue if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's still a thing, and seems like a strange thing to try and twist or debate. If all you want to do is sit here and say the Twins organization is always right and never makes a mistake, I wonder why you bother responding to a thread that asks questions such asthis? Seems your mind is already made up, even when statistical reality is presented to you.

Further if you think the reason is the Twins draft more young or international players, how about showing some evidence to that fact. Otherwise, hard to say the article I referred to is meaningless. You could do that with ANY statistic, Mauer hit .300 last year, yea but maybe he only faced lousy pitchers, must be a meaningless stat since you didn't compare every pitcher he faced to the rest of what every hitter faced, see where this goes?