PDA

View Full Version : Article: How MLB Teams Rebuild - Part 2



Brad Swanson
02-25-2013, 07:31 AM
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1403-How-the-worst-MLB-teams-are-rebuilding-2&

Oldgoat_MN
02-25-2013, 11:58 AM
Letting Shin-Soo Choo go had to be very unpopular to the casual fans.
The Indians look to be completely unpredictable for this year. That in itself will be entertaining.

Blake
02-25-2013, 12:42 PM
I have to think that Justin is gone at the trade deadline, providing, of course, the Twins are out of contention at that time...(fortunately, one can type such a thing and not worry about keeping a straight face.) Hopefully, Justin has a good year, increasing his trade value.

Kwak
02-25-2013, 03:29 PM
Trades always sound like a swell idea--to the team that has an asset they perceive to be "fully valued". But we need to view from the perspective of "the other team". What value do they place on our asset? And is it possible that patience will permit them to acquire this player "for less"? We have read this about free-agents who have not signed as Spring training is about (or already has!) to begin--that the price will come down.

Another example: during the Santana trade both Boston and New York were pointing-out that they believed they were "paying twice" for Santana. Once for acquiring him and second for paying him his salary. I'm confident that this reasoning would apply to any trade for Morneau or Willingham.
The Twins must accept "diminished expectations" for said players. Other teams will see the same shortcomings in these two that the Twins see, and will adjust their "exchange" accordingly. The return on a trade will very likely be disappointing. I believe Willingham has significant value as a DH (more than what the Twins would recieve in return for a trade) and therefore should be retained. He won't be blocking anybody as a DH.

AAA experience? The Twins Way includes extensive time in the minor leagues not just for the purpose of a man "proving himself" but also to become a Twins Player. But there comes a time when a guy has "to prove himself as a MLB player"--and that can't be done in the minor leagues. Consider Plouffe. There is still doubt in the Twins mind that he is the long-term solution at 3B--despite his 2012 season and all of the time he has spent in the franchise being evaluated. My point, if Plouffe's actual ML experience wasn't enough, then any more MiL experince for Dozier definately won't prove he belongs at the ML level. Dozier is 25 (soon 26), he has had plenty of years (from age 8) to "learn how to play", now it's time to actually play. The back-and-forth between AAA and ML may be fine for 22 yr-olds but not 26.

The analogy of Carroll's career path and could that be Dozier in the future, sets the performance standard at "mediocre", not excellent. If these "good-guy, mediocre-type" players become the goal of the organization, they doom the franchise to continual disappointment. "Good-enough" is the enemy of "excellent".

The Wise One
02-25-2013, 07:13 PM
The articles ought to be called how not to rebuild a team. Look at the number of years the Astro's have been down. Their good players aged, left as free agents, and they had not developed replacements. Chicago continues to buy talent, susstains nothing. Cleveland's talent played well for only one year since the 90's group got old.

The Wise One
02-25-2013, 08:01 PM
So when you look at the information provided what stands out is that there are by WAR not many high quality players on these teams. Chicago buys talent, but it is not upper echelon talent. Go to fangraphs and see what the top players on Detroit, Cinci and the Giants look like. Note how the aqquired most of their talent (draft, trade and develop). That should be your guide on how teams rebuild, not the bottom feeders.

diehardtwinsfan
02-25-2013, 08:42 PM
Chicago also just changed GMs, which kind of makes them hard to gage. They used to be a heavy player in the FA market. While Theo will go there, he believes in a farm system too and does some Beane style moves (like Scott Baker) to hopefully improve that.

TheLeviathan
02-25-2013, 09:08 PM
Note how the aqquired most of their talent (draft, trade and develop). That should be your guide on how teams rebuild, not the bottom feeders.

I don't see how this is a counter-point to anything being suggested. The Cubs, when buying FAs, were never "rebuilding". Likewise, I wouldn't call Cleveland "rebuilding", that happened years ago and as guys like Kipnis, Santana, Chisenhall are coming up now. Most any team rebuilds with drafting, trading, and developing.

The question really is, how much of their current roster do they maintain while they are doing that. Personally, I think you move guys when you are offered value for them. What boggles my mind is that this team is so resistant to trade the "core" guys but then doesn't hesitate to let them walk. See: Hunter and Cuddyer.

Kwak
02-25-2013, 10:27 PM
Hunter was most surprised his option was excercised (he had listed his MN residence). I think Hunter and Santana were kept for 2007 because the FO believed that the team could expand on its '06 success.

Rosterman
02-25-2013, 10:36 PM
I agree with Leviathan. The Twins allow guys to walk. What they did with Span is basically what you should be looking at for most any player. Another season or two out of Perkins, then move him on and replace him with another body, for example. I'm sure the Twins braintrust is trying to figure out how to get the msot out of their "prospects" now that so many are needed, sadly, but still not have them all hit arbitration or free agency at the same time, or the longterm prospects of signing the guys to team friendly contracts early like they did with Span, and Perkins, and Baker, and in some ways Blackburn.

The Wise One
02-25-2013, 11:20 PM
I don't see how this is a counter-point to anything being suggested. The Cubs, when buying FAs, were never "rebuilding". Likewise, I wouldn't call Cleveland "rebuilding", that happened years ago and as guys like Kipnis, Santana, Chisenhall are coming up now. Most any team rebuilds with drafting, trading, and developing.

The question really is, how much of their current roster do they maintain while they are doing that. Personally, I think you move guys when you are offered value for them. What boggles my mind is that this team is so resistant to trade the "core" guys but then doesn't hesitate to let them walk. See: Hunter and Cuddyer.

Bother Levi your memory is either short or other reasons. Cuddyer's last year was in the middle of a penant chase. I don't recall you people demanding he be traded before they couldn't get anything for him. If JO Berios is a real deal, then it will work out as a great trade. If Luke Bard workd out, then they did great with Kubel. By most accounts the Hunter contract with the Angels was an unforseable blow them out of the water offer. The Twins did try and were more than generous with their offer. Time will tell if Harrison and Boyd will be great compensation for Hunter. It is so easy to forget.

My Brother Levi. I am sorry I did not post it clearly enough for all to understand between my two posts (pesky work gets in the way) that in no way did I consider Cleveland, Houston, or the Cubs to be rebuilding at this time. It would say that there was something there. I will try harder next time to be clearer for you

Brock Beauchamp
02-26-2013, 07:30 AM
By most accounts the Hunter contract with the Angels was an unforseable blow them out of the water offer. The Twins did try and were more than generous with their offer. Time will tell if Harrison and Boyd will be great compensation for Hunter. It is so easy to forget.

The Angels offered way more money than was expected but the Twins were never competitive on their offers to retain Hunter, just as they weren't competitive on their offers to Johan.

Letting someone walk without an offer and letting someone walk because your offer is 60% of market value is pretty much the same thing, one just looks better to a casual fan.

old nurse
02-26-2013, 09:08 AM
The Angels offered way more money than was expected but the Twins were never competitive on their offers to retain Hunter, just as they weren't competitive on their offers to Johan.

Letting someone walk without an offer and letting someone walk because your offer is 60% of market value is pretty much the same thing, one just looks better to a casual fan.

The market value as you call it is set after the contract is signed. It was pretty much a universal wow when the Angels went that high. Doesn't excuse the Twins from not increasing their offer when the first was rejected. Hunter's agent never gave the Twins a counter offer either. The dollars per year was more than competitive with what other players received the same year or previous years. The other offers Hunter had were never made public that I know of. I recall that the White Sox made a 4 year offer. It would be reasonable to think that the dollar amount wasn't high enough. The Twins probably were more money per year, The Sox more years. The Angels came out of nowhere and made an offer Hunter couldn't refuse nor bother to give the Twins notice. I do remember later reports on Hunter not liking the interaction he had with Smith and felt the outcome might have been different with Ryan as GM
Santana made it clear he wanted to play elsewhere irrespective of offer.

FrodaddyG
02-26-2013, 09:18 AM
The Twins probably were more money per year, The Sox more years.
As memory serves, the Twins offer was for both less money and years.

FrodaddyG
02-26-2013, 09:21 AM
I do remember later reports on Hunter not liking the interaction he had with Smith and felt the outcome might have been different with Ryan as GM.
Which is strange, since Ryan was the one who offered him the lowball offer during the 2007 season.

old nurse
02-26-2013, 10:58 AM
As memory serves, the Twins offer was for both less money and years.
The Twins offer was less years and money than the Angels, I was pointing out the report that the White Sox were a team that made an offer. Do you have what the White Sox offered?
The year before JD Drew signed 5/60. A 3 year contract would be far too short, but averaging 15 mil per year is not in terms of the Drew contract lowball in terms of dollars per year.

FrodaddyG
02-26-2013, 11:13 AM
The year before JD Drew signed 5/60. A 3 year contract would be far too short, but averaging 15 mil per year is not in terms of the Drew contract lowball in terms of dollars per year.
And why would Hunter's target be anywhere near the same level as JD Drew? Hunter was a Gold Glove defender at an up the middle position who could actually hit. Drew was a corner outfielder. If he told his agent "go get me the same deal as JD Drew", he'd be an idiot, as evidenced by the fact that he got significantly more.

old nurse
02-26-2013, 11:53 AM
And why would Hunter's target be anywhere near the same level as JD Drew? Hunter was a Gold Glove defender at an up the middle position who could actually hit. Drew was a corner outfielder. If he told his agent "go get me the same deal as JD Drew", he'd be an idiot, as evidenced by the fact that he got significantly more.
15 million a year wasn't significantly higher than 12?

FrodaddyG
02-26-2013, 11:54 AM
15 million a year wasn't significantly higher than 12?
25% higher. How much higher is $18M?

TheLeviathan
02-26-2013, 04:53 PM
Time will tell if Harrison and Boyd will be great compensation for Hunter. It is so easy to forget.

The point was not one about return, it was one of philosophy. The Twins bristle at the suggestion that they should trade people, whether they are in contention or not. They also appear to have little qualms with letting guys walk no matter how vital to the clubhouse or how good they are at playing the Twins Way. (Cuddyer alone proves this) So it always bothers me when I hear Ryan or others suggest the reasons not to deal a guy like Willingham is because he is their kind of guy. We've let our kind of guy walk more than a few times - the reason to move or not move a player should have nothing to do with that. And they should understand when fans get irritated by this organization's bluster about trading (See: "Getting X player back from injury is just like making a trade!" or the annual stand-pat at the deadline approach) when they so flippantly seem to release guys that are heart and soul members of the team.

It's hard to assess whether a team should or shouldn't sell the whole lot to rebuild, I think that depends on offers being received we know nothing about. But that was the general point being made here: do you sell off completely or half-ass it? What I don't want to see is a half-ass approach because Willingham is a "Twin's Guy" rather than the team being low-balled.

Kwak
02-26-2013, 06:01 PM
Maybe Willingham is a "Twins Guy" because of his performance on and off the field. Armchair GMs love to talk "deals" because it is a far more interesting subject than "keep him". I can envision Twins team next year with: (3 of the four) Arcia, Benson, Hicks, and Mastroianni starting, Parmalee at 1B, and Willingham DH. Doumit is the #2 C, #2 DH, #2PH, and emergency elsewhere and Drew Butera is not in a Twins uniform. Josh can still make his contributions offensively, will be less subject to injury. The offense is improved, the defense is improved, and the payroll reduced to the point that a premier FA can be signed to plug one of the remaining gaping holes. 2014 wouldn't be up to playoff standards, but will be far more entertaining than '11, '12, and '13 combined and will illustrate that there truly is light at the end of the tunnel.

TheLeviathan
02-26-2013, 06:24 PM
Maybe Willingham is a "Twins Guy" because of his performance on and off the field.

So is Morneau. So was Kubel. So was Cuddyer. So was Torii. So was Johan. So was Span. The point is, Willingham SHOULD be moved if the offers are good. He's not going to be part of this team's long term success in all likelihood. I wouldn't advocate getting lowballed, but his availability should be well known around the league when we approach the deadline.

The Wise One
02-26-2013, 06:45 PM
The point was not one about return, it was one of philosophy. The Twins bristle at the suggestion that they should trade people, whether they are in contention or not. They also appear to have little qualms with letting guys walk no matter how vital to the clubhouse or how good they are at playing the Twins Way. (Cuddyer alone proves this) So it always bothers me when I hear Ryan or others suggest the reasons not to deal a guy like Willingham is because he is their kind of guy. We've let our kind of guy walk more than a few times - the reason to move or not move a player should have nothing to do with that. And they should understand when fans get irritated by this organization's bluster about trading (See: "Getting X player back from injury is just like making a trade!" or the annual stand-pat at the deadline approach) when they so flippantly seem to release guys that are heart and soul members of the team.

It's hard to assess whether a team should or shouldn't sell the whole lot to rebuild, I think that depends on offers being received we know nothing about. But that was the general point being made here: do you sell off completely or half-ass it? What I don't want to see is a half-ass approach because Willingham is a "Twin's Guy" rather than the team being low-balled.

Trades like Milton, Aggie, Hanson, A.J. and many others didn't happen because that is not the Twins way? If Berrios and the other drafted player works out, then letting Cuddyer walk was a great move. Any idea if Kubel and Cuddyer were shopped around? Was there a good offer? Nobody talked. The Twins way is the Pohlad way. Get people to work cheaply. Buy low, sell high.

TheLeviathan
02-26-2013, 06:53 PM
Trades like Milton, Aggie, Hanson, A.J. and many others didn't happen because that is not the Twins way? If Berrios and the other drafted player works out, then letting Cuddyer walk was a great move. Any idea if Kubel and Cuddyer were shopped around? Was there a good offer? Nobody talked. The Twins way is the Pohlad way. Get people to work cheaply. Buy low, sell high.

Um, that has not been what they've done well for a long time. As I specifically said, ultimately as fans we don't know what's on the table when we speculate about these subjects, so no use pretending otherwise or using that as a club to bat a skeptic over the head. We're all ignorant so that talking point is irrelevant.

AJ and Milton were almost ten years ago. This team has let far more players walk then they have traded them in walk years. They even managed to half-ass their way with the Johan situation into completely destroying their leverage. The Span and Revere deals were nice, I hope they understand the same idea can work for their two prime trade candidates this year and aren't shy about shopping. I'm not convinced about what is most important to this club: "Twins Way" or value. The Revere deal encourages me, but Willingham being talked about as a "core" player does not.

The Wise One
02-26-2013, 07:31 PM
Um, that has not been what they've done well for a long time. As I specifically said, ultimately as fans we don't know what's on the table when we speculate about these subjects, so no use pretending otherwise or using that as a club to bat a skeptic over the head. We're all ignorant so that talking point is irrelevant.

AJ and Milton were almost ten years ago. This team has let far more players walk then they have traded them in walk years. They even managed to half-ass their way with the Johan situation into completely destroying their leverage. The Span and Revere deals were nice, I hope they understand the same idea can work for their two prime trade candidates this year and aren't shy about shopping. I'm not convinced about what is most important to this club: "Twins Way" or value. The Revere deal encourages me, but Willingham being talked about as a "core" player does not.

Not knowing what has gone on have never stopped people from speculating. While some trades may have been 10 years ago, don't forget that Ryan took a few year vacation. Smith was so bad at negotiating trades that the Twins were better off testing their luck with the draft. Travis Harrison for Orlando Hudson might be a great move. Hudson Boyd for Crain another good move. The damage done by Smith's ineptness at trades reallly led the club to where they are today.

TheLeviathan
02-26-2013, 07:44 PM
Not knowing what has gone on have never stopped people from speculating.

The point is, we're all speculating - good or bad. Hell, we could praise a great trade like Revere's and not know about an even better offer that was out there. We have to just accept we are conversing with a significant ignorance at play and not consider that an argument against a position as you tried to employ it.


Smith's ineptness at trades reallly led the club to where they are today.

And, if you give him total blame for that, give him total credit for where this club is going with the prospects drafted under his supervision. Johan, for example, is almost completely Ryan's fault. He made that situation what it was and has set the standard for poor contract negotiation strategy for this franchise. All I'm saying is, with this team rebuilding (and it is, despite the bluster in public) I hope they aren't gun-shy about trading people. The rewards for releasing FA are no longer as bountiful as they once were and the option to trade should be explored more effectively mid-season by this team than it has. I hope this year we see that.

The Wise One
02-26-2013, 09:03 PM
The point is, we're all speculating - good or bad. Hell, we could praise a great trade like Revere's and not know about an even better offer that was out there. We have to just accept we are conversing with a significant ignorance at play and not consider that an argument against a position as you tried to employ it.



And, if you give him total blame for that, give him total credit for where this club is going with the prospects drafted under his supervision. Johan, for example, is almost completely Ryan's fault. He made that situation what it was and has set the standard for poor contract negotiation strategy for this franchise. All I'm saying is, with this team rebuilding (and it is, despite the bluster in public) I hope they aren't gun-shy about trading people. The rewards for releasing FA are no longer as bountiful as they once were and the option to trade should be explored more effectively mid-season by this team than it has. I hope this year we see that.


Brother Levi admits ignorance. I'll be darned.
Santana still had a full season of control by the Twins when Ryan left.. Could have Ryan fixed it? yes. The end falls to Smith.

Mediocre players will bring mediocre prospects. Players with faults will no bring top prospects. If you have what someone needs, then you can get a return. What there used to be return for soon to be free agents will be less as there is not much compensation to be leveraged.

TheLeviathan
02-26-2013, 09:06 PM
Brother Levi admits ignorance. I'll be darned.

All fans are in ignorance, I get annoyed when it becomes a tool of argument.


Santana still had a full season of control by the Twins when Ryan left.. Could have Ryan fixed it? yes. The end falls to Smith.

The end that falls on Smith was completely set up by Ryan stripping all leverage from him. That was Ryan's problem that many fans still wrongly blame Smith for.

The beauty of Willingham is that there is still team control. I am very, very eager to see if the Twins do the right thing and move him this season. And I'm hoping they shop him aggressively and wisely - last year I get the impression it was lip-service or the demands were ridiculous.

johnnydakota
02-26-2013, 09:50 PM
So they promote the special advisor of all the bad trades Bill Smith made?
Well 1 reason would be because ownership wanted to return to dumpster diving.
As for bill he deserves credit for getting us into the international market , and most of our top prospects were signed under Bill.

When Mr. Ryan was brought back under the imtrem title, i was hoping his job would be to find a quality replacement to be the new G.M. But once i saw how he low balled all 4 of the free agents, I knew he was here to cut payroll....

The Wise One
02-26-2013, 10:06 PM
All fans are in ignorance, I get annoyed when it becomes a tool of argument.



The end that falls on Smith was completely set up by Ryan stripping all leverage from him. That was Ryan's problem that many fans still wrongly blame Smith for.

The beauty of Willingham is that there is still team control. I am very, very eager to see if the Twins do the right thing and move him this season. And I'm hoping they shop him aggressively and wisely - last year I get the impression it was lip-service or the demands were ridiculous.

Decent return for trades happen all the time in the last year of a contract of a soon to be free agent. Skill in negotiation, be it a trade or a contract, is the key for a return. The could have asked for 2 good prospects and that kind poor pitcher named Nova in the low minors, and a flier on another

The Wise One
02-26-2013, 10:07 PM
So they promote the special advisor of all the bad trades Bill Smith made?
Well 1 reason would be because ownership wanted to return to dumpster diving.
As for bill he deserves credit for getting us into the international market , and most of our top prospects were signed under Bill.

When Mr. Ryan was brought back under the imtrem title, i was hoping his job would be to find a quality replacement to be the new G.M. But once i saw how he low balled all 4 of the free agents, I knew he was here to cut payroll....
"
All fans are in ignorance, I get annoyed when it becomes a tool of argument."

Brother Leviathan said that, now I really understand what he meant

Kwak
02-26-2013, 10:11 PM
I wish to jump into this diatribe. The Twins did not have a year's control of Santana before he was traded. Ryan "stepped down" in September '07 and Santana was traded in the off-season between '07 and '08, about December '07. A poor result, or just a bad trade? Right now that point is moot. Compare to the result of Hunter leaving via free agency at the end of '07. The Twins did recieve a draft pick. Which end result was better for the Twins? Trade or Draft compensation?

The Twins traded Delmon Young. I guess the only positive for the Twins was the salary saved--which doesn't benefit the fans at all.

Ryan traded Luis Castillo in July '06 for Drew Butera and another Catcher (both were MiLers at the time), gave Casilla his (first of many) chance to be the next Twins 2B. Or should the Twins have just kept Castillo?

Kubel had been mentioned as a trade candidate--problem was he was on the DL at the time and couldn't have been traded!

Cuddyer. True he was a candidate for trade. I don't know if he was offered (he likely was) and who was offered as compensation. I do recall he basically played every game as one of the very few major league players regularly in the line-up. Twins fans were pretty much forced to watch a minor league team as the 2011 season closed with Cuddyer as the lone "name". Uff Da.

We read last year that everybody including Mauer was made available in August--but there were no deals made. Hmm, maybe our favorites aren't as highly sought by other teams, as many Twins fans think? I don't think Morneau should be part of the 2014 Twins. But I definately would rather watch him finish 2013 as a Twin than have him be traded for the next Jim Hoey.

I have already stated my position about Willingham, so I won't repeat it.

TheLeviathan
02-26-2013, 10:27 PM
Decent return for trades happen all the time in the last year of a contract of a soon to be free agent. Skill in negotiation, be it a trade or a contract, is the key for a return. The could have asked for 2 good prospects and that kind poor pitcher named Nova in the low minors, and a flier on another

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand the position he was put in. He should've kept Santana and taken the picks, but again, he was handed a basket of crap in that situation and, not surprisingly, wound up the same in the trade.

TheLeviathan
02-26-2013, 10:32 PM
Which end result was better for the Twins? Trade or Draft compensation?

We read last year that everybody including Mauer was made available in August--but there were no deals made.

Being bad at trading for value mid-season doesn't exactly make for a strong counter-point. Again, if my point is that their approach to it needs work, you just basically made my point.

As for "making everyone available" - the only thing we know about Willingham being shopped is that they were asking for big league starting pitching. It's a bit silly to ask a team competing that wants to add a big bat to deal from their current rotation to do it. That's a sure-fire way to make a trade not happen.

The Wise One
02-26-2013, 11:26 PM
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand the position he was put in. He should've kept Santana and taken the picks, but again, he was handed a basket of crap in that situation and, not surprisingly, wound up the same in the trade.

We will have to disagree. There is your view of the situation with your spin. Basket of crap? There are people on this board who insist that Santana would have resigned here if only offered the money. It was announced that Ryan was stepping down in September, during the season, after the trade deadline. Again, spin it any way you want.

To the other guy, SSantana signed a 4 year contract in 2005. So Santana had one year left on a contract when traded.

snepp
02-26-2013, 11:30 PM
The Twins traded Delmon Young. I guess the only positive for the Twins was the salary saved--which doesn't benefit the fans at all.

Not having to watch him was a benefit to the fans. :p

Brad Swanson
02-27-2013, 04:55 PM
Not having to watch him was a benefit to the fans. :p

More food for all of us too.