Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Store

Photo

Moustakas demoted

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,707 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:32 PM

KC sent Moustakas to AAA. After his 2010 minor league season - where as a 21 year old he crushed AA/AAA to a line of .322/.369/.630 despite being at least 3 years younger than the league avg - he was ranked the #9 prospect in baseball. He didn't even seem to have too much issues with plate discipline in the minors. And even as a MLer, his k/bb ratios haven't been horrible. But he has been horrible in the bigs.

Edited by gunnarthor, 22 May 2014 - 01:34 PM.


#2 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:36 PM

Wow. Baseball is hard to play, and even harder to predict.

#3 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,487 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:38 PM

I was going to comment in the Hicks thread about what happens when Buxton comes up and struggles (as he invariably will at some point) -- and what will the comments be.

Always good to keep in mind that fortunes and futures can sometimes change very quickly.

#4 drock2190

drock2190

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:41 PM

Probably the next Alex Gordon. Takes awhile for him to be productive in the major leagues.

#5 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:49 PM

Yikes. A good reminder that even the best prospects sometimes fail.

REMEMBER DELMON YOUNG.

*holds up a kosher candle*

#6 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,707 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:54 PM

Yikes. A good reminder that even the best prospects sometimes fail.

REMEMBER DELMON YOUNG.

*holds up a kosher candle*


But with Delmon, at least in hindsight, you can see the plate discipline problem (same w/Frenchy and many, many others). Moose didn't seem to have that. Just plain can't hit.

#7 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 02:06 PM

Moose just can't seem to hit and all he did for his entire minor league career is go Ruth on the competition. It should be a sobering reminder.

#8 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 02:10 PM

But with Delmon, at least in hindsight, you can see the plate discipline problem (same w/Frenchy and many, many others). Moose didn't seem to have that. Just plain can't hit.


Absolutely. I just enjoy taking swipes at Delmon.

#9 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 02:12 PM

Moose just can't seem to hit and all he did for his entire minor league career is go Ruth on the competition. It should be a sobering reminder.


It should also be a sobering reminder to Dayton Moore why you don't trade for the "final piece" when you're not sure your foundation is solid.

#10 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 02:17 PM

It should also be a sobering reminder to Dayton Moore why you don't trade for the "final piece" when you're not sure your foundation is solid.


That's fair, but he did the same thing many Twins fans are doing. Sometimes you have to hope, otherwise what's the point of trying at all?

To me it's more of a message about "best laid plans" and whatnot. (And hell, it's not like what he gave up is rubbing it in every day either)

#11 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,487 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 22 May 2014 - 02:34 PM

And on shifting fortunes ....

It sounds like what is bad for Moustakas may be good for Danny Valencia.

#12 big dog

big dog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,289 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 02:52 PM

The question is, will Danny Valencia be good for Danny Valencia?

#13 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 5,786 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 03:02 PM

It should also be a sobering reminder to Dayton Moore why you don't trade for the "final piece" when you're not sure your foundation is solid.


DISAGREE. It should be a reminder, imo, of why should you try to acquire more sure things like veterans still in their prime, and not always bet on prospects. What if they had, instead, dealt Mous for a legit MLB player? Should you trade/DFA every player in the minors to get better in 1 year? No. Should you always wait for the future to perfectly align and not deal prospects? no.
Lighten up Francis....

#14 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 03:21 PM

DISAGREE. It should be a reminder, imo, of why should you try to acquire more sure things like veterans still in their prime, and not always bet on prospects. What if they had, instead, dealt Mous for a legit MLB player? Should you trade/DFA every player in the minors to get better in 1 year? No. Should you always wait for the future to perfectly align and not deal prospects? no.


They'd be better positioned to win in the long term with Myers on the roster right now.

That's why you collect prospects like Pokemon, not flip them for vets on a rebuilding team. Some of those prospects will inevitably fail but it's almost impossible to predict which ones will falter and which will thrive.

Safety in numbers. The Royals (and most other teams) cannot afford five Shields on the roster. They need to succeed through internal prospect success.

#15 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,257 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 03:35 PM

Danny Valencia's putting up terrific numbers so far with the Royals... of course, that is in large part because he's only playing against left-handed pitching, which he has always destroyed. But good for him. I hope he does great!

#16 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 03:42 PM

Moose just can't seem to hit and all he did for his entire minor league career is go Ruth on the competition. It should be a sobering reminder.


That's not all he did during his minor league career. It's more like something he rarely did. His first full season in A-ball was solid enough given his age, but nothing special. And in his 2nd year, at Hi-A, he hit .250/.297/.421 in a full season, which is really awful.

He started 2010 with a monster half-season at AA, that combined with his high draft position and tools caused his stock to soar through the roof. But that didn't really translate to AAA, with a 114 RC+ in 2010 and then 105 in 2011.

He never took many walks, and his lack of pitch selectivity doomed him against MLB pitchers.

#17 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:40 PM

That's why you collect prospects like Pokemon, not flip them for vets on a rebuilding team. Some of those prospects will inevitably fail but it's almost impossible to predict which ones will falter and which will thrive.


That's just it. The Royals traded a wildcard for not one, but two proven commodities (I dont' know why everyone forgets about Wade Davis - currently sporting a 16.8 K/9 out of the pen).

That's 5 years of combined team control - 2 for a fringe ace and a workhorse, and 3 for a fringe starter but a bullpen stud. The Rays got 7 years control for a question mark who is currently batting .684.

If anything, I think your Pokemon theory applies more specifically to pitching - just look at the Rays. How badly could they use Shields and Davis now? Cornoer OFers OTOH are the most fungible commodities in baseball.

#18 big dog

big dog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,289 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:58 PM

Danny Valencia's putting up terrific numbers so far with the Royals... of course, that is in large part because he's only playing against left-handed pitching, which he has always destroyed. But good for him. I hope he does great!


Agreed- my reasoning is the same as yours. Will his current success translate to a full-time role (if the Royals use him that way)? He's the one who will decide that, in effect.

#19 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:10 PM

It should also be a sobering reminder to Dayton Moore why you don't trade for the "final piece" when you're not sure your foundation is solid.

As MWW alluded to above, I look at it more as a sobering reminder that pinning your hopes on prospects--even consensus top 10 ones as Mous was after 2010--is a risky way to build that foundation.

#20 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 8,860 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:54 PM

When I've seen Moose hit. I always thought to myself that he was shooting himself in the foot. He seemed like he was trying to be a Pablo Sandoval clone. The guy would swing at anything. Panda got away with bad ball hitting for awhile but that has been catching up with him lately but Moose just didn't seem to have that skill ever.

He'd make contact quite a bit with the bad balls... Yet everything he hit seemed to go straight up. Panda could straighten out a ball at eye level... Moose not so much.

The Panda beats the Moose.

#21 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:26 AM

As MWW alluded to above, I look at it more as a sobering reminder that pinning your hopes on prospects--even consensus top 10 ones as Mous was after 2010--is a risky way to build that foundation.


The Royals, like most other teams, have absolutely no other way to do it. There's a good chance they've handed away Myers and will walk away with nothing to show for it.

It's not as if the Royals' farm is suddenly barren. If they held on to Myers to supplement what is a really bad offense, they'd still have pieces to move in trade for established vets but they'd actually know what they need at this point and wouldn't have squandered two years and James Shields to figure that out.

It's not about pinning hope on prospects, it's about redundancy. Some prospects will fail. A smart GM stands pat for a couple of years, figures out what holes he has after some prospects establish themselves, then he makes a move to go for it.

The Royals went from "best farm system in two decades" to "probably never going to make the playoffs" because Moore was impatient and gave up one of the best prospects in baseball before his core was ready. There's no excuse for that and if I was a Royals fan, I'd be calling for his head.

#22 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:34 AM

That's 5 years of combined team control - 2 for a fringe ace and a workhorse, and 3 for a fringe starter but a bullpen stud. The Rays got 7 years control for a question mark who is currently batting .684.


What good has that fringe ace done them? They look like they're going to miss the playoffs for a second year and then they lose James Shields. I thought the goal was to make the playoffs, not come close to making the playoffs.

I'm all for trading guys when you need a piece to go from 88 wins to 93 wins. The Royals were not in that position. Moore jumped the gun.

I hate to be the guy who points and just replies "Scoreboard." as a rebuttal but that's the most obvious proof I see as to why this was a bad idea. I said it at the time and things have played out almost exactly how I saw it happening. The Royals don't have an offense and they traded a top prospect who could be helping that offense right now (Kansas City Royals offense, currently 15th in the AL in OPS... Yes, they're behind the Astros and tied with the Mariners).

Sure, Myers is in a slump right now. Lots of guys struggle their sophomore year... But let's not forget that Will Myers was worth 2.5 wins last season and he only played 2/3rds of the season so the Rays would get a seventh year of control over him.

Wil Myers:
2013 fWAR: 2.4
2014 fWAR: 0.4
2015 fWAR: ?
2016 fWAR: ?
2017 fWAR: ?
2018 fWAR: ?
2019 fWAR: ?

James Shields:
2013 bWAR: 4.1
2014 bWAR: 0.7
2015 bWAR: Gone, comp pick

Nobody can look at those numbers and tell me with a straight face the Royals made the right move.

#23 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:40 AM

The Royals, like most other teams, have absolutely no other way to do it. There's a good chance they've handed away Myers and will walk away with nothing to show for it.

It's not as if the Royals' farm is suddenly barren. If they held on to Myers to supplement what is a really bad offense, they'd still have pieces to move in trade for established vets but they'd actually know what they need at this point and wouldn't have squandered two years and James Shields to figure that out.

It's not about pinning hope on prospects, it's about redundancy. Some prospects will fail. A smart GM stands pat for a couple of years, figures out what holes he has after some prospects establish themselves, then he makes a move to go for it.

The Royals went from "best farm system in two decades" to "probably never going to make the playoffs" because Moore was impatient and gave up one of the best prospects in baseball before his core was ready. There's no excuse for that and if I was a Royals fan, I'd be calling for his head.

I'd say if trading away one prospect takes you from "best farm system in two decades" to "probably never going to make the playoffs" it means either: a) you didn't really have the best farm system in the first place, or B) as I opined above, waiting for your farm system to build you into a winner has its own set of risks.

I dont view James Shields as the problem. He's been good. To each his own, but if I was a Royals fan, after two decades of losing while waiting for all these great prospects, I'd be calling for his head because he didn't acquire more James Shields, not less.

#24 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:46 AM

I'd say if trading away one prospect takes you from "best farm system in two decades" to "probably never going to make the playoffs" it means either: a) you didn't really have the best farm system in the first place, or B) as I opined above, waiting for your farm system to build you into a winner has its own set of risks.

I dont view James Shields as the problem. He's been good. To each his own, but if I was a Royals fan, after two decades of losing while waiting for all these great prospects, I'd be calling for his head because he didn't acquire more James Shields, not less.


James Shields isn't the problem.

Giving up a top offensive prospect for two years of James Shields when your offense is in shambles... That's the problem. Moore simply closed one hole and opened another. That's bad managing.

The idea behind acquiring James Shields is a good one if your team is ready to jump over the 90 win threshold. The Royals weren't at that point, as evidenced by their 86 win total in 2013.

Moore picked up an ace pitcher and crossed his fingers, risking the future of his organization with the move. That's the kind of decision that should get the manager of a multi-million dollar organization fired. For Christ's sake, it's the type of decision that got Bill Smith fired, and for good reason.

If we rail on a guy for putting Jason Bartlett on the opening day roster, what kind of attitude should we take toward a guy who traded five seasons of Wil Myers for what looks to amount to roughly three wins over two seasons?

That's an insane ROI. Nobody in their right mind would make that move in hindsight.

#25 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:57 AM

Should the Twins have traded Miguel Sano for David Price this past offseason?

Because that's exactly what Moore did.

This boils down to impatience and a fundamental misunderstanding of how to build a successful MLB roster. Teams don't win on the back of a David Price or a James Shields. Teams win by having 5-6 Michael Cuddyers, Brian Doziers, and Brad Radkes on their roster. Friedman understands this. Moore does not.

One guy cannot will a team to victory, particularly a pitcher who only takes the ball every fifth day. Teams win by having a bunch of pretty good complementary players who help the team win with little contributions over the course of a season.

Again, if the Royals had finished 2013 with 85 wins and then traded a piece for David Price, I'd applaud the move.

But trying to go from 72 wins (their 2012 record) to the 90+ wins it takes to make the playoffs by weakening their (mediocre at best) offense in trade for an ace pitcher who will leave in two years? That's laughable and worthy of derision.

#26 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,257 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:17 AM

The Royals are still committed to Moustakus. They want him to go down for a month maybe, rake, and come back fixed. They've spent a lot of time and money on him.

#27 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:30 AM

The Royals will get a comp pick for Shields, and then they can add even moar prospects.

If the Twins want to trade a top corner OF prospect - Arcia maybe, for David Price, I'd certainly listen. They can always go get a Nelson Cruz or Mike Morse on the FA market.

#28 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:34 AM

James Shields isn't the problem.

Giving up a top offensive prospect for two years of James Shields when your offense is in shambles... That's the problem. Moore simply closed one hole and opened another. That's bad managing.

The idea behind acquiring James Shields is a good one if your team is ready to jump over the 90 win threshold. The Royals weren't at that point, as evidenced by their 86 win total in 2013.

Moore picked up an ace pitcher and crossed his fingers, risking the future of his organization with the move. That's the kind of decision that should get the manager of a multi-million dollar organization fired. For Christ's sake, it's the type of decision that got Bill Smith fired, and for good reason.

If we rail on a guy for putting Jason Bartlett on the opening day roster, what kind of attitude should we take toward a guy who traded five seasons of Wil Myers for what looks to amount to roughly three wins over two seasons?

That's an insane ROI. Nobody in their right mind would make that move in hindsight.

Trading one corner OF prospect risks the future of his organization?

The Royals over the past couple seasons have added from their farm: Gordon, Perez, Moustakis, Hosmer, Ventura, Duffy, Herrera, Crow, and probably more that I can't recall. Escobar in a trade. If you're asking a team to wait for more talent than that to get to the majors before you add to it, you're going to be waiting a long, long time.

#29 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,453 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:34 AM

The Royals will get a comp pick for Shields, and then they can add even moar prospects.

If the Twins want to trade a top corner OF prospect - Arcia maybe, for David Price, I'd certainly listen. They can always go get a Nelson Cruz or Mike Morse on the FA market.


The Royals didn't trade an Oswaldo Arcia. They traded a Miguel Sano.

Before the 2013 season, here is where Myers ranked:
BA: 4th
BP: 7th
MLB: 4th

Miguel Sano's ranking this offseason:
BA: 6th
BP: 14th
MLB: 4th

Trading an Oswaldo Arcia, a guy who looks to be a very good complementary player with flaws, and a Miguel Sano, a guy who looks to be an elite cleanup player, are very different things.

#30 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,707 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:36 AM

What good has that fringe ace done them? They look like they're going to miss the playoffs for a second year and then they lose James Shields. I thought the goal was to make the playoffs, not come close to making the playoffs.

I'm all for trading guys when you need a piece to go from 88 wins to 93 wins. The Royals were not in that position. Moore jumped the gun.

I hate to be the guy who points and just replies "Scoreboard." as a rebuttal but that's the most obvious proof I see as to why this was a bad idea. I said it at the time and things have played out almost exactly how I saw it happening. The Royals don't have an offense and they traded a top prospect who could be helping that offense right now (Kansas City Royals offense, currently 15th in the AL in OPS... Yes, they're behind the Astros and tied with the Mariners).

Sure, Myers is in a slump right now. Lots of guys struggle their sophomore year... But let's not forget that Will Myers was worth 2.5 wins last season and he only played 2/3rds of the season so the Rays would get a seventh year of control over him.

Wil Myers:
2013 fWAR: 2.4
2014 fWAR: 0.4
2015 fWAR: ?
2016 fWAR: ?
2017 fWAR: ?
2018 fWAR: ?
2019 fWAR: ?

James Shields:
2013 bWAR: 4.1
2014 bWAR: 0.7
2015 bWAR: Gone, comp pick

Nobody can look at those numbers and tell me with a straight face the Royals made the right move.


Why would you use two different WAR calculations here? And you picked the one that rated Myers the highest and Shields the lowest. By fWAR, Shields was worth 4.5 last year and 1.6 already this year and b bWAR, Myers was worth 1.9 last year and -0.5 this year.

I didn't like the trade but wasn't as against it as you were. I think KC probably knew stuff about Myers that fans didn't and sold high on him. I'm ok with that sort of reasoning but they have to be right. The jury is still out on that part.