Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: The Value of Losing

  1. #1
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,756
    Like
    1
    Liked 103 Times in 73 Posts

    The Value of Losing

    The Twins went 63-99 in 2011 and ended up with the 2nd overall pick. In 2012 they went 66-96 and ended up with the 4th overall pick. Currently the Twins are 34-38 and if the regular season ended today they would have the 11th overall pick. Improvement right? Not so fast.

    In 2012 the top tier of the draft was considered 6-8 deep (depending on the expert). With the number 2 overall pick the Twins were guaranteed to get a player in that tier. The Astros skipped on Buxton (considered the top player in the draft) and took Carlos Correa to save money to spend else where. Buxton is considered a top 5 prospect with some experts ranking him #1.

    In the recent 2013 draft the top tier of the draft was considered 3 deep. With the number 4 overall pick the Twins were not guaranteed a top tier player and ended up not getting one. While Stewart is a hell of a consultation prize how much value did the Twins miss out on because of winning two extra games?

    With the third overall pick the Rockies took Jonathan Gray who was considered the top talent in the draft according to some experts. A big college RHP who can hit 100 on radar guns and should get to the bigs pretty fast. Grays time line lines up well with our current minor league talent. Also, while Stewart signed at slot Gray signed for 826k under slot which can go a long ways with the new draft rules.

    There is a long way to go tell the 2014 draft but the draft is shaping up to be one of the strongest class. Some experts expect the top tier to be 7-9 deep, which would put the Twins outside of that window two years in a row. Last year the Twins held onto their trade able assets at the deadline because they didn't get an offer they wanted. Free agency is young but if that happens again this year it might cement their draft position.

    Losing is losing and finishing under .500 is under .500. My question for you is; Is winning a few extra games worth it in the long run for the franchise?

  2. #2
    Twins Moderator MVP ashburyjohn's Avatar
    Posts
    8,685
    Like
    2,656
    Liked 3,308 Times in 1,755 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Baseball is a business, but it's also a sport. Intentionally tanking, whether at the individual player level or at the front office level, seems contrary to being sporting. It bothers me to consider it, even though the incentive is clearly there.

  3. #3
    Senior Member All-Star IdahoPilgrim's Avatar
    Posts
    2,421
    Like
    2
    Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by cmb0252 View Post
    Losing is losing and finishing under .500 is under .500. My question for you is; Is winning a few extra games worth it in the long run for the franchise?
    For me, yes. You try to win every game - whether you are challenging for the title or whether you are trying to finish 10 games under .500 instead of 11. I know some will say I am being short-sighted and will hammer me for not taking the long view, but's that's the way I feel.

    Reason #1: You never want to build a ethos where losing is acceptable or tolerated. I remember talking to a minor league club owner a number of years ago, and he was relating something he was told by the Cardinals - they always want to build a winning mentality into their players, whether it is at the majors or in Single-A. I agree with that.

    Reason #2: When people buy tickets to a game, they are paying for the players to put their best effort out there on the field; they are paying for the team to try to win. If the team is not trying to win, for whatever reason, you've broken faith with the people for whom the game exists in the first place. No amount of promised future glory justifies that, in my opinion.

    So while I understand the reason for the question, my answer is yes - winning is always worth it.

  4. #4
    Twins Moderator MVP Riverbrian's Avatar
    Posts
    8,781
    Like
    4,922
    Liked 2,304 Times in 1,295 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cmb0252 View Post
    The Twins went 63-99 in 2011 and ended up with the 2nd overall pick. In 2012 they went 66-96 and ended up with the 4th overall pick. Currently the Twins are 34-38 and if the regular season ended today they would have the 11th overall pick. Improvement right? Not so fast.

    In 2012 the top tier of the draft was considered 6-8 deep (depending on the expert). With the number 2 overall pick the Twins were guaranteed to get a player in that tier. The Astros skipped on Buxton (considered the top player in the draft) and took Carlos Correa to save money to spend else where. Buxton is considered a top 5 prospect with some experts ranking him #1.

    In the recent 2013 draft the top tier of the draft was considered 3 deep. With the number 4 overall pick the Twins were not guaranteed a top tier player and ended up not getting one. While Stewart is a hell of a consultation prize how much value did the Twins miss out on because of winning two extra games?

    With the third overall pick the Rockies took Jonathan Gray who was considered the top talent in the draft according to some experts. A big college RHP who can hit 100 on radar guns and should get to the bigs pretty fast. Grays time line lines up well with our current minor league talent. Also, while Stewart signed at slot Gray signed for 826k under slot which can go a long ways with the new draft rules.

    There is a long way to go tell the 2014 draft but the draft is shaping up to be one of the strongest class. Some experts expect the top tier to be 7-9 deep, which would put the Twins outside of that window two years in a row. Last year the Twins held onto their trade able assets at the deadline because they didn't get an offer they wanted. Free agency is young but if that happens again this year it might cement their draft position.

    Losing is losing and finishing under .500 is under .500. My question for you is; Is winning a few extra games worth it in the long run for the franchise?
    It's an interesting question... Draft position is important however I'd have to say winning games is more important... and I'd add a big "Kind Of" attached to that definite statement I just made.

    One extra win every 10 games is a 16 game differential and when you look at the margins between first and last... 16 games is a huge dent and within every teams reach.

    Yes the extra wins matter because even the worst team on paper is closer than most think and the teams toward the bottom need to learn to become winners and they should go for it every day.

    And... Just because the draft experts label a draft 3 or 8 deep... It doesn't mean they are right. Kohl Stewart may end up not panning out or he may be better than Appel or Gray. That stuff happens every year in the draft.
    A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

  5. #5
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,868
    Like
    12
    Liked 72 Times in 43 Posts
    If the draft guaranteed talent would be dispersed in a linear manner perhaps there would be some benefit to losing. But this obviously not the case.

    Win games and scout well.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer Monkeypaws's Avatar
    Posts
    601
    Like
    77
    Liked 114 Times in 68 Posts
    It has sure taken a while for that strategy to pay off for Pittsburgh or Kansas City.

    There is also the culture of winning to consider.

  7. #7
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,756
    Like
    1
    Liked 103 Times in 73 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeypaws View Post
    It has sure taken a while for that strategy to pay off for Pittsburgh or Kansas City.

    There is also the culture of winning to consider.
    It didn't take the Rays or Nationals very long. Every team in baseball has gone through a rebuilding phase. Yes, even the stankyees. When talking about rebuilding around here pointing to the Royals/Pirates has become very popular. Just like how I pointed at the Rays and Nationals. In reality one has nothing to do with each other. Each team rebuilds differently.

  8. #8
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,430
    Like
    70
    Liked 49 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cmb0252 View Post
    It didn't take the Rays or Nationals very long. Every team in baseball has gone through a rebuilding phase. Yes, even the stankyees. When talking about rebuilding around here pointing to the Royals/Pirates has become very popular. Just like how I pointed at the Rays and Nationals. In reality one has nothing to do with each other. Each team rebuilds differently.
    It sure did take the Rays and the Nationals a long time. The Rays had 10 straight years of 90+ losses before finally getting above .500 in 2008. The Nationals first 8 seasons in Washington saw 7 seasons below .500 and the eighth was at exactly .500. That included back to back 100+ loss seasons.

    Prospects are volatile commodities. It isn't the first wave that turns a franchise around. It takes many seasons of losing to accumulate enough good prospects that enough pan out to make a difference.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Triple-A B Richard's Avatar
    Posts
    489
    Like
    15
    Liked 42 Times in 30 Posts
    Some thoughts.

    Was the 2012 draft really considered 6-8 deep? I had the impression that Buxton was clearly the highest upside and that Appel was the elite arm. At that point, other guys were considered great but not like those two.

    The Nats got exceptionally lucky, IMO, to happen to be rebuilding when Harper and Strasburg fell into their laps in the draft. Their success has been undoubtedly aided by it.

    Never tank. Maybe it's the way I was raised, but even the thought of throwing away games, even if it meant better draft picks (whose success and development are NEVER guaranteed) absolutely disgusts me. Losing is never acceptable. Ever. You put your best foot forward and try to win with what you have.

    If this were the NBA or NFL, where draft picks are surer bets and can make an immediate impact, you might have a better case for dropping a few extra games in years like this. In baseball though it's really unfathomable.


    edit: I find it highly unlikely that the Twins finish this season as only the 11th worst team in the league. I see them in the 6-8 range, at best.
    Last edited by B Richard; 06-25-2013 at 05:59 PM.
    Bring a song and a smile for the banjo,
    Better get while the gettin's good
    Catch a ride to the end of the highway
    Where the neons turn to wood

  10. #10
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,409
    Like
    420
    Liked 827 Times in 520 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Tank it intentionally? No.

    But... this was one of the reasons why I wasn't in too much of a hurry to see Arcia and Gibson promoted, though I do think Gibson in particular earned it. While he was doing well, letting Arcia play in AAA to get more PT to guys like Parmelee and Plouffe will likely end up with a few more losses, but is also more beneficial to the team long term... and not just in draft position as they learn if they have something in these other guys. I think it would have been better to bring Oswaldo up after trade deadline.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer Monkeypaws's Avatar
    Posts
    601
    Like
    77
    Liked 114 Times in 68 Posts
    Sometimes it is just dumb luck too - look back at any pretty much any draft and there will be busts. Or injuries. Or inexplicable circumstances.

    Teams find treasures in the supplemental or 2nd rounds or later as well.

    Exceptions abound, but i think you play to win, and you put out your best team to do so.

    Drafting in baseball is a less exact science than in other sports IMO. Just ask Brien Taylor.

  12. #12
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,756
    Like
    1
    Liked 103 Times in 73 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    It sure did take the Rays and the Nationals a long time. The Rays had 10 straight years of 90+ losses before finally getting above .500 in 2008. The Nationals first 8 seasons in Washington saw 7 seasons below .500 and the eighth was at exactly .500. That included back to back 100+ loss seasons.

    Prospects are volatile commodities. It isn't the first wave that turns a franchise around. It takes many seasons of losing to accumulate enough good prospects that enough pan out to make a difference.
    Once again, every team in all sports have gone through slumps. I was just saying the Royals/Pirates are a very over exaggerated comparison to the Twins.

    While prospects are volatile but aren't 90% big leaguers too?

  13. #13
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,298
    Like
    36
    Liked 137 Times in 83 Posts
    I'm a prospect and a draft guy but I strongly dislike this idea. If somebody wants to make the argument that you don't sign a bunch of mediocre veterans that will block prospects then that's okay even if it costs you a couple of wins. If someone suggests trading veterans to add minor league talent then that's okay. If someone suggests playing a prospect over a veteran then that's fine. If someone wants the Twins to lose simply to improve draft position then I disagree. I know that you are going to spin this but losing for the sake of losing reinforces a bad precedent.

  14. #14
    Junior Member Rookie
    Posts
    9
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Well, I guess I'll come in and add my view: I completely agree that losing more is better, and any time my teams don't have a shot at the playoffs, I cheer against them all year for better draft position. Call me a bad fan or whatever, but that's just what I believe is in the best interest of the team.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer amjgt's Avatar
    Posts
    515
    Like
    44
    Liked 165 Times in 95 Posts
    Also worth noting is the top 10 picks being protected from FA compensation (and deferred to the 2nd round)

  16. #16
    Cmb, I'm not going to condone tanking because losing sucks. But, if the Twins take a big slide in the standings in the second half, it will be easier to swallow come draft season of next year.

    Having said that, this will be the last year there's an opportunity to be top 8 in the draft. Intriguing and valid question.

  17. #17
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,430
    Like
    70
    Liked 49 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cmb0252 View Post
    Once again, every team in all sports have gone through slumps. I was just saying the Royals/Pirates are a very over exaggerated comparison to the Twins.

    While prospects are volatile but aren't 90% big leaguers too?
    You were making the point that not all teams are as inept as the Royals and Pirates by saying the Rays and Nationals rebuilt their franchises more quickly. While that is true, the Rays and Nats still took a long time to do it. When a teams strategy is rebuild through prospects only that takes a long time. There are no short cuts.

    I don't know how volatile big leaguers are since I've never seen a study. It would be interesting to look at bust rate vs. years played in a graph form. I imagine it would be a parabola with a foci at ~5-6 years. A lot players get cups of coffee and as players get old they certainly bow out but those years in between I wonder if most players successfully remain in the league.

  18. #18
    Banned Triple-A
    Posts
    253
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Totally understand your point but you cannot jeopardize the integrity of the sport. Furthermore, baseball of all sports is the one in which draft position means the least. Grey may well indeed reach the majors hastily and he may well throw 100 MPH but those same things could be said about Joba Chamberlain just a few years back. Baseball careers more than any other team sports are a marathon. Lasting every possible mile you can is well worth your time. Developing baseball 1st round draft picks is like blooming potential prize winning orchids there's potential to be great but the small intricacies that separate the great from the really good often emerge unexpected and ruin plans long in the works.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    337
    Like
    26
    Liked 51 Times in 35 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by fairweather View Post
    Developing baseball 1st round draft picks is like blooming potential prize winning orchids there's potential to be great but the small intricacies that separate the great from the really good often emerge unexpected and ruin plans long in the works.
    Nice analogy, well put.

  20. #20
    there's another solution outside of tanking. 1) sell off all of your mediocre veteran talent and get something in return for them. 2) play prospects and anyone with long term upside. 3) if you win, you're setting yourself up for the long term, if you lose you get at bats and innings to guys you have questions about while also improving draft position.

    4) the twins are too stubborn an organization to likely consider 1). the fact that they don't know if they're buyers or sellers as of a week ago is utterly laughable. this team is smoke and mirrors at this point and the concept of selling high doesn't seem in their fabric.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.