Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 100

Thread: Article: Shortcuts

  1. #21
    Owner MVP Seth Stohs's Avatar
    Posts
    5,925
    Like
    41
    Liked 202 Times in 106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    Organizational filler is signed all the time. Who's being blocked?
    Agreed. The Twins have been successful with minor league free agent signings to fill roster and occasionally some of them have really helped the Twins too.

    I'm all for signing free agents. I'm fine with the Twins signing the likes of Ervin Santana, Ubaldo, Hughes, Nolasco. I would have been fine with them signing Greinke and Sanchez last year. Those are good shortcuts (though a pitcher only pitches one in 5 games). But again, even if the Twins make the efforts, it does take two sides to come together.

  2. #22
    Owner MVP Seth Stohs's Avatar
    Posts
    5,925
    Like
    41
    Liked 202 Times in 106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    I'm hopeful someone with better knowledge of the particulars than me will explain who among this lengthy list isn't being blocked by... their own progress.
    I don't really see anyone on that list who is being blocked either.

  3. #23
    From the above mentioned article:
    "He found that some batters, such as Jack Cust, Dan Johnson and Josh Willingham, hardly ever stray from their points of contact, indicating rigid swing patterns that could leave them vulnerable to specific pitches or pitch sequences. Other batters make adjustments, such as Ichiro Suzuki, Brayan Pena, Coco Crisp and Ian Desmond, who made contact at all points in the strike zone with regularity."

    My brother and I would make bets on which pitch would strike Willingham out this year. It's interesting to see a report illustrating why he can't hit a breaking ball moving down and away (although, not necessarily located off the plate).

  4. #24
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,148
    Like
    62
    Liked 74 Times in 50 Posts
    Besides the salary issue for a "quality" free agent, there is the tacit admission that "the system" failed and talent had to be "purchased". IMO, it's not the money as much as the admission of guilt.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer Boom Boom's Avatar
    Posts
    974
    Like
    4
    Liked 117 Times in 52 Posts
    Nick, there's another side to TR's comment about there being no shortcuts that you didn't address - yes, he's implying that the Twins are not going to become a contender by signing a load of free agents, but he's also hinting that he expects the team to be bad for a while longer. Free agency is the Twins' best chance to improve in the short-term, as they don't have a whole lot of tradeable assets and their prospect "wave" is at least a season or two away.

  6. #26
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,168
    Like
    19
    Liked 197 Times in 125 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    I'm hopeful someone with better knowledge of the particulars than me will explain who among this lengthy list isn't being blocked by... their own progress.
    I agree, but will play devil's advocate for a moment. What if Gibson, Hendriks, Meyer and May had all had the phenominal seasons we were hoping for? Then Correa and Pelfrey would have been blocking them. Pre-season, it wasn't a sure thing all would have production/injury concerns.

  7. #27
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,168
    Like
    19
    Liked 197 Times in 125 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Boom Boom View Post
    Free agency is the Twins' best chance to improve in the short-term, as they don't have a whole lot of tradeable assets and their prospect "wave" is at least a season or two away.
    Of course if the Twins made some smart speculations on the free agent market they could get new tradable assets. The guys they signed over the last couple years had next to no trade value. Even Willingham after 2012, who many thought could bring a decent return, was reportedly not worth much.

  8. #28
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,610
    Like
    512
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    Talk of specific players being blocked or not, instead of discussing "FA IS EVIL" is just what TR and the TWins want you doing.... you all fell nicely into the trap in less than 1 page of the thread!

    Last edited by mike wants wins; 11-06-2013 at 01:42 PM.
    Lighten up Francis....

  9. #29
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,343
    Like
    1,423
    Liked 1,093 Times in 491 Posts
    I'd be pretty happy if there were minor leaguers deserving major league playing time because of performance who weren't getting that playing time because there were better players getting it.

    I would consider that a pretty enviable situation for a major league team to be in. I don't consider the Twins to be in much danger of that happening any time soon, though.
    Every post is not every other post. - a wise man

  10. #30
    Super Moderator MVP ashburyjohn's Avatar
    Posts
    6,969
    Like
    1,041
    Liked 1,260 Times in 752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by nicksaviking View Post
    I agree, but will play devil's advocate for a moment. What if Gibson, Hendriks, Meyer and May had all had the phenominal seasons we were hoping for? Then Correa and Pelfrey would have been blocking them. Pre-season, it wasn't a sure thing all would have production/injury concerns.
    My particular response was to Thrylos's comment about MiLB FAs. I should have used Reply With Quote, in order to be clearer, although I thought that would come through when I said "organizational filler".

    But your scenario probably has a feasible exit strategy: deadline (or earlier) trades of the suddenly expendable pieces. Note, this is not the same as the strategy of signing guys with the express purpose to flip them.

    Would be a nice problem to have, wouldn't it?
    Last edited by ashburyjohn; 11-06-2013 at 02:55 PM.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    145
    Like
    2
    Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
    The phrasing and use of the term shortcut really ticks me off, in the context TR is using it in. Using FA to acquire players to drastically improve your team (especially when you have a ton of glaring problems and a giant pile of money to spend) is a normal part of the game for most teams. That isn't a shortcut, it is the norm. We are taking the long route.

    I just don't understand why being efficient and utilizing all avenues is a shortcut in any way. No one is saying we need to construct a 25 man roster full of big name FAs. No one is saying we need to sign 5 top tier pitchers. It's like me asking for directions from Target Field to Xcel Energy Center and pretending that the suggestion of taking 94 is such an absurd idea. Sure, I could take 394 to 100 to 494 to 35E, but that doesn't mean that taking 94 is a shortcut.



    Disclaimer: I'm not actually saying these two situations are literally comparable but the point still stands.

  12. #32
    Super Moderator All-Star
    Posts
    3,419
    Like
    167
    Liked 309 Times in 184 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by S. View Post
    The phrasing and use of the term shortcut really ticks me off, in the context TR is using it in. Using FA to acquire players to drastically improve your team (especially when you have a ton of glaring problems and a giant pile of money to spend) is a normal part of the game for most teams. That isn't a shortcut, it is the norm. We are taking the long route.

    I just don't understand why being efficient and utilizing all avenues is a shortcut in any way. No one is saying we need to construct a 25 man roster full of big name FAs. No one is saying we need to sign 5 top tier pitchers. It's like me asking for directions from Target Field to Xcel Energy Center and pretending that the suggestion of taking 94 is such an absurd idea. Sure, I could take 394 to 100 to 494 to 35E, but that doesn't mean that taking 94 is a shortcut.



    Disclaimer: I'm not actually saying these two situations are literally comparable but the point still stands.
    Using FA to drastically improve your team fails more often than it works. In that sense, I agree there's no shortcut. Using FA to fill some holes, or in this case, where it's painstakingly obvious that the next wave won't have enough SP is a bit different. It's targeted. The question at hand is whether or not that 5 year contract still going to be worth it in years 3-5 when said next wave is established.

  13. #33
    Take anybody with potential under 30.

  14. #34
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    145
    Like
    2
    Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    Using FA to drastically improve your team fails more often than it works. In that sense, I agree there's no shortcut.
    I probably could've just said to improve your team and taken out the "drastically". In the Twins case, it wouldn't take that much talent to drastically improve our starting pitching in it's current state, to be fair.

    Using FA to fill some holes, or in this case, where it's painstakingly obvious that the next wave won't have enough SP is a bit different. It's targeted. The question at hand is whether or not that 5 year contract still going to be worth it in years 3-5 when said next wave is established.
    Once you start talking 4 and 5+ year contracts it gets a bit more complicated, but the fact of the matter is our pitching is not suddenly going to get better without some combination of FA and trades, unless we're making assumptions that every pitching prospect we have in the minors is going to meet and exceed any expectations, hopes, or dreams we have about their ability. If in 3-5 years our biggest problem is a bad contract, then I'd say we've done pretty damn well. I'd much rather be bitching about a good team with a bad contract than a bad team with a rotation that bears any resemblance to what we trotted out there the last 2 years.

  15. #35
    There is a lot of presumtion here without even qualifying where it is that "we want to go. My presumption is that "where" means achieving several things. My guess is the first thing on the lists are things that provide sustainability. For example, improved process drafting, international signings, and development. It would be a safe bet the ultimate "where" is world series contention. That is not going to happen through free agency. That also does not mean they won't utilize free agency to put a better product on the field. So, I intepret his comment only so far as to conclude that he feels short cuts won't build a world series contender that is capable of sustaining a high level.

    Sustaining the orgaization also has several implications for management and organizational development. Nobody here is referencing these issues but I would bet TR is considering them when he makes these statements. We should not assume the very limited context of free agency as "short cuts".

    All anyone hears is that they won't spend. Bad contracts and/or players past their prime are a real detriment to any organization but they are absolutely killers when they are 5+ years for teams outside the very top revenue generators. The risk and impact often does not appear to be considered here. Looking back on top FA signings the past few years, there is at least as much failure as success. Fielder ranked 14th in WAR last year at 2.2. That salary would be an albatross for us and with that body type he could be really bad the last 2-3 years of his contract. Swisher ranked 13th in his first of a 4 year deal. Hamilton delivered a WAR of 1.9 for $25M in his first year. I don't like his odds of being better in the last couple years of that deal. BJ Upton's WAR was -.6. Michael Bourne had a WAR of 2.0. Edwin Jackson and Ryan Dempster were at very best mediocre. Pujlos could very well be back next season but he deliver a WAR of .7 last year and that contract could be a real clunker for 4-5 years. Reyes WAR ranked 15th at 2.2. Buehrle had an almost identical ERA to Correia.

    I am not a scout but Sanatana and Jemenez seem really risky to me. I hope they don't risk a future that appears to be very bright and sustainable by signing one of these guys to a 5 year deal and giving up a high draft pick. Feldman, Nolasco, Kazmir, Hughes all offer substantial upgrades without the risk. Burnett or Orroyo might even make sense on a 1 year deal with a 2nd year team option. Two of those 6 SPs + Morales or Loney and I will loook forward to 2014. Maybe Johnson as a 3rd high risk/reward add.
    Last edited by Major Leauge Ready; 11-06-2013 at 03:46 PM.

  16. #36
    Senior Member All-Star Winston Smith's Avatar
    Posts
    1,101
    Like
    44
    Liked 141 Times in 75 Posts
    There is a good post at MLB Rumors with this graph. Worth a read.

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/


  17. #37
    I think FA starting pitcher signings are fraught with risk and intricacies that are far more complicated than simply dropping a bundle on the best available arm as a shortcut. The key is aligning a player's peak ability with the development of the rest of the team. It makes no sense to sign a high dollar starter if the rest of the lineup is not positioned to win. Many pitchers have such a limited window of productivity, that an ill-timed investment could leave many teams holding the bag on a guy who is past his prime when the rest of the team is ready for primetime. It is for this reason that it makes way more sense to develop within the system and add a key piece at the exact right time - namely at the trade deadline when the team is competitive or at a point when the team is clearly the dominant team in the division. See Tigers for insight here.

  18. #38
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,610
    Like
    512
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    Using FA to drastically improve your team fails more often than it works. In that sense, I agree there's no shortcut. Using FA to fill some holes, or in this case, where it's painstakingly obvious that the next wave won't have enough SP is a bit different. It's targeted. The question at hand is whether or not that 5 year contract still going to be worth it in years 3-5 when said next wave is established.
    why is that the question? Are most contracts worth it? The questions should be about what you can afford, not if it is worth it every year of the deal. Remember when everyone said Hunter would not be worth it in Anaheim?
    Lighten up Francis....

  19. #39
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,610
    Like
    512
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    and propects aren't fraught with risk?
    Lighten up Francis....

  20. #40
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    145
    Like
    2
    Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MileHighTwinsFan View Post
    It is for this reason that it makes way more sense to develop within the system and add a key piece at the exact right time - namely at the trade deadline when the team is competitive or at a point when the team is clearly the dominant team in the division.
    In order to need a key piece to push our rotation over the top, we would need to already have a rotation that was near the top. Our current rotation is near or at the bottom in pretty much every way. I have no clue how you can look at the pitching in our system and think that somehow in the next few years our pitching rotation will be good enough to only need a "key piece" without seriously utilizing FA and trades in the meantime.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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.