Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Sinker: Pirates find Worley's mechanical flaw

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#101 mnsports255

mnsports255

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:59 PM

Whatever the deal is, we better have a more than competent coaching staff (especially pitching coach) in here by next season. With Myers, May, and Berrios close to the big leagues and Stewart a little behind, the Twins better have a good pitching coach. They can NOT screw up with those 4 guys.

#102 AM.

AM.

    Always in Moderation

  • Members
  • 433 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:12 AM

It certainly is on the staff to evaluate talent. The Twins staff felt that the 26 year old Worley had less upside than a 32 year old Virgil Vasquez. That decision is on the shoulders of the staff and should have been greatly influenced by Anderson.


Excellent point. This is one of numerous roster choices the Twins have made that seem misguided to me, and that is part of the FO, but also part on the coaches.

#103 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,893 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:55 AM

Many of the over 30 guys haven't either. What is meaningful about the age of the roster is that it gives an indication of how many players on the roster are part of the future which can give an idea of how close the future might be.

Not always, but it's meaningful. Many young guys have not contributed. The roster average age of 30, boosted by a bunch of old guys not part of the future, has done nothing but lose 90 games for several seasons and likely another. Why be old and not very good if you're looking to the future? That's not meaningless.


From the team that started the season in 2011 there is Perkins, Ploufe, Duensing and Mauer. Do I need to go through players who would be under 30 that had a chance to prove themselves but did not over the last 3 1/2 seasons? From the opening day roster in 2011 to now there is nearly a complte roster turnover. There really isn't a bunch of guys that lost games together over several seasons. In all of the roster turnover since the start of 2011, how many players caught on somewhere else and improved? The old guy Cuddyer. Maybe Worley,, a few others, but not many.
Nearer to the end of the season one will have a clearer picture of how mediocre to bad the Twins are. As you bring up the 90 loss mark, to determine if the Twins will get there remember their current record is 17-14 against division opponents. There are plenty of games there to improve a record

Edited by old nurse, 08 July 2014 - 04:21 AM.


#104 Kirby_waved_at_me

Kirby_waved_at_me

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:11 AM

First, was he ever really demoted to the bullpen? I know that was a likely destination this year, but he never made a relief appearance with the Twins or at Rochester.

Second, why would a trade for nothing motivate him more than clearing waivers for nothing? That was the weird part for the Twins -- they had the guy off the 40-man but under their cheap control for the full 2014 season (and beyond if they wanted to add him back to the roster)... and they chose to sell him? It would be like if they sold Parmelee this spring after he cleared waivers -- while the player in question is unlikely to be a star, there's just no real point in such a move for the 2014 Twins.


sorry- he had a relief appearance in Spring Training this year (which I realize, starters don't always start in spring training games) , and that combined with some of the articles I re-read made me think they had demoted him to the bullpen before he was sent to AAA this spring.

#105 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 10,119 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:14 AM

With all due respect, what are you talking about, BroBeau? Straw. Man.


It's not a straw man when you jump into a conversation I was having with someone else who was complaining about timelines. I can't straw man your argument if the initial comment wasn't directed toward you. :P

#106 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,350 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:28 AM

Do I need to go through players who would be under 30 that had a chance to prove themselves but did not over the last 3 1/2 seasons?


You keep shifting the argument. You said roster age is "meaningless". It's not meaningless - it's generally an indicator of how well your drafting and development is going and if those kids are making your team.

If you want to say they're still old because their young players are bad, well that's still an indictment. I'd argue they have deliberately put old players on this team for appearances - but they couldn't even bring in old players that are all that good. Also an indictment.

And here's the most meaningful part - when this team turns the corner (and it will eventually, be it 2 years or 12) - the roster age WILL drop with the infusion of the young wave that carries the team forward. That's when we'll know. Right now that old roster age indicates we have a long way to go yet.

#107 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 3,798 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:28 AM

Worley's still only sporting a 4.9% SwStr% which if he qualified would put him 2nd to last in baseball (ahead of Correia). He is getting luckier, but he still doesn't have very good stuff.

#108 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:57 AM

Worley's still only sporting a 4.9% SwStr% which if he qualified would put him 2nd to last in baseball (ahead of Correia). He is getting luckier, but he still doesn't have very good stuff.


Exactly. He is likely still throwing that 88-89 mph heater and guys are still hitting it hard, just at people. This won't last. He jumped the gun on trash talking, IMO.

#109 SD Buhr

SD Buhr

    Majoring in minors, minoring in Majors

  • Members
  • 1,093 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:09 AM

Just for the record, it wasn't Anderson's peer with the Pirates that noticed this supposed pitching flaw of Worley's, but Jeff Benedict, whose formal title is, I believe, "special assistant to the GM" with the Pirates. Sort of a roving pitching instructor. He was interviewed for, but did not get, the Phillies' pitching coach gig in the off-season.

So, really, this is Terry Ryan's fault, for not hiring a "special assistant to the GM" to fix pitchers.

On the other hand, if Anderson is indeed sent packing after the season, it appears that there's a genius in Pittsburgh looking for a pitching coach job.

Covering the Cedar Rapids Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com while my alter-ego, Jim Crikket, opines about the Twins and Kernels at Knuckleballsblog.com.

~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~


#110 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,136 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 10:47 AM

Not a Rick Anderson fan, although it's ridiculous what a whipping boy he is for some around here. I have doubts that Worley's recent success is sustainable, his biggest mechanical flaw is that he's just not all that good.

#111 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,136 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 10:50 AM

The Twins believed in Nolasco instead. And, let's see... his ERA is up to 5.90 now. Once again we find the Twins' flaw. They are making huge mistakes when evaluating talent. They could have kept Worley at AAA but kept Diamond instead. And, they are stuck with Nolasco for what? 3 more years of getting pounded? Not to mention a $23 million dollar first baseman who's skills have diminished. Did they really think he was going to catch until he was 35?


For the record Diamond passed through waivers so ultimately choices had to be made on both.

What would you have proposed they do with Mauer?

#112 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,893 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:20 AM

You keep shifting the argument. You said roster age is "meaningless". It's not meaningless - it's generally an indicator of how well your drafting and development is going and if those kids are making your team.

If you want to say they're still old because their young players are bad, well that's still an indictment. I'd argue they have deliberately put old players on this team for appearances - but they couldn't even bring in old players that are all that good. Also an indictment.

And here's the most meaningful part - when this team turns the corner (and it will eventually, be it 2 years or 12) - the roster age WILL drop with the infusion of the young wave that carries the team forward. That's when we'll know. Right now that old roster age indicates we have a long way to go yet.


Say all the prospects pan out. Between Berrios, Gonslaves, May, Meyer, Stewart and Thorpe you have 4 pitchers that stay healthy throughout their career. From all of the power arms you drafted you find 3 relievers. Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Vargas, Sanatana, Polanco reach their full potential. You now have Atlanta's pitching staff from the 90's and murder's row. Flush with cash from the 3 million plus fans from the regular season and the revenue gouged from deep playoff runs to go with an absurd TV contract you keep the band together as they play well into their 30's. Your average age increases to once again over 29. You don't care at the moment. You are winning. Age is meaningless. Winning is what is meaningful. If you win you don't care the age the player as long as you are winning. My argument has not shifted. You do what you do to win now.

#113 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,350 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 01:24 PM

You don't care at the moment. You are winning.


This is HIGHLY frustrating. You have shifted the argument so many times you forgot what you responded to in the first place. The point is that they are NOT winning and they are not young. When the Twins turn over a prospect group that turns the franchise around the team's age WILL drop. So it's meaningful because it's the first true indication (couple with winning more) that things are going right.

My frustration (along with many others) is that we're both old AND not winning. So we're adding players at higher cost and lower upside to have bad results. Until the roster's age starts dropping, we can't expect to win with aging retreads. The team's turnaround will come with a substantial drop in the team's average age.

So until that drop starts happening - the end of the rainbow is still a ways off.

#114 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,136 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 02:31 PM

Say all the prospects pan out. Between Berrios, Gonslaves, May, Meyer, Stewart and Thorpe you have 4 pitchers that stay healthy throughout their career. From all of the power arms you drafted you find 3 relievers. Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Vargas, Sanatana, Polanco reach their full potential. You now have Atlanta's pitching staff from the 90's and murder's row. Flush with cash from the 3 million plus fans from the regular season and the revenue gouged from deep playoff runs to go with an absurd TV contract you keep the band together as they play well into their 30's. Your average age increases to once again over 29. You don't care at the moment. You are winning. Age is meaningless. Winning is what is meaningful. If you win you don't care the age the player as long as you are winning. My argument has not shifted. You do what you do to win now.


Whoa, whoa, whoa, there is a big difference between those prospects panning out and competing into their 30's and the 30 somethings they have now. You seem to be deliberately missing the over 30 crowd we have now are awful.

If you're going to struggle and decide not to try and spend your way out of it, you might as well do it with something that could pay dividends in the future.

Edited by twinsnorth49, 08 July 2014 - 05:01 PM.


#115 oldguy10

oldguy10

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 319 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:54 PM

Isn't it foolhardy to not do what twinsnorth49 states? I sure think so and I would think most posters here will be in agreement. What other MLB team is constantly signing old players and hoping for the best? I can think of absolutely NONE!

#116 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,893 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:01 PM

This is HIGHLY frustrating. You have shifted the argument so many times you forgot what you responded to in the first place. The point is that they are NOT winning and they are not young. When the Twins turn over a prospect group that turns the franchise around the team's age WILL drop. So it's meaningful because it's the first true indication (couple with winning more) that things are going right.

My frustration (along with many others) is that we're both old AND not winning. So we're adding players at higher cost and lower upside to have bad results. Until the roster's age starts dropping, we can't expect to win with aging retreads. The team's turnaround will come with a substantial drop in the team's average age.

So until that drop starts happening - the end of the rainbow is still a ways off.


The Twins had to add players to compete. You complain they are old and have no upside. Take off the over 30 players the Twins signed over the winter or did not trade and replace them with AAA and AA players the Twins have in their system and what would you have? Likely a 100 loss team and the same people complaining about how old and losing the Twins are now just complaining on how poor of team the Twins are. Most of the same players that would be playing in place of the old players are not part of the Twin's future either.

#117 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,893 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:03 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there is a big difference between those prospects panning out and competing into their 30's and the 30 somethings they have now. You seem to be deliberately missing the over 30 crowd we have now is awful.

If you're going to struggle and decide not to try and spend your way out of it, you might as well do it with something that could pay dividends in the future.


No. Awful is awful regardless of age. Good is good regardless of age. That has been my whole point all along.

#118 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,350 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:14 PM

Take off the over 30 players the Twins signed over the winter or did not trade and replace them with AAA and AA players the Twins have in their system and what would you have?


Honestly? 90 losses and a 100 is a moot difference. And they wouldn't have had to play their AA players, they could've gambled on a bunch of DFA, non-tendered, AAAA players who all would've likely failed, but at least they would've been young with hope.

Old retreads taht lead you to 90 or 100 losses? That sucks and it doesn't even allow for hope.

#119 LaBombo

LaBombo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,312 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:19 PM

No. Awful is awful regardless of age. Good is good regardless of age. That has been my whole point all along.

That's true if your interest in the Twins' future is limited to next week or next month, as opposed to next year and beyond. Otherwise, it is not true.

#120 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 7,351 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:37 PM

That's true if your interest in the Twins' future is limited to next week or next month, as opposed to next year and beyond. Otherwise, it is not true.


That's why the placeholders are needed until the true talent is ready. People are getting hung up on the ages of the placeholders. You could've artificially dropped the age of the major league roster for 2014 by stocking up on guys who didn't make it out of single-A and are now trying out for the Saints, but it wouldn't accelerate the actual rebuild, because guys with high upside aren't available for the asking. Average age of the present roster may not be meaningless, but it's the wrong metric.