Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Akil Baddoo crushes Homerun in first major league at bat

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 992 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 06 April 2021 - 06:57 AM

Baddo is not only a great bat, he's also fast and pretty good glove at CF which we don't have a lot. We could still need depth of decent CFs. Although now we have Broxton and Celestino close but for many years we had no one which really hurt us. Baddo isn't a flash in the pan. It's a bad mistake any way you look at it.

#42 Bickle19

Bickle19

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 53 posts

Posted 06 April 2021 - 07:13 AM

 

Baddo is not only a great bat, he's also fast and pretty good glove at CF which we don't have a lot. We could still need depth of decent CFs. Although now we have Broxton and Celestino close but for many years we had no one which really hurt us. Baddo isn't a flash in the pan. It's a bad mistake any way you look at it.

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make. 

  • Brock Beauchamp, Squirrel, birdwatcher and 4 others like this

#43 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Rally SQUIRREL!!!!

  • Moderator
  • 26,876 posts
  • LocationFrostbite Falls, MN

Posted 06 April 2021 - 07:23 AM

 

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make. 

Not only that, he didn't play last year and didn't play much in 2019 due to injury. So ... young, inexperienced, and away from even playing for a couple of years. While I always liked Baddoo as a prospect and thought he had potential, there were too many ahead of him. As someone said above, the decision had to be made and perhaps the FO hoped he would get overlooked because of that inexperience and lack of playing time. Detroit has to keep him on the roster all season ... it's what building teams do. If he succeeds, good for Baddoo. But it is hardly a mistake made.

  • birdwatcher, DocBauer, Bickle19 and 2 others like this
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

#44 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,539 posts

Posted 06 April 2021 - 08:15 AM

 

I think everyone makes a good point. He was very much blocked from the majors on the Twins AND the Twins could have found a way to keep him on the 40 man if they really wanted to.

 

I think if you had a nice private conversation over a glass of good scotch with the FO, they would tell you that they thought there was a very small chance he would get selected due to his experience level... AND that they were surprised and disappointed that he was taken!

 

It happens....

On the rocks or neat?


#45 TFRazor

TFRazor

    Who's on first?

  • Member
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 06 April 2021 - 09:24 AM

 

There’s a disaster in the outfield? What did I miss?

New defensive strategy by Rocco. Instead of running 4 infielders and 3 outfielders, we're running 7 infielders and just getting ground balls.

  • Brock Beauchamp and big dog like this

#46 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,412 posts

Posted 06 April 2021 - 10:04 AM

 

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make. 

On top of all of this, I'm 100% certain the Twins wanted to keep Baddoo and quite confident they wanted to keep him more than a few other players.

 

But when it comes to the 40-man, sometimes you dangle the biggest risk in hope no one will bite. 

 

And dangling a guy who hasn't played a full season in a very long time, a guy that hasn't played in the upper minors, is also a very risky guy to draft in Rule V.

 

In this case it didn't work for the Twins. The Tigers bit anyway. Bummer. 

 

With that said, this situation is far from over. Even after the hot start, I'd put even money on Baddoo being offered back to the Twins before the end of the season. Give pitchers some time to form a book on Baddoo and he could instantly revert to a .400 OPS player as teams exploit his weaknesses and inexperience.

 

Or maybe Baddoo succeeds and thrives with the Tigers. It happens. Bummer for the Twins but basing decisions on the 95th percentile outcome on a fringe 40-man player isn't how good, deep, contending teams operate.

  • Dman, DocBauer, wsnydes and 1 other like this

#47 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 992 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 06 April 2021 - 10:46 AM

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make.

We have a lot of great hitting prospects, most I'd rated above Baddo. No one could've guess how great Baddo has performed this ST and early season. I'd checked on him early in ST, hoping for a quick return with no such luck. I never indicated him anything more than a good prospect in a position where we could use more depth. What I'm saying is that FO should have managed the 40 man better as to not to have left him unprotected or anyone else in the future. I don't like to see good players go for nothing in return

#48 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Rally SQUIRREL!!!!

  • Moderator
  • 26,876 posts
  • LocationFrostbite Falls, MN

Posted 06 April 2021 - 11:08 AM

 

We have a lot of great hitting prospects, most I'd rated above Baddo. No one could've guess how great Baddo has performed this ST and early season. I'd checked on him early in ST, hoping for a quick return with no such luck. I never indicated him anything more than a good prospect in a position where we could use more depth. What I'm saying is that FO should have managed the 40 man better as to not to have left him unprotected or anyone else in the future.

 

You can't protect everyone. If he sticks with the Tigers all year and does great, good for him. Still doesn't mean it was a mistake by the FO. You win some, you lose some ... and there is no way to predict things like this. As was explained above, he missed almost two seasons of baseball, not just last year, has never played in the high minors, is inexperienced. We have a lot of prospects that have potential. Frankly, I was sorry to lose him, but it was a gamble they had to take. Still doesn't make it a mistake or mismanagement, imo.

  • Brock Beauchamp, Danchat, Dman and 3 others like this
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

#49 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,412 posts

Posted 06 April 2021 - 11:22 AM

 

What I'm saying is that FO should have managed the 40 man better as to not to have left him unprotected or anyone else in the future. I don't like to see good players go for nothing in return

If a front office leaves decent but risky prospects unprotected in Rule V, it means almost by default they're doing a hell of a lot right because if they're risking players like Baddoo in the draft, it means they have 35+ better, or at least higher floor, players in front of him on the 40-man roster.

 

And that means they're probably a very good team.

  • Squirrel, Dman, DocBauer and 2 others like this

#50 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 992 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 06 April 2021 - 02:05 PM

If a front office leaves decent but risky prospects unprotected in Rule V, it means almost by default they're doing a hell of a lot right because if they're risking players like Baddoo in the draft, it means they have 35+ better, or at least higher floor, players in front of him on the 40-man roster.

And that means they're probably a very good team.

I looked at the situation at your point of view. And I believe that I was harsh in saying that it was mismanagement or error in dealing with Baddo the way they did because that's the way the vast majority of teams deal with this problem.
But to really compete we need to think outside the box. I've debated in a prior threads. We need to be proactive in trading from our strength to strengthen our weaknesses and constantly upgrading. Upgrading allows more room on the 40 man. Which allows us to develop as many prospects as we can eventually to play on the MLB team or trade them

#51 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 18,594 posts

Posted 06 April 2021 - 03:43 PM

 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.When the Twins protected players from the Rule V draft, they finished with 37 players protected from the draft.They easily could have added a few more but chose not to

I think that you're somewhat right on Baddoo vs Garlick -- but it doesn't stop there. It's also Baddoo vs every non-40-man prospect that's ahead of him in the Twins system.

 

At the time of the Rule 5 draft, the Twins were probably expecting Royce Lewis to make a debut in 2021, as well as Larnach, maybe Winder, Sands, and other guys we don't even know about. The Twins don't have to leave 40-man spots open for all of these guys, of course, but they do need to keep some flexibility. Every guy like Baddoo that you add makes the roster less flexible at a high cost -- you basically have to plant him on the 40-man for at least the next year or lose him on waivers. Garlick is no star, but he doesn't have to offer much to offset the cost of rostering Baddoo in that scenario.

 

So leaving off a guy like Baddoo, and challenging other teams to keep him on their 26-man roster for the whole season in Rule 5, is a perfectly understandable choice. Rule 5 is a much more difficult for teams than simply claiming a guy on waivers.

 

Of course, if you absolutely love Baddoo, you can find a way to protect him too. But if he's just another guy with potential, with virtually no shot to play in 2021 and well behind others on the org depth chart, you sometimes have to take a chance with exposing them in Rule 5.

  • Brock Beauchamp, Dman, DocBauer and 1 other like this

#52 terrydactyls1947

terrydactyls1947

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 802 posts
  • LocationCumberland Center, Maine

Posted 06 April 2021 - 10:11 PM

I think everyone makes a good point. He was very much blocked from the majors on the Twins AND the Twins could have found a way to keep him on the 40 man if they really wanted to.
 
I think if you had a nice private conversation over a glass of good scotch with the FO, they would tell you that they thought there was a very small chance he would get selected due to his experience level... AND that they were surprised and disappointed that he was taken!
 
It happens....


I don't like scotch. How about bourbon?

#53 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 10,306 posts

Posted 07 April 2021 - 07:49 AM

 

If a front office leaves decent but risky prospects unprotected in Rule V, it means almost by default they're doing a hell of a lot right because if they're risking players like Baddoo in the draft, it means they have 35+ better, or at least higher floor, players in front of him on the 40-man roster.

 

And that means they're probably a very good team.

It could also mean that the FO is not very good at grading their own talent. This isn't the first minor leaguer that they let go who became a solid MLer on another team. 

 

My guess is the Twins thought no one would take Baddoo since he missed so much time and, even if they did, he would have a lot of rust and not look great so they'd get him back. That seems like a reasonable guess but it's not right to say the Twins had 35+ better than him since, IIRC, we had some open spots and a handful of fungible relief pitchers. Again, I didn't pay enough attention at the time to say what the Twins did wrong but the PR the FO gets here is becoming a bit much.

  • Hosken Bombo Disco likes this

#54 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,412 posts

Posted 07 April 2021 - 08:00 AM

 

It could also mean that the FO is not very good at grading their own talent. This isn't the first minor leaguer that they let go who became a solid MLer on another team. 

 

My guess is the Twins thought no one would take Baddoo since he missed so much time and, even if they did, he would have a lot of rust and not look great so they'd get him back. That seems like a reasonable guess but it's not right to say the Twins had 35+ better than him since, IIRC, we had some open spots and a handful of fungible relief pitchers. Again, I didn't pay enough attention at the time to say what the Twins did wrong but the PR the FO gets here is becoming a bit much.

PR? Oh, come on.

 

There's a difference between "PR" and refusing to knee-jerk over a handful of games.

 

It's entirely possible the front office made a mistake with Baddoo. Historical context says it's more likely they didn't.

 

Have you looked at this 40-man roster? There's not a lot of room to take on marginal prospects who looked (extremely) unlikely to contribute to the 2021 team.

 

And if you're suggesting they should have replaced a fungible reliever with an (eighth?) outfielder on the 40-man, it's you who doesn't really understand how 40-man roster management works, not the front office. Offloading pitchers and replacing them with position players is a good way to start putting potentially valuable players on the waiver wire in May because, like every season, pitching depth inevitably becomes an issue and you need viable arms on the roster to throw innings in Minneapolis.

  • wsnydes and Nine of twelve like this

#55 wsnydes

wsnydes

    Abnormal, the new normal.

  • Member
  • 4,193 posts
  • LocationApple Valley

Posted 07 April 2021 - 09:01 AM

 

It could also mean that the FO is not very good at grading their own talent. This isn't the first minor leaguer that they let go who became a solid MLer on another team. 

 

My guess is the Twins thought no one would take Baddoo since he missed so much time and, even if they did, he would have a lot of rust and not look great so they'd get him back. That seems like a reasonable guess but it's not right to say the Twins had 35+ better than him since, IIRC, we had some open spots and a handful of fungible relief pitchers. Again, I didn't pay enough attention at the time to say what the Twins did wrong but the PR the FO gets here is becoming a bit much.

Solid MLBer? He's had 8 PAs above A ball. 

 

He very well may end up as such (or anything else for that matter), but one can hardly label him at this point. 

  • Bickle19 and Nine of twelve like this
"Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains."

#56 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Minnesota Twins

  • Moderator
  • 12,714 posts

Posted 07 April 2021 - 09:25 AM

Solid MLBer? He's had 8 PAs above A ball. 
 
He very well may end up as such (or anything else for that matter), but one can hardly label him at this point.

They had room on the roster, I think he is saying, and a minor trade involving some fringe guys could have made more room.

I don’t have an opinion on Baddoo but I would have taken a chance on Tyler Wells over a handful of other pitchers currently on the 40-man. Chalmers and Ober were obvious keepers and have a promising future.
  • gunnarthor, wsnydes and Doctor Gast like this
He measured the achievements of others by what they had accomplished, asking of them that they measure him by what he envisaged or planned.
- J. L. Borges

#57 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 992 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 07 April 2021 - 12:11 PM

I looked at the situation at your point of view. And I believe that I was harsh in saying that it was mismanagement or error in dealing with Baddo the way they did because that's the way the vast majority of teams deal with this problem.
But to really compete we need to think outside the box. I've debated in a prior threads. We need to be proactive in trading from our strength to strengthen our weaknesses and constantly upgrading. Upgrading allows more room on the 40 man. Which allows us to develop as many prospects as we can eventually to play on the MLB team or trade them

To clarify my point, I'd like to use SD as an example. They are a team with a ton of prospects and big 40 man problem. Also they want to compete against LAD so they need to upgrade their pitching. They didn't go after FA because that wouldn't help their 40 man problem. They attacked the trade market. Using 4 prospects they landed Snell, using 7 players they landed Darvish (plus his private catcher for free) and 5 players to land Musgrove. That's 16 low valued players, (quite a few lotto tickets with non in their top 5 prospects) for 3 top of the rotation pitchers. Some may argue that Musgrove isn't that good looking at his stats but looking at under lying conditions and being SD most dominating pitcher out of the gate, I believe he is. Instead of going for the bragging rights to the rule 5 loser's award they made themselves highly competitive and helped their 40 man problem, now in the near future.
I'm not insinuating the FO is terrible and need to be fired. Their development is one reason why we have this talent. I'm just showing an area where we need improvement. Where we can protect prospects like Baddo and Wells until we are ready to play them or trade them. Another interesting point about Baddo is that he bats left where our others CFers batright.

#58 baul0010

baul0010

    GCL Twins

  • Member
  • 38 posts

Posted 07 April 2021 - 12:58 PM

I take back everything...I want Badoo back.  


#59 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,412 posts

Posted 07 April 2021 - 02:20 PM

To clarify my point, I'd like to use SD as an example. They are a team with a ton of prospects and big 40 man problem. Also they want to compete against LAD so they need to upgrade their pitching. They didn't go after FA because that wouldn't help their 40 man problem. They attacked the trade market. Using 4 prospects they landed Snell, using 7 players they landed Darvish (plus his private catcher for free) and 5 players to land Musgrove. That's 16 low valued players, (quite a few lotto tickets with non in their top 5 prospects) for 3 top of the rotation pitchers. Some may argue that Musgrove isn't that good looking at his stats but looking at under lying conditions and being SD most dominating pitcher out of the gate, I believe he is. Instead of going for the bragging rights to the rule 5 loser's award they made themselves highly competitive and helped their 40 man problem, now in the near future.
I'm not insinuating the FO is terrible and need to be fired. Their development is one reason why we have this talent. I'm just showing an area where we need improvement. Where we can protect prospects like Baddo and Wells until we are ready to play them or trade them. Another interesting point about Baddo is that he bats left where our others CFers batright.

These are all very fair points and I would definitely like to see more trade action from this FO.

Except it doesn’t really apply in the singular case of Baddoo (but perhaps made sense with others in the past).

There simply isn’t a market out there for decent prospects who haven’t played above A ball, haven’t really played in two years, and need to be added to the 40-man roster.

That’s a hard sell and a situation that probably doesn’t arise often if we don’t spend a year in a global panoramica.
  • Bickle19, wsnydes and Doctor Gast like this

#60 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 992 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 07 April 2021 - 02:51 PM

These are all very fair points and I would definitely like to see more trade action from this FO.
Except it doesn’t really apply in the singular case of Baddoo (but perhaps made sense with others in the past).
There simply isn’t a market out there for decent prospects who haven’t played above A ball, haven’t really played in two years, and need to be added to the 40-man roster.
That’s a hard sell and a situation that probably doesn’t arise often if we don’t spend a year in a global panoramica.

Totally agree with you, we can't luck out like SD and be able to trade so many unproven prospects. I only mentioned them to prove it can be done. If you read more carefully, I stated that I'd like to protect and develop prospects like Baddo and Wells, not necessarily trade them (only if they are strongly requested by the trading partner) I'd prefer to trade players which we've developed and find that they'd be better off playing on a different team. Seek out teams which could use such players and have players which fits our needs.