Gene Glynn named Twins 3B Coach

[JB_Iowa]

Do we even know that TR is making these decisions? Isn't Molitor's coaching staff?

 

TR made it very clear up front that he would be deeply involved in decisions on the coaching staff.  Not necessarily dictating but joint decisions, 

[nicksaviking]

The Cardinals have done extremely well with minimal foreign player signings. The only one I could think of is Diaz, who has not made it as a major league player yet. Even midmarket teams can do well without signing higher priced unproven foreign talent.    

Yes the Cardinals paid steak prices for Diaz, the questions left unaswered is he chopped liver?

 

Ok, but what should the mid market teams that struggle to find traditional free agent talent and have issues developing MLB talent do? 

 

I wish the Twins could do what St. Louis is doing, but they're not.  If they were serious about doing things the way succesful comparable teams are doing things, they probably would be looking to hire some on field and off field personalities from different organizations.  They aren't, which implies they still want to do things their way.  Perhaps their way should include some higher priced international players.  You've got to try something different.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

I wish the Twins could do what St. Louis is doing, but they're not.  If they were serious about doing things the way succesful comparable teams are doing things, they probably would be looking to hire some on field and off field personalities from different organizations.  They aren't, which implies they still want to do things their way. 

Oh the Twins should just do what St. Louis is doing? heh

[Mike Sixel]

They could, but they have not succeeded in doing so, if they had, they wouldn't be in this mess.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail this thread.  Absolutely did not mean to spark another debate about talent acquisition.

 

My point was simply the recent coaching hires reflect some of the franchise's historical complacency.  Some of that is actually refreshing, compared to teams like the Vikings, Wolves, and Gophers, who often seem to cycle through renegade coaches and players.  But it would be nice to see TR make a little bolder move somewhere along the line, especially when a coaching shake-up presents a multitude of opportunities to do so (or in the case of player acquisition, a lengthy rebuilding process presents similar opportunities).

[Monkeypaws]

He has quite the resume with other teams. I don't mind this promotion at all. He hasn't been on the 1 Twins Way line of thought his whole life. I think this is good.

 

Exactly - 3 years in Rochester doesn't make him an insider after 25 years in other organizations.

[Linus]

TR made it very clear up front that he would be deeply involved in decisions on the coaching staff.  Not necessarily dictating but joint decisions, 

Really, when was that?  I follow all this stuff closely and I don't recall him making any such statement.  Of course he would have input but Molitor is the one that has to work closely with these guys every day for a very long season.

[SweetOne69]

I care more about whether Viola is qualified or not. Has he been coaching in other organizations? If not why would he be qualified?

Viola is currently a pitching coach in the Mets' minor leagues system and has been for the last 3-4 years.  He doesn't have any Major League experience as a pitching coach, but he does have experience.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Really, when was that?  I follow all this stuff closely and I don't recall him making any such statement.  Of course he would have input but Molitor is the one that has to work closely with these guys every day for a very long season.

I think the Offseason Handbook interview had it...?

 

I expect TR's influence will be felt mostly in the pitching coach selection.

[Linus]

Viola is currently a pitching coach in the Mets' minor leagues system and has been for the last 3-4 years.  He doesn't have any Major League experience as a pitching coach, but he does have experience.

Thanks for that info. 

[davidc3915]

I'd much rather have Viola, who has worked in the Mets system, than Blyleven or Morris, simply because analyzing pitchers from a brodcast booth is not the same as working with them on the field on a day to day basis.  Sure Bert and/or Jack has probably been on the field talking with pitchers and maybe lent their 2 cents worth during Spring Training, but I'd prefer someone who has worked as a pitching coach...

[jokin]

The Cardinals have done extremely well with minimal foreign player signings. The only one I could think of is Diaz, who has not made it as a major league player yet. Even midmarket teams can do well without signing higher priced unproven foreign talent.    

Yes the Cardinals paid steak prices for Diaz, the questions left unaswered is he chopped liver?

 

Typo on my part, should have been "steal", nice turn of a phrase, T.W.O., well-played!  The Cards did get Diaz at chopped liver prices.

[jokin]

Really, when was that?  I follow all this stuff closely and I don't recall him making any such statement.  Of course he would have input but Molitor is the one that has to work closely with these guys every day for a very long season.

 

Ryan said much of this the day of the Brunansky announcement, I know that I for one, quoted him on TD to precisely that issue.

[jokin]

 

 

But it would be nice to see TR make a little bolder move somewhere along the line, especially when a coaching shake-up presents a multitude of opportunities to do so (or in the case of player acquisition, a lengthy rebuilding process presents similar opportunities).

 

Isn't it safe to say, that with all of the hiring evidence after 21 years at or around the top of the organization, that TR doesn't have many "little bolder moves" in his personal General Managing arsenal and comfort zone?  Honestly, his general anathema to reaching out beyond that comfort zone resembles a kind of social anxiety disorder.

 

I am editing this to add this quote which I just discovered on another thread...  I wholly concur with Nicksaviking's well-thought-out take that gets to the psychological heart of this situation:

 

 

I just want them to prove that they are willing to try things that may make them feel uncomfortable.  I hate to say it's symbolic, but largely it is.  This club is one of the most risk-adverse clubs in all of professional sports and a lot of us don't believe you can win a championship when you have such a severe level of trepidation about every move you make.  Continuing to hire candidates you or the organization is intimately familiar with over putting your trust in a new face just seems like an extension of this resistance to change.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'd much rather have Viola, who has worked in the Mets system, than Blyleven or Morris

If Blyleven or Morris become serious candidates for the spot, I think it would be impossible not to conclude this coaching shake-up was little more than a re-shuffling of Terry Ryan's rolodex.

[nicksaviking]

Oh the Twins should just do what St. Louis is doing? heh

 

I'd be fine if they give it a try.  But really, it's more about trying things they've never done before regardless of which other teams are doing it.

[Willihammer]

Ok, but what should the mid market teams that struggle to find traditional free agent talent and have issues developing MLB talent do?

Trade.

 

I was going to blog about this actually. 2014 team leader's in WAR from players acquired by trade:

 

CLE 30.1

OAK 26.5

DET 20.7

WAS 18.3

TOR 17.9

SDP 17.6

BAL 17.4

TBR 17.1

KCR 15.8

CHC 14.2

LAD 10.8

CHW 9.4

MIA 8.9

LAA 8.4

PIT 8.2

NYY 6.9

STL 6.6

SFG 5.6

MIL 5.1

BOS 4.6

TEX 4.4

COL 3.8

HOU 2.9

NYM 2.5

CIN 2.3

SEA 1.6

ATL 1.4

ARI -0.3

MIN -0.3

PHI -0.4

 

In 2014, team WAR from trade acquisitions had a .48 correlation to wins. Stronger than WAR from the draft (.35), WAR from free agents (.29), WAR from Amateur FA's (.15), or WAR from Waivers, which, interestingly, had a negative correlation to wins (-.29). In fact, WAR from trade acquisitions had a stronger correlation to Wins than (SO/9 (.32), Home runs allowed/9 (-.39), OBP, SLG, LOB, home runs, or strikeouts (either batting or pitching). The correlation of trade-acquired WAR to team wins was about the same as BB/9 (-.49) and OPS+ (.52).

 

So yeah, I think successful teams are looking to trades for talent. Additionally, I'm coming around to thinking that there's probably no better way to judge a GM than by his +/- WAR on trades.

[Linus]

Trade.

 

I was going to blog about this actually. 2014 team leader's in WAR from players acquired by trade:

 

CLE 30.1

OAK 26.5

DET 20.7

WAS 18.3

TOR 17.9

SDP 17.6

BAL 17.4

TBR 17.1

KCR 15.8

CHC 14.2

LAD 10.8

CHW 9.4

MIA 8.9

LAA 8.4

PIT 8.2

NYY 6.9

STL 6.6

SFG 5.6

MIL 5.1

BOS 4.6

TEX 4.4

COL 3.8

HOU 2.9

NYM 2.5

CIN 2.3

SEA 1.6

ATL 1.4

ARI -0.3

MIN -0.3

PHI -0.4

 

In 2014, team WAR from trade acquisitions had a .48 correlation to wins. Stronger than WAR from the draft (.35), WAR from free agents (.29), WAR from Amateur FA's (.15), or WAR from Waivers, which, interestingly, had a negative correlation to wins (-.29). In fact, WAR from trade acquisitions had a stronger correlation to Wins than (SO/9 (.32), Home runs allowed/9 (-.39), OBP, SLG, LOB, home runs, or strikeouts (either batting or pitching). The correlation of trade-acquired WAR to team wins was about the same as BB/9 (-.49) and OPS+ (.52).

 

So yeah, I think successful teams are looking to trades for talent. Additionally, I'm coming around to thinking that there's probably no better way to judge a GM than by his +/- WAR on trades.

This is awesome information.  This would be really interesting to see over the course of several years to see if any of the categories you noted changed much.  Throws some cold water on some of the "generally accepted facts" that people espouse.

[Mike Sixel]

This is awesome information.  This would be really interesting to see over the course of several years to see if any of the categories you noted changed much.  Throws some cold water on some of the "generally accepted facts" that people espouse.

 

so the world isn't flat? There is alot in this data, though, like.....did the trades that were MilB for MLB players provide this, or was it the opposite? 

[nicksaviking]

Trade.

 

I was going to blog about this actually. 2014 team leader's in WAR from players acquired by trade:

 

CLE 30.1

OAK 26.5

DET 20.7

WAS 18.3

TOR 17.9

SDP 17.6

BAL 17.4

TBR 17.1

KCR 15.8

CHC 14.2

LAD 10.8

CHW 9.4

MIA 8.9

LAA 8.4

PIT 8.2

NYY 6.9

STL 6.6

SFG 5.6

MIL 5.1

BOS 4.6

TEX 4.4

COL 3.8

HOU 2.9

NYM 2.5

CIN 2.3

SEA 1.6

ATL 1.4

ARI -0.3

MIN -0.3

PHI -0.4

 

In 2014, team WAR from trade acquisitions had a .48 correlation to wins. Stronger than WAR from the draft (.35), WAR from free agents (.29), WAR from Amateur FA's (.15), or WAR from Waivers, which, interestingly, had a negative correlation to wins (-.29). In fact, WAR from trade acquisitions had a stronger correlation to Wins than (SO/9 (.32), Home runs allowed/9 (-.39), OBP, SLG, LOB, home runs, or strikeouts (either batting or pitching). The correlation of trade-acquired WAR to team wins was about the same as BB/9 (-.49) and OPS+ (.52).

 

So yeah, I think successful teams are looking to trades for talent. Additionally, I'm coming around to thinking that there's probably no better way to judge a GM than by his +/- WAR on trades.

 

Good stuff.  This could be very useful.  Since WAR is a cumulative stat we would probably also need to see the number of trades made.  If Detroit gets half of their roster by trade, WAR will likely be higher for instance.

[TheLeviathan]

That trade/WAR stat is interesting, especially since trading is one of the few things you can directly put on the GM.

[ashbury]

That trade/WAR stat is interesting

Not to me, because it's not paired up with what was given up.  Kudos to Cleveland for getting a lot in return for Cliff Lee, CC Sabathia, etc, but trade/WAR is going to get jacked up simply by trading a lot or having a lot of value to trade in the first place.

[Willihammer]

Not to me, because it's not paired up with what was given up.  Kudos to Cleveland for getting a lot in return for Cliff Lee, CC Sabathia, etc, but trade/WAR is going to get jacked up simply by trading a lot or having a lot of value to trade in the first place.

The Tribe actually traded for Lee.

 

Sabathia was a 1st round pick (20th).

 

I dont' think there's much room to game the draft anymore. Maybe teams can extra value by playing around with slot values but the bulk of talent is taken in the first round. Yes there are jackpots in later rounds but, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think there are any Warren Buffets in the scouting world who consistently outperform their draft/slot position to a degree that's statistically significant. If you assume that the draft is efficient, then there are no teams who stand to gain more by trade because they have more home grown talent to start with (anymore) unless they are perennially drafting higher than other teams.

 

And since we're talking about mid-market teams, you could assume the same about free agency (I'll assume it). Sure maybe Boras can earn a few extra mil for his clients than other (although that's debatable too I think), but for the most part players get dollars and years that seem fairly assigned from a WAR standpoint. And since everyone has a ballpark now there's a pretty narrow band of revenues separating the 20 or so mid-market teams. Between those teams the FA playing field is pretty level.

 

The correlations above are just from 2014. Maybe it was the year of the trade. Maybe over the past 3 or 5 or 10 years the correlations would look different. On the other hand the financial landscape would have been different 10 years ago before a lot of teams had new parks and before there were draft bonus pools.

 

As far as judging GMs, its probably not fair to judge based on the small handful of trades that are made in a year. But since the players involved in trades have at least been drafted, and many times are current major leaguers with resumes and scouting reports up the wazoo, you would assume that reduces the threshold of significance required to make a judgment, esp. compared to say a scout that's watching 15 years olds in Venezuela. What that threshold is I don't know, maybe you'd need three or 10 or 20 years (or more) worth of trades to make a meaningful judgment but by then the landscape will probably have changed again.

 

But I'm inclined to think, with the rules we have today esp. in the draft, that the correlations above are going to remain somewhat steady and trade winners are going to be the teams who prevail most often amongst mid-market clubs.

[TheLeviathan]

As far as judging GMs, its probably not fair to judge based on the small handful of trades that are made in a year. 

 

Absolutely and there would have been years Ryan would have looked very, very good in such an analysis.  My thought was more that it's often so hard to parse out what the GM was actually responsible for (especially in evaluating drafts/signings/etc.) that this sort of thing narrows that down significantly.

[old nurse]

Good players that produce WAR get traded.  Sometimes they are traded for prospects. Those prospects produce WAR. Sometimes the good player stays with the new team even though they could have become a free agent and thus their WAR counts as a traded player It shouldn't be a shocker in this baseball economy that good players are traded and what they are traded for produce..The table shows that some teams probably trade more than others to produce the 2014 team.

[nicksaviking]

Not to me, because it's not paired up with what was given up.  Kudos to Cleveland for getting a lot in return for Cliff Lee, CC Sabathia, etc, but trade/WAR is going to get jacked up simply by trading a lot or having a lot of value to trade in the first place.

 

Good point, but a WAR gained/lost table could just as easily be created.

 

Not be me of course, I've got plenty of work I have to pretend I'm doing.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

When was the last time the Twins traded for an impact bat? Shannon Stewart? Luis Castillo? When did they last trade away pitching prospects?  It seems like the Twins have been acquiring pitching (specifically minor league pitching) with most of their recent trades.

 

That has definitely impacted the WAR numbers . . .

 

I think the chart shows the kind of players that teams have been trading for and trading away. trading away MLB pieces to get minor league or fringy guys does not help the WAR numbers very much.

 

The Twins traded away Denard Span, Ben Revere, JJ Hardy, Carlos Gomez, Justin Morneau.

 

The guys that they've gotten in return for those players that could still contribute some WAR: Alex Meyer and Trevor May.

 

One of the reasons the Twins have been treading water the last few years is that the first round of trading away position players for pitching did not pan out, and the second round is just about the reach the majors full time.

 

Would the Twins be better had they done the opposite, and traded away pitching for hitting? Maybe, but that's only because the Twins' own pitching propects have largely disappointed. I think the Twins pitching would be just as bad or worse in 2014 if they still had Revere and Span and Hardy. (Defense would've been better though - holy moly)

 

I think this off-season would be a good year for the Twins to seek OF help via trade. The options in Free Agency all have questions, so finding a better option via trade should be possible.

[ashbury]

Good point, but a WAR gained/lost table could just as easily be created.

 

Not be me of course, I've got plenty of work I have to pretend I'm doing.

Me neither.   Though I'm sure someone has attempted something like that, somewhere.  What I was trying to get at was such a table would look significantly different than the one that was offered.

 

As was pointed out, Cliff Lee was obtained by Cleveland via trade.  Which only reinforces my conviction that evaluating a team's trading history is wickedly complex, and needs some careful thought as to what's being measured (remaining WAR value, estimated career WAR for prospects, etc).  Indeed the jury will remain out for perhaps a decade if you are looking at recent trades.

 

For me, trading isn't about trying to "win" enough times against fellow GMs to markedly increase the pool of talent, and more about reallocating resources when there's an oversupply at a position.  The one exception is if you get good at doing Span-for-Meyer kinds of trades, where you give up a known quantity with a certain ceiling for someone younger and with a higher ceiling; but younger guys sometimes flame out and you can't afford too many of those if this is your defining strategy.

 

Anyway, a snapshot of which teams have a lot of talent obtained by trade doesn't convey a lot, personally.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Yeah, Cliff Lee was part of that crazy Expos trade with Brandon Phillips and Grady Sizemore for Bartolo Colon. That ended up being a big win for Cleveland. It was like the AJ Pierzynski to SF trade that the Twins made, lots of value came back to the Twins in that one.

 

If the Twins had hit on another one like that in the last 5 years, I think the front office would be more highly regarded locally. The trade the brought Delmon over, the trade that brought JJ Hardy over, those didn't pan out very well at all. The other team got more value out of what the Twins traded away than what the Twins acquired. If Meyer and May become regulars in the rotation for 3 or 4 seasons, it will make the trades to get them look a lot better in hindsight.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I beg to differ on the Hardy trade (the first one at least). It was the right move at the right time. It isn't like Gomez went to Milwaukee and was instantly a stud. He sucked there for a while too. The problem with the Hardy trade was the Twins' medical staff and the return on the investment when he was traded to Baltimore.