Roster Turnover?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Probably... but we're specifically talking about the difference in average age for the Twins from 2014 to this year, so I'd say it's relevant.

its relevant, but, willingham, Kubel, Bartlett are gone, 1. 40 year old brought in, and 2 35/ 1 32 year olds jettisoned and the average drops half a year? Tough to sustain success with a team full of oldsters

[Brandon]

Most of the turnover on offense occurred during the season last year and really this year is more about finding a good #4 and 5 starter to replace the crap we had most of last season ad for Nolasco to rebound.  There wasn't much to replace this offseason.  Santana was the best we could have hoped for and we got him.   Hunter was one of the better OF too and we got him as well.

[brvama]

 

The 2006 Twins retained only 5 Twins who appeared in 2002, so I am not sure that turnover in and of itself is the best measure.

 

The 2001 Twins only retained 5 players from 1997 too, but they also cut their average age (opening day roster) from 30 to 26.16.  The 2015 projected opening day roster is actually a hair older (28.96) than the 2011 one (28.88).  (And Thome more than cancels out the Hunter effect.)

 

So, are they turning over with players likely to improve?  With upside?  I'd argue that they haven't, not nearly enough, particularly on the pitching staff.

Spycake, I was merely responding to those that felt there has been little turnover, not trying to prove there has been roster improvement. I agree with the need to improve with new players that also have better upside. And while the turnover on the pitching staff isn't where we'd probably like it, we have to admit it is better that where it was 2-3 years ago. Still has a way to go, but I look at it ss the first step to the future studs.

 

And as I earlier pointed out that the average age doesn't bother me as much as whether their ages reflect negatively on their performance. A roster dominated by young players or old ones isn't generally better than the other. A good mixture of youth and experience usually provides a better team. It is also hard to quantify that age mixture by a number only, it depends on the personnel.

 

To define a roster as good or bad merely by using average age or turnover misses the quality, non-quality, factor of the players on the roster. What is coming and when will they become average or better MLers needs to be put into the evaluation. As well as, how long are the veterans signed?

 

And that brings all the way back to the pitching staff, which I also believe we need an influx of our top prospects. I think we all fear that the veterans will impede the prospects debuts and tenure. IMHO, this year is critical in establishing a strong contending club nto the 20's or beyond.