Three Teams

[Otto von Ballpark]

I did read it. You said that going after Maddon was an example of aggressiveness. I agree. The Twins went after Maddon too. Yet somehow they are not aggressive?

 

That right there is where you lose me. Explain further?

 

The Twins "went after" Maddon?

 

I bet Max Scherzer's name was mentioned when Scott Boras was checking up on our plans for Mike Pelfrey last winter too.

 

The ample evidence of the Twins conservatism dwarfs a single anonymous and unconfirmed report we asked about Maddon, perhaps too late to matter.

 

We can debate how much it matters, but I am surprised the Twins thoroughly demonstrated conservative nature is even a point of contention here.

[TheLeviathan]

Arrieta is the Cubs' Johan Santana. It isn't like we haven't come up with an ace for nothing, few teams do.

 

 

 At least we were thinking right.

Too bad we hadn't signed anyone we might have been able to trade him for huh?

[USAFChief]

 

But other team would take on that contract - and likely give the Twins something.* If the Twins had better pitchers they could unload that contract. So that's not something they can't get rid of without giving things away (see Nolasco, Ricky). 

 

* Note that I am not advocating that the Twins trade Hughes. Let him bounce back next year and then think about dealing him if the young guys are crowding him out. He may not be a Cy Young candidate every again but there's no reason to think he won't be a solid starting pitcher for a few years.

It's pretty questionable how much value Hughes has in a trade today.  He's 29, pitched 200 innings once in his career, has a career ERA over 4, topped out with a 111 ERA+ in his best season, has posted below average ERAs in 3 of the last 6 seasons, currently has lingering and unresolved injury issues, and is owed $49M over the next four seasons.

 

BTW...Compare that to Hamels, who you don't want:  31 yrs old, has a LOW pt of a 104 ERA+ over the past six seasons and has been as high as a 152 ERA+ as recently as 2014, has pitched 200 or more innings in each of those seasons, and is owed 77M over the next three seasons (including his buyout).

 

It doesn't make sense to me that somehow Hamels would "cripple" the Twins, but Hughes is a bargain.

 

Yeah, Hughes costs less.  He SHOULD cost less.  A lot less.  

 

 

[Thrylos]

 

While people applaud Epstein for getting Maddon - and they should - does anyone really think the Twins had a shot at him?

 

I think that the Twins would have had a shot at Maddon if they gave him a post like LaRussa has in AZ, the baseball boss that runs the whole baseball operations, allowing him to hire his own FO, and given him an option to manage or hire his own manager, and paying him more than the Cubs did.

 

Would be nuts if he did not take it.

[DaveW]

Not to mention the Orioles outlawed Arrieta from throwing a cutter, the Cubs knew exactly what they were doing in grabbing Arrieta, I once upon a time also wanted the Twins to buy low on him, just as I continue to want them to buy low on Tillman or Gausman

[Kwak]

late to the party and sooo  many topics to cover.

 

Cubs, Astros, Twins--different team philosophies  having different organizational goals caused by having different owners.  Cubs and Astros they want to win consistently including the World Series.  Twins--win just enough to mollify fan base to buy tickets, watch TV, say "'ya never know", maybe catch lightning in a bottle very 30 years, all while reducing risk to profits.  Hey, some people put bonds and utility stocks in their investment portfolio.

 

Cubs, new owner, new thinking, new strategy--new people.  Twins, same ownership group for almost 30 years. Change?  NO!! they boast about stability!  Maddon is an outsider--BOO!  Management must be properly vetted. Talk to Maddon?--Did anybody say the conversation was specifically about him managing the Twins?--or maybe the subject was his pitching coach, Neil Allen?  Hmm.

 

Jake Arrieta.  Luck--what a crock!  The Twins never claimed Johan Santana's success was luck, nor the Twins targeting him in the Rule 5 Draft.  Therefore to claim that Arrieta's success is luck but Santana's was due to his hard work, talent and the savvy of the Twins  to convert him to a star pitcher  is beyond hypocrisy and sour grapes.  

 

 

The "rebuilding process".  The Twins initial goals was to cut payroll and hopefully build a competitive  team with low-priced players scraped from the depths of baseball.  After the 2013 season a change was made to spend a bit more money--and put it into starting pitchers--despite the previous proclamations against "overpaying on free agents".  Apparently the failure of the Independent Leagues to provide adequate pitching talent was grudgedly accepted.  When even that expenditure proved inadequate more money was "found" and Hunter and Santana became Twins players.  I am not predicting an increase in payroll due to the success of the 2015 season.  But, I do expect that the Cubs and the Astros will increase their team payroll--and likely dramatically--thus highlighting the differences between the franchises and their respective goals.

[TheLeviathan]

The Santana point is a good one.  I wonder how many people here insisting the Cubs shouldn't get some credit for Arrieta would react the same if we were downplaying the move to add Santana back in the day.

 

Personally, I think Ryan and the field staff get a lot of credit there plus some luck to help put it over the top.  It should only be fair to evaluate other teams the same way we do our own.

[Platoon]

To expand on Kwaks point about the business side of the game. I don't know how many maniacal owners are left in MLB, but the Twins ain't one of them. It's a business, period. I believe Hunter was a result of a cost benefit analysis. We have to put seats in the seats. How? We need a beloved by the casual fan player, who can still play a little, but with enough resume to sell tickets. Some of his salary gets expensed to COG, some to advertising and promotion. Success is defined in the P&L. Winning is not necessary, but winning enough to sell tickets is mandatory. I don't know about other teams, but the Twins are run more like an entertainment venue, than a competitive baseball team. Win enough to give the illusion that success is tomorrow! But as my dad said, tomorrow never comes. TR makes the decisions, and takes the heat. But does the business model come from the corporate office? There is a persistent rumor that Bill Smiths demise was not due to the teams record, but to his inability to control spending. True? I don't know. But it seems he is the only management type who has ever been held responsible for the teams performance. Maybe just a coincidence?

[bluechipper]

late to the party and sooo  many topics to cover.

 

Cubs, Astros, Twins--different team philosophies  having different organizational goals caused by having different owners.  Cubs and Astros they want to win consistently including the World Series.  Twins--win just enough to mollify fan base to buy tickets, watch TV, say "'ya never know", maybe catch lightning in a bottle very 30 years, all while reducing risk to profits.  Hey, some people put bonds and utility stocks in their investment portfolio.

 

Cubs, new owner, new thinking, new strategy--new people.  Twins, same ownership group for almost 30 years. Change?  NO!! they boast about stability!  Maddon is an outsider--BOO!  Management must be properly vetted. Talk to Maddon?--Did anybody say the conversation was specifically about him managing the Twins?--or maybe the subject was his pitching coach, Neil Allen?  Hmm.

 

Jake Arrieta.  Luck--what a crock!  The Twins never claimed Johan Santana's success was luck, nor the Twins targeting him in the Rule 5 Draft.  Therefore to claim that Arrieta's success is luck but Santana's was due to his hard work, talent and the savvy of the Twins  to convert him to a star pitcher  is beyond hypocrisy and sour grapes.  

 

 

The "rebuilding process".  The Twins initial goals was to cut payroll and hopefully build a competitive  team with low-priced players scraped from the depths of baseball.  After the 2013 season a change was made to spend a bit more money--and put it into starting pitchers--despite the previous proclamations against "overpaying on free agents".  Apparently the failure of the Independent Leagues to provide adequate pitching talent was grudgedly accepted.  When even that expenditure proved inadequate more money was "found" and Hunter and Santana became Twins players.  I am not predicting an increase in payroll due to the success of the 2015 season.  But, I do expect that the Cubs and the Astros will increase their team payroll--and likely dramatically--thus highlighting the differences between the franchises and their respective goals.

There's a bit of difference between acquiring a 21 year old and him developing into a Cy Young winner than a 27 year old with 5.46 ERA magically figuring out how to pitch. Either way, both teams were lucky to an extent in both cases.

 

This thread asked why the Cubs are ahead of the Twins in their rebuild, and getting lucky on Jake Arrieta is a big reason why.

[DaveW]

There's a bit of difference between acquiring a 21 year old and him developing into a Cy Young winner than a 27 year old with 5.46 ERA magically figuring out how to pitch. Either way, both teams were lucky to an extent in both cases.

 

This thread asked why the Cubs are ahead of the Twins in their rebuild, and getting lucky on Jake Arrieta is a big reason why.

The Cubs won 14 more games the the Twins, there were lots of reasons why this happened not just Arrieta.... (Not as big as you want to make it out to be)

[bluechipper]

The Cubs won 14 more games the the Twins, there were lots of reasons why this happened not just Arrieta.... (Not as big as you want to make it out to be)

Well having two aces to go along with their more experienced prospects is what I think the difference is. I still think the Twins are set up to be on par with the cubs starting next year.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Well having two aces to go along with their more experienced prospects is what I think the difference is. I still think the Twins are set up to be on par with the cubs starting next year.

And you think those two Twins aces will be.........who?

[TheLeviathan]

This thread asked why the Cubs are ahead of the Twins in their rebuild, and getting lucky on Jake Arrieta is a big reason why.

They better positioned themselves to get lucky. They took a more aggressive rebuilding stance and turned it into gold faster.

 

The Twins are getting closer, but the Cubs are there now. We are still hoping with our team.

[bluechipper]

And you think those two Twins aces will be.........who?

I'm hopeful on Berrios and Duffey to go along with all of the current solid options, but I'm also assuming jon Lester's decline is soon.

[bluechipper]

They better positioned themselves to get lucky. They took a more aggressive rebuilding stance and turned it into gold faster.

The Twins are getting closer, but the Cubs are there now. We are still hoping with our team.

I agree with that. I think you have to add in the lost seasons for Buxton and Sano, as well as the drafting of high school players as to why they may be a year behind.

[Kwak]

 

There's a bit of difference between acquiring a 21 year old and him developing into a Cy Young winner than a 27 year old with 5.46 ERA magically figuring out how to pitch. Either way, both teams were lucky to an extent in both cases.

This thread asked why the Cubs are ahead of the Twins in their rebuild, and getting lucky on Jake Arrieta is a big reason why.

Why are the Cubs ahead of the Twins?   1)  The Cubs committed to change the way they functioned.  2) A completely new management built  those who won in the toughest division (which now is the NLC) including World Series.  3).  Their goal was to build a team that was the very best in MLB.  4)  They were willing to take more risks in order to acquire top talent, both on and off the field.  Yes, those risks involve spending more money, but nonetheless they took those risks.

 

But, the story of the two teams isn't over.  We need to wait another year or two to see the next step each takes in order to verify that there was as much as a difference as I claim exists.  I am confident the Cubs will continue to expand their payroll commensurately with their demonstrated success on the field--and that the Twins will "be more prudent".   But Arrieta is simply one result of their process, not the only one, nor for that matter the most important one.

[blairpaul715]

 

The Twins could have gotten Hamels and not given up any of their top prospects like Kepler and Berrios.

 

Source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbenjamin/2015/07/30/texas-rangers-made-out-like-bandits-in-cole-hamels-trade/

I would have to disagree, about the point of the trade, Thompson, Alfaro, and Williams(which the article doesnt even bring up) were equal to Berrios, Kepler, and either Polanco or Gordon, plus give up a ML mid level pitchter...........if you go by MLB Pipeline, Berrios(20th ranked), Polanco or Gordon(75,77), and Kepler (96) is comparable to Jake Thompson(51), Williams (55), and Alfaro (59) #1 ranked catcher and only 22 yrs old............So to say we wouldnt have to give up any of our top prospects you are way wrong IMO.............Even if you take out Berrios and replace him with Stewart or Gonsalves you are  giving less than Texas did........I believe you oversell our prospects compared to what the baseball world does. We all love OUR OWN prospects, me included, but i do TRY to look outside our Twins world

[DaveW]

 

I would have to disagree, about the point of the trade, Thompson, Alfaro, and Williams(which the article doesnt even bring up) were equal to Berrios, Kepler, and either Polanco or Gordon, plus give up a ML mid level pitchter...........if you go by MLB Pipeline, Berrios(20th ranked), Polanco or Gordon(75,77), and Kepler (96) is comparable to Jake Thompson(51), Williams (55), and Alfaro (59) #1 ranked catcher and only 22 yrs old............So to say we wouldnt have to give up any of our top prospects you are way wrong IMO.............Even if you take out Berrios and replace him with Stewart or Gonsalves you are  giving less than Texas did........I believe you oversell our prospects compared to what the baseball world does. We all love OUR OWN prospects, me included, but i do TRY to look outside our Twins world

No...Berrios isn't equal, and you aren't even getting into the fact that Phils picked up a nice chunk of Hanmels contract and took 30+ million back in a worthless Harrison contract as well.

 

Equal trade would have been:

Polanco, Gordon, Stewart, Nolasco and potentially Kepler.

Absolute no brainer IMO.

[blairpaul715]

 

No...Berrios isn't equal, and you aren't even getting into the fact that Phils picked up a nice chunk of Hanmels contract and took 30+ million back in a worthless Harrison contract as well.

 

Equal trade would have been:

Polanco, Gordon, Stewart, Nolasco and potentially Kepler.

Absolute no brainer IMO.

I would agree with this, but I still think Kepler would have needed to be one of them, but yes, i think this would be pretty equal to what Texas gave up. And I was thinking of the implication of Hamels contract situation, that is part of why i replaced Berrios , with a Gonsalves or Stewart scenario.

[USAFChief]

I'm hopeful on Berrios and Duffey to go along with all of the current solid options, but I'm also assuming jon Lester's decline is soon.

You think Berrios and Duffey are going to equal Lester and Arrietta next year?

[bluechipper]

No...Berrios isn't equal, and you aren't even getting into the fact that Phils picked up a nice chunk of Hanmels contract and took 30+ million back in a worthless Harrison contract as well.

 

Equal trade would have been:

Polanco, Gordon, Stewart, Nolasco and potentially Kepler.

 

Absolute no brainer IMO.

Do you think he would've waived his no trade clause for the Twins though?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

No...Berrios isn't equal, and you aren't even getting into the fact that Phils picked up a nice chunk of Hanmels contract and took 30+ million back in a worthless Harrison contract as well.

 

Equal trade would have been:

Polanco, Gordon, Stewart, Nolasco and potentially Kepler.

Absolute no brainer IMO.

 

I think adding Kepler would probably tip the scale against making that trade, but I'd part with the other guys for an actual #1 for a couple more years. (Setting aside that Hamels could veto a trade to Minnesota if he wanted)

 

 

[USAFChief]

They better positioned themselves to get lucky. They took a more aggressive rebuilding stance and turned it into gold faster.

The Twins are getting closer, but the Cubs are there now. We are still hoping with our team.

My belief is also that the Cubs will constantly be looking for the next Arrietta, and if they think they may have found one, they'll do what it takes to get him.

 

I don't have confidence the Twins won't simply settle for the next Stauffer.

[blairpaul715]

 

Also if the Twins had somehow ended up with Kyle Schwarber in the 2014 draft, does anyone really believe he'd be starting in a playoff game the following season? More likely he'd be another top 10 prospect having a great year in the minors somewhere, ETA 2017.

 

Organizational philosophy.

I give the Cubs credit on this pick, it was considered a reach at #4 when the pick was made.

[bluechipper]

You think Berrios and Duffey are going to equal Lester and Arrietta next year?

Probably not, but they don't have to. I like the back end of the Twins rotation more than the Cubs right now. But after learning the genius of Theo Epstein, he'll probably sign Mike Pelfrey and teach him how to control his splitter, leading to an all star appearance and Cy Young run.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I'm hopeful on Berrios and Duffey to go along with all of the current solid options, but I'm also assuming jon Lester's decline is soon.

I can buy that answer, but you are being extremely optimistic about Berrios and Duffey, and extremely pessimistic that Lester will suddenly decline, despite much if any evidence.  

 

And remember we are also arguing about organizational philosophy too. In other words, Berrios is still a minor league pitcher, and Duffey gets no "scholarship" going into 2016. Those guys will have to beat out any Mike Pelfreys that Ryan decides to sign for 2016, not to mention the #3-5 types who are already on staff (Gibson, Milone, Nolasco) etc and who have the inside edge. 

[jorgenswest]

Cubs were willing to trade off a good prospect for Rizzo. Twins keep prospects.

 

Cubs turned a moderate free agent signing in Feldman into Jake Arrietta. Twins extend moderate signings until they have no value.

 

Cubs look to move valued trade asset like Samardzija. The Twins have a valued asset in Perkins that they aren't willing to move.

 

The Cubs have done a better job of optimizing their assets than the Twins.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

 (heck, last year Hughes was a #1 starter).

 

Hughes was OUR #1 starter, but he was NOT a league #1 starter. Gibson was OUR full season #1 this year, but certainly not a league #1 type. Hughes MIGHT never be anymore than he was this year...it happens. Gibson might just be what he is the past few years, which is really good for periods and really bad for periods, averaging out to being okay. Santana can be as good as he was the last month, but I don't know that he can sustain it for a whole year, but at least he does have the talent. Duffey will likely regress as he gets scouted more, but I like what I see from him- probably a #3 upside over time. 

[Craig Arko]

The Cubs have been rebuilding for 70 years (ever since the goat). Maybe it's just time things break in their favor.

[Mike Sixel]

Cubs just agreed to sign a 20 year old Cuban FA for all of $3MM......I see the Twins have continued their "bad luck" at being able to sign international FAs....