Twins Lose Zack Jones in Rule 5

[Hrbowski]

People seem really mad about losing Jones. Come on, he was my prospect, not yours.

[ashbury]

That's the problem with the Rule 5.  They should make some kind of a rule that if a player looses significant playing time due to injury, the team gets another year or something like that.  As it is, the Twins really only had 2 years to fully evaluate him.

But doesn't the same logic apply to a team thinking about picking him? Even more so, since the Twins only had to put Jones on heir 40-man but the Brewers now have to put him on their 25-man. It's tough making that commitment if he's only had two years of development.

[USAFChief]

I think the most likely result is, Jones ends up back with the Twins.

 

I still think he should've been protected over Dean, though.

[Kwak]

I guess we're all agreed--the Twins got plucked.  A future perennial all-star (and possible HOFer) has been senselessly lost forever--and for absolutely nothing!

[sane09]

I guess we're all agreed--the Twins got plucked.  A future perennial all-star (and possible HOFer) has been senselessly lost forever--and for absolutely nothing!

Obviously sarcastic and intentionally overstated, BUT the most unlikely statement of all has to be "we're all agreed".

We are NEVER all agreed!!!

[stringer bell]

While I am not highly critical of the loss of Jones, the true outcome of the moves going in to protecting players for the Rule V Draft is that the Twins lost Josmil Pinto, Achter, and picked up John Hicks. As a third catcher, Hicks fits the prototypical role of defense-first with limited offense.

[DaveW]

I just don’t understand how anyone can have a real strong opinion one way or another. I am guessing the Twins have a formal process where all of the talent evaluators are brought to together. Collectively this group who have observed all of the candidates for the 40 man for thousands of hours collectively come to a decision on who to include or not. I can appreciate one of the basic premises of this site is to debate who to construct the team but to get bent out of shape and to assume any of us has a better idea of which players to put on the 40 man is absolutely ridiculous for anyone who does not have the credentials to be a scout and has seen the players in question numerous times.

But those collective groups make mistakes, (as do us fans) but sometimes those mistakes are called out on at the time by numerous fans (when the Twins released Ortiz for instance several people on the web/message boards called it a mistake)

 

Ditto with trading Hardy for Hooey.

 

Frankly, I don't trust the Twins braintrust enough these days to just give them the benefit of the doubt , there is almost zero turnover in the franchise as a whole (which indicates low accountability as a whole) and the Twins haven't won a title or been to the World Series in 25 seasons.

 

It's not like this is exclusive to baseball either, teams across the board make decisions that look terrible at the time and end up proving terrible (see: everything the Browns have done in the past 7 years or so)

[jimbo92107]

 

 

Nunez: Why is he on the 40 man anymore? Santana can be the new super Util

 

 

Santana? He hasn't proved he can hit or field very well off the bench. Nunez has actually been pretty good at both those things off the bench. I'm not confident anymore that Santana will learn to hit, and his fielding has been inconsistent.

[jimmer]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that Nunez has been a pretty good defender. And I'm not convinced one decent season consisting of 200 or so PAs means he's pretty good with the bat either.

 

Between Santana and Nunez, how about neither and we look for a better option?  

[twinssouth]

But doesn't the same logic apply to a team thinking about picking him? Even more so, since the Twins only had to put Jones on heir 40-man but the Brewers now have to put him on their 25-man. It's tough making that commitment if he's only had two years of development.

 

 

 

 

You have a good point,

[ashbury]

You have a good point,

Yes but I usually wear a hat so people won't know.

[sane09]

 

Yes but I usually wear a hat so people won't know.

I've been told that I have a hole in my head, but that's beside the point.

[DaveW]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that Nunez has been a pretty good defender. And I'm not convinced one decent season consisting of 200 or so PAs means he's pretty good with the bat either.

 

Between Santana and Nunez, how about neither and we look for a better option?

Punto!

 

The thing is, Santana is out of options and I would hate to toss him aside, too much upside, young, had a great 2014 etc

 

Escobar, Dozier, Plouffe/Sano should be playing nearly every day anyways, Santana or Nunez is likely to get maybe 1 start a week at most, and at least with Santana you have a guy who can PR and fill in more places defensively.

[Han Joelo]

Let me see what I have gotten out of this thread.  

 

--It's kind of silly to worry this much about a player, or players, this far down the depth chart.  But we're fans, so we care, and it is kind of fun.  Is fun the right word?

 

We differ in our fandom.  We're all unique people with 900 unique perspectives, and boiling us down into a couple-three categories is unfair and reductive.  But I'll do it anyway.

 

Some folks, like me, have an implicit trust in management in a case like this.  Doesn't mean we are all loyal sheep who blindly nod yes to every decision TR and company make, but it does mean we (ok, "I"--just speaking for myself here) have to trust the actual paid professionals in this case.  The crazy thing is I end up picking a 'side,' which leads to me disparaging Zach Jones ("he'll never make it") and  supporting Dean ("he's left-handed.")  Truth is, I have no idea, other than it kind of makes slightly more sense to me to protect the more refined guy who could probably hit the strike zone for four or five innings in an emergency vs. the guy who has a very high likelihood of either throwing 12 straight balls or grooving a 95 mph fastball down the middle in the off-chance he leapfrogs 8 or 9 pitchers on the RHRP depth chart.  But there I did it again--made predictive assumptions about something of which I am totally unqualified to judge.  Many of you here are probably more in the know than me.

 

There might be some here for whom this is more of an isolated judgement--they really like Zach Jones, or at least hard-throwing strikeout guys, and/or they really dislike Dean, or LH control pitchers.  Years of being tormented by Mark Buerhle will do that to you.

 

And then there are those who implicitly DON'T trust the front office to ever do anything right, and use every decision as a platform from which to try and justify that belief.  Two categories:

 

1.  "The FO just doesn't know how to manage the 40 man roster.  Losing ANYONE for nothing is inexcusable."  To which I say, they didn't lose Jones for nothing, they got $50,000 for him.  And if the Brewers really like him, maybe they will trade something for him.  Remember when the Twins traded Billy Bullock for Scott Diamond?  Maybe the Twins will get a non-40 man player for Jones.  Not bad management, if you ask me.  Although I freely admit that choosing Dean over Jones is a pretty good analogy for picking Diamond over Bullock…but then again, Diamond did have a more useful big league career...

 

2.  "I would've protected Jones.  Dean would've not been taken, and even if he was, I wouldn't care.  We could've just signed Virgil Vasquez (am I remembering that right?) to take his spot."  

 

To which I have no rebuttal.  It's an imaginary world, and one I am skeptical exists.  If Jones is protected and no one is taken, these 12 pages of FO angst would have been filled with something else, which is fine, really!  This is fun.  

 

Once upon a time, I was a Miami Dolphins fan--Shula, Marino, the Perfect Season.  I am relieved I have no geographical or other ties that force me to remain a fan of the current "dumpster fire," in internet parlance, that is the management of the Dolphins.  To those of you who see the Twins as equally incompetent, I feel for you, but I applaud you.  I cut and ran a long time ago.  The Dolphins no longer reflect a single thing I value in a sports franchise, and I have cowardly chosen to abandon them.

 

And if Dean HAD been taken, he'd already be the next Sean Gilmartin.

 

 

 

 

[sane09]

 

 "A future perennial all-star (and possible HOFer) has been senselessly lost forever--and for absolutely nothing!"

 

From the Brewers Website

Jones, meanwhile, garnered recommendations from Brewers scout Brad Del Barba and Class A Wisconsin pitching coach Gary Lucas. Lucas came to the Brewers last year from the Twins organization and worked with Jones in 2014 at advanced Class A Ft. Myers.

Jones, 25, was a fourth-round Draft pick of the Twins in 2012 and has 186 strikeouts and .186 opponents' average in 130 1/3 Minor League innings. He had a 4.18 ERA in 45 games between the advanced Class A and Double-A levels in 2015.

"A pure power arm," Minasian said. "He'll blow guys away with his fastball. … We're buying a big, big fastball and we'll see what he can do." Jones joins a group of recent 40-man roster adds with power fastballs, including Jacob Barnes, Yhonathan Barrios and Damien Magnifico.

 

[Major League Ready]

 

But those collective groups make mistakes, (as do us fans) but sometimes those mistakes are called out on at the time by numerous fans (when the Twins released Ortiz for instance several people on the web/message boards called it a mistake)

Ditto with trading Hardy for Hooey.

Frankly, I don't trust the Twins braintrust enough these days to just give them the benefit of the doubt , there is almost zero turnover in the franchise as a whole (which indicates low accountability as a whole) and the Twins haven't won a title or been to the World Series in 25 seasons.

 

 This is a reasonable point.   No question those collective groups are going to make mistakes.  EVERY MLB team is going to make mistakes.  How much of a players ceiling will be reached or when is hard to predict.   Prospects or exactly when a player will decline is also hard to predict.  All of this uncertainty leaves plenty of room for us to debate these moves.

 

The point that you fail to acknowledge is that are likely better talent evaluators and they have more information than us.  Therefore, the point is that to take a hard stance or get bent out of shape is very unreasonable IMO.  Of course, we have already established fanatical behavior should be expected from fans. 

The thing that bugs me is that some posters or fans in general like to insist that our team has sucked or should have been better over the past 17 years without actually comparing how the Twins have done compared to other teams.  Perhaps the disconnect is that fans unfairly expect smaller(er) market teams to fair as well every year as teams that can buy success. 

 

If you compare the Twins organization record with teams of similar of less revenue over the 17 year period,  the organization you disparage on a non-stop basis has the best record of any team in this group with the exception of the Oakland A’s.   If you are going to insist they are not performing, at least look at the one stat that best represents their relative success.     

 

Oakland --  0.537
Twins -----  0.503
Jays -------  0.499
Rays ------  0.499
Indians ---  0.498
Mariners -- 0.492
Dbacks ---  0.490
Reds ------  0.481
Marlins ---  0.480
Padres ---  0.476
Astros ----  0.473
Brewers -- 0.471
Rockies --  0.462
Orioles ---  0.459
Pirates ---- 0.452
Royals ---- 0.444

[Major League Ready]

 

But those collective groups make mistakes, (as do us fans) but sometimes those mistakes are called out on at the time by numerous fans (when the Twins released Ortiz for instance several people on the web/message boards called it a mistake)

Ditto with trading Hardy for Hooey.

Frankly, I don't trust the Twins braintrust enough these days to just give them the benefit of the doubt , there is almost zero turnover in the franchise as a whole (which indicates low accountability as a whole) and the Twins haven't won a title or been to the World Series in 25 seasons.

 

 This is a reasonable point.   No question those collective groups are going to make mistakes.  EVERY MLB team is going to make mistakes.  How much of a players ceiling will be reached or when is hard to predict.   Prospects or exactly when a player will decline is also hard to predict.  All of this uncertainty leaves plenty of room for us to debate these moves.

 

The point that you fail to acknowledge is that are likely better talent evaluators and they have more information than us.  Therefore, the point is that to take a hard stance or get bent out of shape is very unreasonable IMO.  Of course, we have already established fanatical behavior should be expected from fans. 

The thing that bugs me is that some posters or fans in general like to insist that our team has sucked or should have been better over the past 17 years without actually comparing how the Twins have done compared to other teams.  Perhaps the disconnect is that fans unfairly expect smaller(er) market teams to fair as well every year as teams that can buy success. 

 

If you compare the Twins organization record with other teams in the both half of the revenue ranking over the past 17 years,  the organization you disparage on a non-stop basis has the best record of any team in this group with the exception of the Oakland A’s.   If you are going to insist they are not performing, at least look at the one stat that best represents their relative success.     

 

Oakland --  0.537
Twins -----  0.503
Jays -------  0.499
Rays ------  0.499
Indians ---  0.498
Mariners -- 0.492
Dbacks ---  0.490
Reds ------  0.481
Marlins ---  0.480
Padres ---  0.476
Astros ----  0.473
Brewers -- 0.471
Rockies --  0.462
Orioles ---  0.459
Pirates ---- 0.452
Royals ---- 0.444

[Mike Sixel]

 

Within one sentence you state that you do understand the Internet, and then that you do not understand the Internet.

 

It's a typical appeal to authority argument, which basically says we can't question them, because they have the job and we don't. 

 

I bet your advertisers would love it if we only came here to discuss what we have a job in.....not to mention the rest of us.

[Mike Sixel]

 

 This is a reasonable point.   No question those collective groups are going to make mistakes.  EVERY MLB team is going to make mistakes.  How much of a players ceiling will be reached or when is hard to predict.   Prospects or exactly when a player will decline is also hard to predict.  All of this uncertainty leaves plenty of room for us to debate these moves.

 

The point that you fail to acknowledge is that are likely better talent evaluators and they have more information than us.  Therefore, the point is that to take a hard stance or get bent out of shape is very unreasonable IMO.  Of course, we have already established fanatical behavior should be expected from fans. 

The thing that bugs me is that some posters or fans in general like to insist that our team has sucked or should have been better over the past 17 years without actually comparing how the Twins have done compared to other teams.  Perhaps the disconnect is that fans unfairly expect smaller(er) market teams to fair as well every year as teams that can buy success. 

 

If you compare the Twins organization record with teams of similar of less revenue over the 17 year period,  the organization you disparage on a non-stop basis has the best record of any team in this group with the exception of the Oakland A’s.   If you are going to insist they are not performing, at least look at the one stat that best represents their relative success.     

 

Oakland --  0.537
Twins -----  0.503
Jays -------  0.499
Rays ------  0.499
Indians ---  0.498
Mariners -- 0.492
Dbacks ---  0.490
Reds ------  0.481
Marlins ---  0.480
Padres ---  0.476
Astros ----  0.473
Brewers -- 0.471
Rockies --  0.462
Orioles ---  0.459
Pirates ---- 0.452
Royals ---- 0.444

 

I thought the studies were clear, payroll is not the determinant of success, but now we are only to compare the Twins to teams that have less revenue? Heck, I thought you and others argued that the only way to succeed is to draft and develop players, and FA didn't generally work. If so, then is revenue really an issue? I'm very confused right now.

 

they may as well have two MLB leagues if they are only competing against teams with lower payroll.

[gunnarthor]

12 pages!  This beat the Benson thread, right?

[sane09]

 

It's a typical appeal to authority argument, which basically says we can't question them, because they have the job and we don't. 

 

I bet your advertisers would love it if we only came here to discuss what we have a job in.....not to mention the rest of us.

Let me know if that becomes the rule.

I am now retired, so I would not have any credibility in any....................................ZAP!

[USAFChief]

 

 This is a reasonable point.   No question those collective groups are going to make mistakes.  EVERY MLB team is going to make mistakes.  How much of a players ceiling will be reached or when is hard to predict.   Prospects or exactly when a player will decline is also hard to predict.  All of this uncertainty leaves plenty of room for us to debate these moves.

 

The point that you fail to acknowledge is that are likely better talent evaluators and they have more information than us.  Therefore, the point is that to take a hard stance or get bent out of shape is very unreasonable IMO.  Of course, we have already established fanatical behavior should be expected from fans. 

The thing that bugs me is that some posters or fans in general like to insist that our team has sucked or should have been better over the past 17 years without actually comparing how the Twins have done compared to other teams.  Perhaps the disconnect is that fans unfairly expect smaller(er) market teams to fair as well every year as teams that can buy success. 

 

If you compare the Twins organization record with other teams in the both half of the revenue ranking over the past 17 years,  the organization you disparage on a non-stop basis has the best record of any team in this group with the exception of the Oakland A’s.   If you are going to insist they are not performing, at least look at the one stat that best represents their relative success.     

 

Oakland --  0.537
Twins -----  0.503
Jays -------  0.499
Rays ------  0.499
Indians ---  0.498
Mariners -- 0.492
Dbacks ---  0.490
Reds ------  0.481
Marlins ---  0.480
Padres ---  0.476
Astros ----  0.473
Brewers -- 0.471
Rockies --  0.462
Orioles ---  0.459
Pirates ---- 0.452
Royals ---- 0.444

Unless my math is wrong, per Baseball Ref, over the past 17 seasons, the Twins are not at .503.

 

They are 1368-1383, .497.

 

 

 

I would also need to see team revenues for all these teams, for the past 17 years, please.  Actually, show me team revenues for all MLB teams over the past 17 years, so we can better judge if revenues are the major factor you are claiming.

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

Unless my math is wrong, per Baseball Ref, over the past 17 seasons, the Twins are not at .503.

 

They are 1368-1383, .497.

 

 

 

I would also need to see team revenues for all these teams, for the past 17 years, please.  Actually, show me team revenues for all MLB teams over the past 17 years, so we can better judge if revenues are the major factor you are claiming.

 

 

Unless my math is wrong, per Baseball Ref, over the past 17 seasons, the Twins are not at .503.

 

They are 1368-1383, .497.

 

 

 

I would also need to see team revenues for all these teams, for the past 17 years, please.  Actually, show me team revenues for all MLB teams over the past 17 years, so we can better judge if revenues are the major factor you are claiming.

My mistake.  When I put together these win records a couple months ago I went back to 2000.  Then I referenced 17 years because used that reference here lately which is of course goes back one year further.  If that's your takeaway here, you are not making any attempt at objectivity. 

[Monkeypaws]

Zack who?

[USAFChief]

 

My mistake.  When I put together these win records a couple months ago I went back to 2000.  Then I referenced 17 years because used that reference here lately which is of course goes back one year further.  If that's your takeaway here, you are not making any attempt at objectivity. 

Perhaps not, but I'm making an attempt at accuracy.

 

Could I ask why you chose 2000 as a starting point?  That doesn't seem a natural point...17 years ago.  Not the start of the TR regime, not the start of the Target Field years.  In fact,  That seems rather conveniently chosen...right before an extended period of contention.  

[DaveW]

 

Perhaps not, but I'm making an attempt at accuracy.

 

Could I ask why you chose 2000 as a starting point?  That doesn't seem a natural point...17 years ago.  Not the start of the TR regime, not the start of the Target Field years.  In fact,  That seems rather conveniently chosen...right before an extended period of contention.  

Agreed, TR started in 1994 if you put those records in that overall win percentage number drops even more.

(note 1994/95 there was the strike, but the win percentage was still poor)

 

1994:  53 wins (.443 win percentage)

1995: 56 wins (.394)

1996: 78 wins (.481)

1997: 68 wins (.450)

1998: 70 wins (.432)

1999: 63 wins (.394)

 

Those first few years with Ryan as a GM were brutal, he got nobody worthwhile back in the trades he made, and the Travis Lee debacle was a straight up embarrassment that may have also set the franchise back.

 

 

Also the 17 year thing that MLR is talking about is the Ryan post season wins in 17 seasons as GM. If  one is going to count Bill Smith's years as GM in those 17 that's fine, but you should count Ryans 1994-1999 seasons as well to be honest/accurate since Ryan wasn't the GM during the Smith years.

[Major League Ready]

 

Perhaps not, but I'm making an attempt at accuracy.

 

Could I ask why you chose 2000 as a starting point?  That doesn't seem a natural point...17 years ago.  Not the start of the TR regime, not the start of the Target Field years.  In fact,  That seems rather conveniently chosen...right before an extended period of contention.  

Simply the turn of the century.  Take out the years since they gained more revenue from target field and they look better too.  Someone referenced the last 17 years and I rolled with the 2000s.  Nothing more nothing less.

[Major League Ready]

 

I thought the studies were clear, payroll is not the determinant of success, but now we are only to compare the Twins to teams that have less revenue? Heck, I thought you and others argued that the only way to succeed is to draft and develop players, and FA didn't generally work. If so, then is revenue really an issue? I'm very confused right now.

 

they may as well have two MLB leagues if they are only competing against teams with lower payroll.

Mike,

 

Those of us who advocate building through draft generally preface that position by qualifying it with that teams at a revenue disadvantage need to emphasize drafting and development.  That is a drastically different then making a blanket statement about building through the draft. 

 

The win percentage for the teams in the bottom half are listed below.  It is abundantly clear that the top revenue teams have been more successful.  The top 9 have all substantially outperformed the lowest revenue teams.  The two outliers are the A’s and Cubs.  The A’s have outperformed low revenue teams and the Cubs have not performed as well as their revenue peers.  Actually, the Twins have outperformed them.  IMO, the win records vs revenue and granted the revenue rank is not perfect, there is a very clear correlation.  Some of you will absolutely refuse to accept even something this conclusive because it does not fit your narrative.  I can’t wait to see the rebuttals as to why this win record vs revenue is not show a correlation between revenue and winning.  The irony is that you are amongst the biggest advocates here of spending big on free agents.  How does this possibly align with revenue does not matter?

 

Yankees --- 0.583
Red Sox --- 0.546
Phillies ----- 0.517
Giants ------ 0.531
Cubs ------- 0.483
Dodgers --- 0.536
Angels ----- 0.546
Cardinals -- 0.565
Braves -----  0.544
Rangers ---- 0.502
Mets --------  0.497
Tigers ------  0.482
CWS -------  0.509
Nationals -- 0.472
Jays --------  0.499

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed, TR started in 1994 if you put those records in that overall win percentage number drops even more.

(note 1994/95 there was the strike, but the win percentage was still poor)

 

1994:  53 wins (.443 win percentage)

1995: 56 wins (.394)

1996: 78 wins (.481)

1997: 68 wins (.450)

1998: 70 wins (.432)

1999: 63 wins (.394)

 

Those first few years with Ryan as a GM were brutal, he got nobody worthwhile back in the trades he made, and the Travis Lee debacle was a straight up embarrassment that may have also set the franchise back.

 

 

Also the 17 year thing that MLR is talking about is the Ryan post season wins in 17 seasons as GM. If  one is going to count Bill Smith's years as GM in those 17 that's fine, but you should count Ryans 1994-1999 seasons as well to be honest/accurate since Ryan wasn't the GM during the Smith years.

Dayton Moore's record as GM (only counting full seasons) is 689-769, good for a stellar .473 winning percentage.

 

Ryan took over a bad Twins team. He made mistakes. It's ancient history.

 

What Ryan has done is take a terrible, broken 2011 squad and returned it to respectability in his fourth season back at the helm. As I've pointed out more times than I care to count, that's a pretty typical pace for a rebuilding squad; on par with the Astros, close to the Cubs, and a lot faster than either the Royals or the Pirates.

 

Using Ryan's 1990s record as proof of anything is a disingenuous argument, one made to build a narrative that fits your viewpoint, not an attempt at honest discussion.

 

Now it's time for Ryan to build a postseason contender. Will he do that? I don't know but arguing about what he did or did not do in the 90s is a pointless discussion.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not the one saying revenue and winning are not correlated, the studies are all over the internet showing that.