Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[drjim]

Why? How is having Hughes, Santiago and/or Vogelsong in the pen ready to be recalled back to the rotation upon need more of a catastrophe than having the aged vets in the rotation and recalling the young guys from AAA?

How many roster spots do the Twins have?

[bird]

 

how about one of them being the plan?

 

And, one of them or Duffey or Haley being the 2nd choice?

 

NO ONE is saying get rid of all the veterans.

 

I take great umbrage to people saying deciding to go young is a slogan, not a strategy.

 

Here is how the STRATEGY could be different:

 

1. Don't sign Gimenez, because you want to give Murphy one more chance, and have Garver in AAA to take over. If you do sign a guy like that, make it a guy where the primary plan is to have him in AAA as insurance. That's a plan. A strategy. Not a slogan.

 

2. Don't sign another veteran SP, especially one who is old and hasn't been good for 4 years. Plan to have one of May, Berrios, Meija, Duffey, or Haley as your 5th starter, with the next guy on the list as plan B. That's a plan. A strategy. Not a slogan. Maybe even pencil Hughes in as a starter, but not pen, in case his velocity is off. Heck, maybe decide to move him to the bullpen, and start a young guy. If the young guy fails, you can move Hughes back to the rotation if needed, especially for a spot start or two.

 

3. Don't sign 4 veteran RPs, decide you'll have Chargois on the roster based on what you've seen so far. Decide Haley is in the bullpen. Give every young guy that you think is close a real shot at making the roster. 

 

It's about the opportunity you create, or your plans you set. NONE of that is a slogan, it is all an actual strategy to put youth first. 

 

I keep reading "what if they fail"? As many of you have posted, if the youth fail that they've drafted, signed, or traded for, it won't matter who they sign, they need the youth to be good if they are  going to be good.

 

So please, don't condescend to me about youth being a slogan and not a strategy. We've seen plenty of teams go young over the years. We've even seen the Twins do it the last time they built their core.

 

 

Mike, when you provide specifics like you have here, I don't think anyone would accuse you of sloganism. You make a strong case with your three points. I appreciate that you tend to respect the alternative lines of thought behind the moves, and THEN disagree.

 

I'm with you on loathing the thought of putting up with Giminez as my backup catcher, Vogelsong as my 5th starter to begin the season, and Kintzler as my high-leverage shut-down RP. But I understand the moves and agree with the moves, because:

 

1. Garver has yet to taste AAA and despite his age may require more seasoning. JRM struggled all of last year and there's no guarantee he'll be anything less than pathetic as a backup this year from what we can see. I believe JRM is Plan A, Garver is Plan B, and Giminez is the Emergency Plan. That's the order of the wish list, not the other way around as is some times portrayed. If I'm wrong about this, it's because I'm ignorant as to their current assessment of JRM and Garver. Maybe we think too highly of them.

 

2. May, Berrios, Mejia, Haley, and Duffy are Plan A. Plan A includes Santana, Hughes, Gibson, and Santiago. Since everyone knows that your plans ALWAYS implode when it comes to the rotation and you'll have to alter the plan even before you break camp, and since everyone KNOWS you need at least 10 starters over the course of a season, Plan A calls for a great deal of depth. So, already May is kaput. Hughes was already iffy. They may have already concluded that Duffy takes a back seat in the plan to Haley, we don't know. Signing Vogelsong is NOT a signal of a strategy change at all. He's part of Plan B, that's all. He gets reps in camp because they know that before the season is over, they're going to be tapping into next year's Plan A, which is this year's Plan B: Gonsalves, Romero, et al.

 

3. We agree to an extent on this point. They aren't giving every young RP they think is close a shot at making the roster. I believe Plan A has Shaggy, Pressly, and Rogers in the pen. My guess is they view the others as fairly fungible. So, Plan A calls for going with Kintzler, Belisle, and a couple of others, and any of these could find themselves as trade deadline assets. Plan B is Burdi, Reed, Hilgenberger, Melotakis, etc. Should any of them assert themselves in a big way, there will be room for them. Shaggy will not be sent to AAA unless he falters, and if he falters, this will be mostly evident in his bullpen sessions.

 

I think we argue mostly about who is included in the strategy and not about the strategy itself. It's reasonable to wonder if Santiago is a better option than Mejia, but I don't believe the current pecking order that slots a few veterans like him on the depth chart ahead of the a few promising prospects is a sign of some strategic game plan that needs to be altered. I think it's a case of practical thinking by the people closest to the field, who then convey their opinions upstream.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

how about one of them being the plan?

 

And, one of them or Duffey or Haley being the 2nd choice?

 

NO ONE is saying get rid of all the veterans.

 

I take great umbrage to people saying deciding to go young is a slogan, not a strategy.

 

Here is how the STRATEGY could be different:

 

1. Don't sign Gimenez, because you want to give Murphy one more chance, and have Garver in AAA to take over. If you do sign a guy like that, make it a guy where the primary plan is to have him in AAA as insurance. That's a plan. A strategy. Not a slogan.

 

2. Don't sign another veteran SP, especially one who is old and hasn't been good for 4 years. Plan to have one of May, Berrios, Meija, Duffey, or Haley as your 5th starter, with the next guy on the list as plan B. That's a plan. A strategy. Not a slogan. Maybe even pencil Hughes in as a starter, but not pen, in case his velocity is off. Heck, maybe decide to move him to the bullpen, and start a young guy. If the young guy fails, you can move Hughes back to the rotation if needed, especially for a spot start or two.

 

3. Don't sign 4 veteran RPs, decide you'll have Chargois on the roster based on what you've seen so far. Decide Haley is in the bullpen. Give every young guy that you think is close a real shot at making the roster. 

 

It's about the opportunity you create, or your plans you set. NONE of that is a slogan, it is all an actual strategy to put youth first. 

 

I keep reading "what if they fail"? As many of you have posted, if the youth fail that they've drafted, signed, or traded for, it won't matter who they sign, they need the youth to be good if they are  going to be good.

 

So please, don't condescend to me about youth being a slogan and not a strategy. We've seen plenty of teams go young over the years. We've even seen the Twins do it the last time they built their core.

 

A couple things.  I think the Twins did what you are suggesting with the rotation, though they added May to that mix. I think if May had not gotten hurt, it's possible that Santiago would be on the bubble at the moment, but given the injury, those plans have changed. I want to believe they still go north with one of Duffey/Mejia/Berrios... and personally, I don't care too much as to which one, though I'm leaning with Mejia at the moment.

 

Giminez will bother me if he gets the gig. As we learned last year, a bit of AAA depth at C is a good thing. Without question I'd want to give JR another try.

 

I'm with you on the relievers. I'd have broken camp with at least one of the young relievers. Now that said, extra vets for 'competition' I think is a good thing. It's only really an issue if they don't do that. I've got to think Chargois or Melotakis heads north though.... Hope I'm right.

[nicksaviking]

 

How many roster spots do the Twins have?

 

I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that the current bullpen is too good to find room for the veterans who miss out on the rotation spots?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mike, when you provide specifics like you have here, I don't think anyone would accuse you of sloganism. You make a strong case with your three points. I appreciate that you tend to respect the alternative lines of thought behind the moves, and THEN disagree.

 

I'm with you on loathing the thought of putting up with Giminez as my backup catcher, Vogelsong as my 5th starter to begin the season, and Kintzler as my high-leverage shut-down RP. But I understand the moves and agree with the moves, because:

 

1. Garver has yet to taste AAA and despite his age may require more seasoning. JRM struggled all of last year and there's no guarantee he'll be anything less than pathetic as a backup this year from what we can see. I believe JRM is Plan A, Garver is Plan B, and Giminez is the Emergency Plan. That's the order of the wish list, not the other way around as is some times portrayed. If I'm wrong about this, it's because I'm ignorant as to their current assessment of JRM and Garver. Maybe we think too highly of them.

 

2. May, Berrios, Mejia, Haley, and Duffy are Plan A. Plan A includes Santana, Hughes, Gibson, and Santiago. Since everyone knows that your plans ALWAYS implode when it comes to the rotation and you'll have to alter the plan even before you break camp, and since everyone KNOWS you need at least 10 starters over the course of a season, Plan A calls for a great deal of depth. So, already May is kaput. Hughes was already iffy. They may have already concluded that Duffy takes a back seat in the plan to Haley, we don't know. Signing Vogelsong is NOT a signal of a strategy change at all. He's part of Plan B, that's all. He gets reps in camp because they know that before the season is over, they're going to be tapping into next year's Plan A, which is this year's Plan B: Gonsalves, Romero, et al.

 

3. We agree to an extent on this point. They aren't giving every young RP they think is close a shot at making the roster. I believe Plan A has Shaggy, Pressly, and Rogers in the pen. My guess is they view the others as fairly fungible. So, Plan A calls for going with Kintzler, Belisle, and a couple of others, and any of these could find themselves as trade deadline assets. Plan B is Burdi, Reed, Hilgenberger, Melotakis, etc. Should any of them assert themselves in a big way, there will be room for them. Shaggy will not be sent to AAA unless he falters, and if he falters, this will be mostly evident in his bullpen sessions.

 

I think we argue mostly about who is included in the strategy and not about the strategy itself. It's reasonable to wonder if Santiago is a better option than Mejia, but I don't believe the current pecking order that slots a few veterans like him on the depth chart ahead of the a few promising prospects is a sign of some strategic game plan that needs to be altered. I think it's a case of practical thinking by the people closest to the field, who then convey their opinions upstream.

 

love this response, thank you for the respectful disagreement (and agreement!)

 

I hope you are correct, and their talk of veterans and trying to sign even more of them is all part of some kind of placeholder plan....and not a strategy.

[drjim]

 

I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that the current bullpen is too good to find room for the veterans who miss out on the rotation spots?

 

Yes, the bullpen should not be a holding pen for more than one veteran, low upside starter. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

This solidifies my point, which is what you call merit is very different than what the team calls merit. We don't know their reasons oftentimes. Is the player inattentive to coaching, obnoxious to be around and therefore a clubhouse issue, late to the park? Is a player a positive influence on other players? My point is, we assume a lot. We're quick to decide the decision is based on service time or options because we know about those things, when other important factors might be the larger consideration. Those things aren't always baseball-related, but even when they are they can be invisible to us. So I agree with you. Your version of merit alone (based mainly on meaningless games by the way) is simply false.

 

Except what I listed has nothing to do with how mature they are.  How many options they have, how long you can delay their FA, etc. have nothing to do with merit.  And these things can and do effect team decisions.  Sure, maturity and other things we don't see can as well, but so do things completely outside the control of the player.

 

You and jim seem to keep thrusting the onus on the young player and I'm suggesting to you that the vast majority of the time the decision is made by factors completely uncontrollable by the player and his performance/behavior in spring camp.  Chargois might strike out every single guy he faces this spring and still wind up in AAA.  Ask Kris Bryant.

[drjim]

On a further note, while it is unlikely, it is not impossible for the Twins to compete this year. Starting the season with unproven guys in the rotation, backing them up with a bullpen full of former starters, and therefore cutting loose other relievers is not exactly setting the team up for success.

 

Why is the opening day rotation so important? Why the rush to get people in there who haven't proved anything in the majors yet?

[Mike Sixel]

 

On a further note, while it is unlikely, it is not impossible for the Twins to compete this year. Starting the season with unproven guys in the rotation, backing them up with a bullpen full of former starters, and therefore cutting loose other relievers is not exactly setting the team up for success.

 

Why is the opening day rotation so important? Why the rush to get people in there who haven't proved anything in the majors yet?

 

Well, Vogelsgang has proven for 4 years he's actually not good at all. I'd rather roll the dice on someone that might be good...as an example.

[drjim]

 

Except what I listed has nothing to do with how mature they are.  How many options they have, how long you can delay their FA, etc. have nothing to do with merit.  And these things can and do effect team decisions.  Sure, maturity and other things we don't see can as well, but so do things completely outside the control of the player.

 

You and jim seem to keep thrusting the onus on the young player and I'm suggesting to you that the vast majority of the time the decision is made by factors completely uncontrollable by the player and his performance/behavior in spring camp.  Chargois might strike out every single guy he faces this spring and still wind up in AAA.  Ask Kris Bryant.

 

No chance that would be the case with Chargois. The comparison of him and Bryant are nonsense.

 

I would agree that often the factors are stacked up for young players to have to outperform a veteran (or plan a). But they can still do it.

[drjim]

 

Well, Vogelsgang has proven for 4 years he's actually not good at all. I'd rather roll the dice on someone that might be good...as an example.

 

As would I, and same with the front office. He is not making the rotation if Mejia and/or Berrios (or possibly Duffey) pitch well this spring.

[bird]

 

love this response, thank you for the respectful disagreement (and agreement!)

 

I hope you are correct, and their talk of veterans and trying to sign even more of them is all part of some kind of placeholder plan....and not a strategy.

 

 

Thanks, and I also loathed the idea of Napoli. Not because he was 41 or 35 or whatever, but because I'm tired of hoping guys like Vargas or Park are the answer and then having them continue to be questions instead. I mean, when are we finally going to have someone come up and immediately be an answer, right?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Thanks, and I also loathed the idea of Napoli. Not because he was 41 or 35 or whatever, but because I'm tired of hoping guys like Vargas or Park are the answer and then having them continue to be questions instead. I mean, when are we finally going to have someone come up and immediately be an answer, right?

 

Even if the answer is no.....then they would have an idea of their long term holes.

[Mike Sixel]

Jbo
9:41 What am I missing in Jason Castro's batted-ball profile that says "I'm a .220 hitter"?

 

Jeff Sullivan
9:41 It's not so much his batted-ball profile as it is his profile of limited batted balls in the first place
9:42 He strikes out almost a third of the time that he hits. Good luck turning that into batting .250

[TheLeviathan]

 

No chance that would be the case with Chargois. The comparison of him and Bryant are nonsense.

 

I would agree that often the factors are stacked up for young players to have to outperform a veteran (or plan a). But they can still do it.

 

"Can" is a rather misleading conclusion.  Of course they "can".  Lots of things "can" happen.

 

But that's why your "take it!" thing is nonsense even as a slogan.  It's not theirs to take more often than not.

[nicksaviking]

 

Yes, the bullpen should not be a holding pen for more than one veteran, low upside starter. 

 

Why? It's currently a holding pen for more than one veteran, low upside reliever.

[drjim]

 

"Can" is a rather misleading conclusion.  Of course they "can".  Lots of things "can" happen.

 

But that's why your "take it!" thing is nonsense even as a slogan.  It's not theirs to take more often than not.

 

While your second point may be true in certain circumstances, it is not the case right now with Chargois. The spot is there for him. Right now. The front office is not going to manipulate service time for a 26 year old middle reliever.

[bird]

 

Except what I listed has nothing to do with how mature they are.  How many options they have, how long you can delay their FA, etc. have nothing to do with merit.  And these things can and do effect team decisions.  Sure, maturity and other things we don't see can as well, but so do things completely outside the control of the player.

 

You and jim seem to keep thrusting the onus on the young player and I'm suggesting to you that the vast majority of the time the decision is made by factors completely uncontrollable by the player and his performance/behavior in spring camp.  Chargois might strike out every single guy he faces this spring and still wind up in AAA.  Ask Kris Bryant.

 

 

The vast majority of the time the decisions are entirely about the question of which player is the best fit at the time from the perspective of team performance. There are not always clearcut advantages, or clearcut winners. Factors other than pure performance are important. For example, the composition of the BP staff may dictate that the team is better off with a lefty who can actually get an occasional RHH out, and O'Rourke gets the short straw. So, yes, on rarer occasions, a player who "deserves" a spot gets cut. But I believe that the option and service time considerations are secondary and come into play only when it's a bit of a flip of the coin. And this does happen a lot, when you struggle to decide between two evils. Boshers and O'Rourke. Yuck.

 

When Kris Bryant reaches FA status, what will his team have to spend? When Shaggy reaches HIS time, will the expenditure be a tenth of that? Shaggy will make the team if he doesn't stink up his BP's and if he shows up sober. I doubt there's been any real discussion about his options. They desperately want him to shine. This notion that a vast majority of the time decisions are made on the basis of factors completely out of the control of the player doesn't hold water for me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This notion that a vast majority of the time decisions are made on the basis of factors completely out of the control of the player doesn't hold water for me.

 

Every spring players with noticeably less ability and upside are passed over, across the league, in favor of other players.  Every spring.  

[Mike Sixel]

Johnny Walker Black
9:43 He is no longer on 40 man roster but what are the chances Byung Ho Park beats out Kennys Vargas for DH position coming out of ST for Minny? If he does, do you think he holds the position all season and how well do you expect him to perform?

 

Jeff Sullivan
9:44 So, I don't have inside Twins intel, but it does seem like Park has hit his way back into the picture. And I consider myself a Park optimist. But the fact that he was dropped like he was suggests that, even if he does win the job, he won't have much in the way of job security. If he struggled in April or May, he'd be out of a job again

[drjim]

 

Why? It's currently a holding pen for more than one veteran, low upside reliever.

 

I'm not sure I agree. I'll grant Belisle, and it will hold a low upside long man, but that should be Haley or Vogelsong.

 

You really think cutting Belisle (and possibly Tonkin, and maybe optioning Chargois), pushing in Hughes and Santiago into the pen, just to make sure that Berrios and Mejia break camp in the rotation is the best solution?

[Mike Sixel]

Cason Jollette
10:33 Do you think Sano will bounce back?

 

Jeff Sullivan
10:33 I think as he matures, he'll develop a fuller understanding of the strike zone, and his strikeouts will come down even as his contact rate remains bad

[nicksaviking]

 

I'm not sure I agree. I'll grant Belisle, and it will hold a low upside long man, but that should be Haley or Vogelsong.

 

You really think cutting Belisle (and possibly Tonkin, and maybe optioning Chargois), pushing in Hughes and Santiago into the pen, just to make sure that Berrios and Mejia break camp in the rotation is the best solution?

 

Pressly, Rogers and Chargois are the only guys in the pen I'd reserve spots for.

[Willihammer]

Sano has good zone judgment. He whiffs on strikes too often.

[bird]

 

Every spring players with noticeably less ability and upside are passed over, across the league, in favor of other players.  Every spring.  

 

 

Really? How many? How do you know this? Are we sure about upside AND current ability to perform?

 

Every spring, a number of future superstars are sent down for financial reasons and to help an organization aspiring for long-term sustainable excellence. You can probably count the number of players that fit this category on one hand. These are decisions that have tens of millions of consequences for the teams. 

 

If Santiago gets the call over Berrios, for example, it will be because they decide Santiago, for the moment, has more "ability" to impact team performance than Berrios. I doubt many would argue that Santiago, at least at this point in his career, has more "upside" than Berrios, although it's important to keep reminding ourselves that most scouts have a lower opinion on his upside than most of us do.

 

So I guess we could accept your view on the basis of upside. I just think there are other considerations. The varying considerations often conflict. For example, maybe they believe that Berrios would actually provide a fractionally better level of performance than Santiago between now and the trade deadline. We don't know what their assessment is in this regard. But maybe they can flip Santiago for a longer-term benefit at the deadline, and this delay for Berrios may actually enhance rather than harm his upside. But I believe if they thought Berrios would be a difference-maker out of the chute over Santiago, they'd make the call. It certainly wouldn't involve a discussion of service time IMO.

 

I just don't think that all kinds of players are passed up for worse players every spring. I think the cases we can point to will consistently be explainable as an expectation of either a short-term or longer-term team benefit, and the number of decisions tied strictly to service time are few and far between. I could be wrong about this however, as I've never really focused on the question.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

If Santiago gets the call over Berrios, for example, it will be because they decide Santiago, for the moment, has more "ability" to impact team performance than Berrios. I doubt many would argue that Santiago, at least at this point in his career, has more "upside" than Berrios, although it's important to keep reminding ourselves that most scouts have a lower opinion on his upside than most of us do.

 

Berrios is away from the team and unlikely to make the team possibly for that reason alone so he might not be the best example, but I think it's in this hypothetical that opposing sides will most often butt heads.

 

I don't think it's a given that the hypothetical veteran (Santiago in this case) is more likely to positively impact the team over the hypothetical youngster. I'm struggling to understand why people (and waaaaaaay too many front offices) think it's a given that the veteran on the wrong end of the aging curve, a spotty performance track record and little to no upside is more likely to be a better contributor than the young guy with promise.

 

The young guy with better stuff and better velocity is the guy with a much larger margin for error. Assuming he's not totally out of his element.

[drjim]

 

Berrios is away from the team and unlikely to make the team possibly for that reason alone so he might not be the best example, but I think it's in this hypothetical that opposing sides will most often butt heads.

 

I don't think it's a given that the hypothetical veteran (Santiago in this case) is more likely to positively impact the team over the hypothetical youngster. I'm struggling to understand why people (and waaaaaaay too many front offices) think it's a given that the veteran on the wrong end of the aging curve, a spotty performance track record and little to no upside is more likely to be a better contributor than the young guy with promise.

 

The young guy with better stuff and better velocity is the guy with a much larger margin of error. Assuming he's not totally out of his element.

 

Depth plays a huge role in this. Much easier to keep Santiago and option Berrios, than keep Berrios and either cut/trade/bullpen Santiago.

 

A decision also has a lot to do with risk and probability. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where Berrios is better, even significantly better, than Santiago. But also not hard to imagine a scenario where Berrios is not good and can't be kept on the roster. There is an established baseline of competency with Santiago to start the season that does not exist with Berrios. (FWIW, this is why I don't think Vogelsong makes the opening day rotation barring a meltdown from Berrios/Mejia/Duffey, his established baseline at this point is terrible).

 

Contract also matters, but that is generally more of a marker of the first two issues than it is a massive factor on its own.

 

The other factor, that really can't be stated enough, is it seems posters here rate the opening day roster significantly higher than a front office will. They are thinking 162 much more than Day 1.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Depth plays a huge role in this. Much easier to keep Santiago and option Berrios, than keep Berrios and either cut/trade/bullpen Santiago.

 

A decision also has a lot to do with risk and probability. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where Berrios is better, even significantly better, than Santiago. But also not hard to imagine a scenario where Berrios is not good and can't be kept on the roster. There is an established baseline of competency with Santiago to start the season that does not exist with Berrios. (FWIW, this is why I don't think Vogelsong makes the opening day rotation barring a meltdown from Berrios/Mejia/Duffey, his established baseline at this point is terrible).

 

Contract also matters, but that is generally more of a marker of the first two issues than it is a massive factor on its own.

 

The other factor, that really can't be stated enough, is it seems posters here rate the opening day roster significantly higher than a front office will. They are thinking 162 much more than Day 1.

 

Well, April matters, as does May. Most rosters don't really turn over until May/June/July. 

 

I'm worried about a lot of things, not just day 1. Well, worried is the wrong word, I'd go with considering.

[drjim]

 

Well, April matters, as does May. Most rosters don't really turn over until May/June/July. 

 

I'm worried about a lot of things, not just day 1. Well, worried is the wrong word, I'd go with considering.

 

Of course April matters, but doesn't mean you should come out of gate churning through all of your depth. You won't make it to August and September.

 

It would be much more reasonable to start Berrios/Mejia in the bigs at the expense of Hughes/Santiago if there were more close to ready or mlb experiened guys sitting in AAA. The Twins org (like almost all others) just doesn't have that depth.

[Rhino and Compass]

I think there were more factors are work in any baseball decision than just performance on the field. The comment about depth is key. They can keep Berrios/Mejia in AAA, where as they wouldn't be able to do so with Santiago. What do you do if Berrios or Mejia struggle or get injured, and Santiago was plucked off waivers? There is an easy solution if (when) Santiago needs to be replace. It buys the Twins some time and allows a modicum of depth they wouldn't otherwise have.

Then there is the long term contract issue, especially early in the year. If Mejia is a legit prospect in the Twins eyes, with some long term potential, he will likely be kept in Rochester until they can buy an extra year of him, calling him up in May or June. Then they can dump Santiago with fewer repercussions, as well.