Park vs. Desmond- Another case of misdirected FA $$$

[h2oface]

Great write up. Desmond. I am surprised at his performance this year. I wouldn't have guessed it. It takes some luck to assemble a winning team. Unfortunately, it is so very clear to me that Ryan hasn't had any for years. I can't believe that he hasn't gracefully retired years ago. I think he is luck blind. Consistent bad luck is the wrong kind of talent to have.

 

Park is not young. But Ryan says he is a great guy, a nice guy. Where do nice guys finish? Naaa. Must just be a cowinky dinky.

[Brock Beauchamp]

While there is plenty to complain about, I think lambasting the Twins for not picking up Desmond is near the bottom of the list.

 

Desmond was going into his age 30 season and had been on a steady decline for a few years.

 

To give up your first round pick for a roll of the dice (probably on no more than a two year deal) is bad management. Desmond was as likely, if not more so, to turn into Stephen Drew than have a rebound year.

 

And baseball is usually about playing the odds, particularly when the stakes include losing your first round pick.

 

We don't need to manufacture outrage. There's plenty of real stuff to get mad about.

[The Wise One]

Adam Brett Walker is in his 5th minor league season. He can't be a 6 year minor league free agent until he has played 6 years or is released.   Given that he has stalled this year he is lucky to have one more year to prove himself.

 

Palka has had a good half year in AA. It is his first half year of AA.  Chis Parmelee's and  Aaron Hick's career says hello.  All the complaints about rushing and ruining careers gets lost until it is needed.

 

Todd Frazier netted Cinci 3  a light hitting outfielder with potential, a utility player  and a prospect .  Plouffe could have been traded for one or two proven relief pitchers .   Ok.   The definition of proven considering how little Cinci took back and maybe Frazier has done a lot more than Plouffe should be interesting. Miller and Chapman from the Yankees?   More like Diaz and Hoover.  Maybe They could include a 25 year old reliever in class A with upside.

 

Desmond's defense.  Tulo has been better as well as 13-14 other SS's defense.  I would say steady defense would be steadily average at best.  Of course eye tests are better than metrics.

 

Desmond turned down a 7/100 million+ contract with the Nationals,  and a 15 mill QO.  What is not said is any reason why Desmond would have come here. Clearly it wasn't money driving him or he would have signed the big contract.   An offer better than the Rangers should do it. Hardly, the better offers from the Nationals didn't do it. 

 

Demonstrably better roster? A guy who was a 2 WAR player in a two year decline does not make the club better. Marginally better than the incumbent.  

 

HS outfielders in the middle of the first round. Do you have a Trout, a Span, or a Golson?  A 2 million dollar crapshoot. Higher reward, higher ceiling than a 30 hear old shortstop over the same time period.  Unless it is a long term contract, you  shouldn't be discarding your first round draft pick.  If the player isn't worth signing for longer, why are you bothering?

[jokin]

 

 

I think the scenario you proposed is a plausible one. It just has a lot of moving parts and I'm not sure all of them could have been worked out. Really, it boils down to the fact I was glad to see the team take a risk and sign Park. It was completely opposite of what we've seen from the FO and I viewed it as a step in the right direction. I'm hopeful they continue to make aggressive moves like the signing, yet I'm quite fearful that a SSS of failure in that department may deter them from striking out of their comfort zone again. 

 

I get what you're saying on risk and being willing to make an unconventional attempt at finding market inefficiencies. I'm not really sure that this was all that aggressive or a "step in the right direction". Signing Park was a low cost move that caused as many problems that it might have solved- even if it had/still well worked/work out.

 

Signing Desmond would have been both a smart, splashy AND aggressive move. A move that could have solved: 

 

* the veteran leadership problem w/ the departure of Hunter,

* the historical poor performance in the middle infield problem,

* the gaping holes in the batting lineup problem,

* the build on the success of 2015 problem

* where to play and avoid injury to Sano problem

 

And even if Desmond and/or the Twins pennant hopes hadn't panned out:

 

* signing him still would have forced Ryan to clear the roster clutter and make way for better, cheaper players currently being blocked

* RPs with more value and better track records could have been acquired in the process of clearing the veteran roster clutter

* Desmond could have been moved in June/July for a nice haul of prospects, or,

* Desmond could have made a QO and gotten a 1st round pick, or

* The Twins move easily past Desmond's one-year deal with a younger, higher-upside roster composed of more of their vaunted prospects, a deeper RP corps and/or potentially a better, younger catcher option. 

[jokin]

 

 

 

HS outfielders in the middle of the first round. Do you have a Trout, a Span, or a Golson?  A 2 million dollar crapshoot. Higher reward, higher ceiling than a 30 hear old shortstop over the same time period.  Unless it is a long term contract, you  shouldn't be discarding your first round draft pick.  If the player isn't worth signing for longer, why are you bothering?

 

Because Desmond by turning down lucrative multi-year offers was highly incentivized to rebuild value on a one-year-deal.

 

Because you can get the pick back the next season, or possibly trade Desmond for a package of prospects with more predictable outcomes.

 

Because it's in actuality a low-risk move, not a high-risk move, and in the meantime solves other problems regarding faulty roster construction. 

[The Wise One]

 

Because Desmond by turning down lucrative multi-year offers was highly incentivized to rebuild value on a one-year-deal.

 

Because you can get the pick back the next season, or possibly trade Desmond for a package of prospects with more predictable outcomes.

 

Because it's in actuality a low-risk move, not a high-risk move, and in the meantime solves other problems regarding faulty roster construction. 

You must not have understood my comment. He had a bad year  So you say a one year contract to rebuild value. He had that, it was called a QO.  He didn't take it.

 

There is no certainty you can trade him if he played like the year before,  the draft pick will not be as good as the year before  and leaves you less pol money.  You leave the organization worse.  Trade. See last year's shortstop trades for the "quality" that was returned for the far superior SS than Desmond.  Try and think through a little more and see what has actually happened without the benefit of time to question a move. After the fact this is a great move ideas. Real easy when you have the information.

 

Faulty roster construction. You want Escobar, Nunez, Santana and a 4th  SS and you say the GM is bad. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Because Desmond by turning down lucrative multi-year offers was highly incentivized to rebuild value on a one-year-deal.

 

Because you can get the pick back the next season, or possibly trade Desmond for a package of prospects with more predictable outcomes.

 

Because it's in actuality a low-risk move, not a high-risk move, and in the meantime solves other problems regarding faulty roster construction.

Stephen Drew.

 

It wasn't a low risk move. Not even a little bit. If the Rangers hadn't already given up picks, no way do they pursue Desmond.

 

Ian Desmond was on a FOUR year offensive slide going into this season. He's a middle infielder. He's 30.

 

Come on.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I get what you're saying on risk and being willing to make an unconventional attempt at finding market inefficiencies. I'm not really sure that this was all that aggressive or a "step in the right direction". Signing Park was a low cost move that caused as many problems that it might have solved- even if it had/still well worked/work out.

 

Signing Desmond would have been both a smart, splashy AND aggressive move. A move that could have solved: 

 

* the veteran leadership problem w/ the departure of Hunter,

* the historical poor performance in the middle infield problem,

* the gaping holes in the batting lineup problem,

* the build on the success of 2015 problem

* where to play and avoid injury to Sano problem

 

And even if Desmond and/or the Twins pennant hopes hadn't panned out:

 

* signing him still would have forced Ryan to clear the roster clutter and make way for better, cheaper players currently being blocked

* RPs with more value and better track records could have been acquired in the process of clearing the veteran roster clutter

* Desmond could have been moved in June/July for a nice haul of prospects, or,

* Desmond could have made a QO and gotten a 1st round pick, or

* The Twins move easily past Desmond's one-year deal with a younger, higher-upside roster composed of more of their vaunted prospects, a deeper RP corps and/or potentially a better, younger catcher option. 

I agree, for an average team the move probably isn't viewed as being that aggressive. Compared to the trash the Twins have been drudging in the past few decades though, it is an aggressive move for this club. Even baby steps, if oriented in the correct direction count right? It's the more optimistic view (which I'm usually not a part of) but like I said 3 million a year isn't much of anything and they can bury him at AAA if it never works out. 

[kab21]

this is exactly hindsight.

 

The last thing the Twins should be doing is giving up draft picks for 30 yr olds in decline. There is definitely no guarantee that a 31 yr old would bring back a compensation pick (there is a chance).

 

As far as Park the problem was always positional flexibility. The team is loaded with DH's and those that should be DH's. Adding Park worsened that situation.

[lecroy24fan]

You're overlooking the fact that Desmond isn't even capable of playing below average SS anymore. 

[Major League Ready]

I don’t think this is hindsight in the sense that there were people here who thought he might rebound.   I thought he was an interesting candidate myself until Washington made him a qualifying offer and he opted for a 1 year deal.  A 2 year deal with a 3rd year club option would have been a different situation but I still don’t think it would have made sense to give up our 1st round pick even under those circumstances Add all this up I given how Desmond was trending. 

 

However, at the time this signing occurred, here is what we knew for sure.

1. Desmond wanted a 1 year deal
2. It would cost us our first round pick
3. His offensive performance declined 4 straight years
4. He was pretty bad last year
5. He was poor defensively at SS

 

Then, we have a number of circumstances that are reasonable debatable.

 

1. There was a very low probability of Desmond playing at this level.
2. Assuming he would transition to the outfield was risky.
3. The probability of getting the draft pick back was very low.
4. The Twins were predicted to finish last in the division by pretty much everyone outside of this fan base and some local media.
5. The Twins should be focused on giving playing time to Buxton, Kepler, Rosario, and anyone else who could part of the solution.  Being part of the solution first requires being here past this year.
6. Desmond would have blocked players that will be part of our future.

 

If you are Texas or a team that is in a window where they have a shot at a WS, a one year $8 deal when you have already given up your 1st round pick is a reasonable move.  If you are a team with a very low probability a contending and in a rebuild mode where you have several players that need the playing time to develop, and you are giving up the 15th pick, it would be incredibly incompetent to sign Desmond.  I would guess there is not a GM in MLB that would have given this 5 minutes thought given the circumstances specific to the Twins.

[Mike Sixel]

I think 2 things:

 

1. Lots of people suggested this before it happened, it is the kind of thing many have said a rebuilding team should do (so you can flip them), so I don't think this is totally hindsight.

 

2. I would be averse to doing this if you have to give up your first round pick. Just another casualty of playing above their head last year, I guess. So, while I remain baffled at the Park move (given they kept Plouffe and moved Sano to RF), I can't completely condemn this move.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

1. Lots of people suggested this before it happened, it is the kind of thing many have said a rebuilding team should do (so you can flip them), so I don't think this is totally hindsight.

 

2. I would be averse to doing this if you have to give up your first round pick. Just another casualty of playing above their head last year, I guess. So, while I remain baffled at the Park move (given they kept Plouffe and moved Sano to RF), I can't completely condemn this move.

1. Maybe not totally hindsight but still a terrible, awful idea. The likelihood of Desmond earning you back a comp pick was quite low (again, four years of decline). And even if you get a comp pick back, you lose 10+ slots and pick in the sandwich round. Instead of picking 15th, the Twins pick between 25-35 the following year. This notion is a wildly risky move and even if you win, you still kinda lose. Most people refer to that as a "terrible idea".

 

2. I agree that Park is still the most confusing part of this offseason. I'm still not convinced they even wanted to win the bid.

[TheLeviathan]

Right, it's easy to say what would've been a positive from this move with Desmond reversing a four year downward trend, but his profile this offseason was one I never want the team to invest in.  Really at any stage of the team - rebuilding, contending, or somewhere in between.

 

Invest in upside.  Desmond came at a high dollar figure, with a pick attached, at age 30, on a 3-4 year downward trend, unable to play a premium position any more, and likely to have to learn a new one.

 

Seriously, how can anyone look at that list and say "low risk".  Say whatever you want about the reward part, that sure as hell isn't low risk.

[bird]

I think the Park move fits into the category of, "let's put in a low-risk bid, and if in the off-chance we win, we'll deal with the ramifications then." I don't fault them for the bid at all, as it's exactly what they should be doing when these opportunities arise. As for how they dealt with the ramifications of winning? That's a different question.

 

Tying the Desmond situation to the Park one is silly. Zero connection whatsoever. And as the excellent comments in this thread illustrate, a Desmond signing would have created its own set of ramifications, almost all bad. The plan all along has been for the prospects to prove themselves in MLB as quickly as possible, and unfortunately, they haven't fully cooperated. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Seriously, how can anyone look at that list and say "low risk".  Say whatever you want about the reward part, that sure as hell isn't low risk.

The thing is that even the reward part wouldn't be that impressive. As we now know, every young player - the backbone of this team that was going to decide whether it won or lost - has regressed. The Twins are a terrible team. Put Desmond on this terrible team and maybe they crack 70 wins (assuming the young players post a better second half than they did the first).

 

So that leaves you two options:

 

1. Offer Desmond a QO and take the pick. You've now traded down from a 15th pick to a 25-30 pick. That's a loss.

 

2. Trade Desmond at the deadline. Unsurprisingly, Desmond is much better in Texas than he is outside Texas. Teams will makes offers based on his .800 OPS outside Texas. What is that worth? Well, last year the Astros gave up two guys for Scott Kazmir, neither of which were top 100 prospects (though Nottingham was BP's #66 to begin this season). Gerardo Parra was having a very good season for Milwaukee last year and was flipped for Zach Davies, another guy outside all top 100 lists. David Price netted Daniel Norris but I think we can all agree Price was one of the darlings of the deadline with a value much higher than Desmond.

 

There were other trades, some netting more than others, but I think it's pretty obvious that Desmond is maybe worth a 50-ish prospect in return, tops (provided the other team even has a 50-ish prospect in the system and if they don't, then you probably take two lesser players outside the top 100).

 

So, the best case scenario is that you trade Desmond for a guy with the same kind of upside you get from a #15 pick but he's two years closer to MLB.

 

That seems a lot like shuffling deck chairs to me. You're putting a lot on the line (a first round pick at 15) for a guy whose ceiling is returning a different version of that 15 pick that's a bit closer to the bigs.

 

Terrible idea.

[wsnydes]

 

2. I agree that Park is still the most confusing part of this offseason. I'm still not convinced they even wanted to win the bid.

Then why submit a bid at all?  Even if it is to say, "look, we put in a bid!" why would they submit a competitive bid that had any chance at winning?

 

Perhaps you're right, and that might even make some sense, but how they went about it didn't.  I'm definitely with you that this move is the most confusing part of the offseason.

[Mike Sixel]

Trading for a top 50 prospect, that has been in the minors for a couple years? I'd trade the 15th pick for that every day of my life. Way less risk in that prospect. That said.......the odds of Desmond doing this well were low, and I'd not have done the deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Then why submit a bid at all?

I have no idea. The Park decision was my second biggest issue of the offseason behind the bullpen, as it forced everyone to move around the diamond and put a ham-fisted 500 lb gorilla in right field.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Trading for a top 50 prospect, that has been in the minors for a couple years? I'd trade the 15th pick for that every day of my life. Way less risk in that prospect.

Well, sure... But that was the best case scenario. The middle of the road scenario is a loss. The worst case scenario is a huge loss.

 

And any GM that makes decisions based on best case scenarios should be fired (which is one of the reasons I'm ready to see Ryan step down, willingly or forcibly).

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, sure... But that was the best case scenario. The middle of the road scenario is a loss. The worst case scenario is a huge loss.

 

And any GM that makes decisions based on best case scenarios should be fired (which is one of the reasons I'm ready to see Ryan step down, willingly or forcibly).

 

Uh, that is what I said, right? In the next sentence?

[wsnydes]

 

I have no idea. The Park decision was my second biggest issue of the offseason behind the bullpen, as it forced everyone to move around the diamond and put a ham-fisted 500 lb gorilla in right field.

Exactly.  I agree completely.  It just makes no sense at all, especially coupled with the fact that Plouffe wasn't moved.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Exactly.  I agree completely.  It just makes no sense at all, especially coupled with the fact that Plouffe wasn't moved.

I was okay with keeping Plouffe as the market for third basemen was atrocious.

 

Which is fine, because Plouffe is a better third baseman than Sano and even with Trevor on the team, Miguel can slide into the DH role. If Plouffe or Mauer get injured, you move Sano into the field and slide Vargas/Arcia into DH.

 

Park threw a giant wrench into the entire situation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Uh, that is what I said, right? In the next sentence?

Well, yeah, I simply didn't understand why you pointed out the best case scenario.

[wsnydes]

 

I was okay with keeping Plouffe as the market for third basemen was atrocious.

 

Which is fine, because Plouffe is a better third baseman than Sano and even with Trevor on the team, Miguel can slide into the DH role. If Plouffe or Mauer get injured, you move Sano into the field and slide Vargas/Arcia into DH.

 

Park threw a giant wrench into the entire situation.

Agreed.  Keeping Plouffe wasn't a big deal without Park.  There was still roster flexibility there.  With Park, it became a much bigger deal and created so much roster clutter that putting a lineup together became far more difficult.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed.  Keeping Plouffe wasn't a big deal without Park.  There was still roster flexibility there.  With Park, it became a much bigger deal and created so much roster clutter that putting a lineup together became far more difficult.  

And even despite all of that shuffling, it was expected that one of Plouffe, Park, or Mauer would get injured and Sano would slide back into a natural role.

 

The moment I threw up my hands in disgust is when Plouffe got dinged up and Nunez shifted to third base while Miguel continued to play (word used loosely) the outfield.

 

That wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back for me but it was damned close. The Alex Meyer and Jose Berrios situations were what finally broke me on the season and the point where I said "Oh, screw it. Fire everybody."

[wsnydes]

 

That wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back for me but it was damned close. The Alex Meyer and Jose Berrios situations were what finally broke me on the season and the point where I said "Oh, screw it. Fire everybody."

The Kepler/Polanco situation(s) where they'd get called up to sit on the bench was pretty much did it for me.  The Berrios and Meyer bit just sealed the deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Kepler/Polanco situation(s) where they'd get called up to sit on the bench was pretty much did it for me. The Berrios and Meyer bit just sealed the deal.

Those irritated me but I figured there'd be space for them later in the season so it didn't ripe me up too much.

 

And Kepler is basically guaranteed a spot for the rest of the season, now the team just needs to find a space for Polanco.

[wsnydes]

 

Those irritated me but I figured there'd be space for them later in the season so it didn't ripe me up too much.

And Kepler is basically guaranteed a spot for the rest of the season, now the team just needs to find a space for Polanco.

The initial call ups for both didn't both me a whole lot because we didn't know how the season was going to go yet.  It's the subsequent call ups without at PT that really bothered me.

 

The Kepler situation was resolved itself now, but it irritated the heck out of me at the time.  It still does, but less so.  If it weren't for a Sano injury he may still be in that same situation.

[raindog]

So you would rather waste a year on a 30 year old shortstop that is mediocre defensively instead of Escobar? You'd rather start a 30 year old in CF instead of Buxton?

 

The Twins would still be trash this year. I don't get why we would want anything to do with Desmond. Good pick up for the Rangers but it would have been a useless move for the Twins.