Article about Twins failure to develop players

[glunn]

Interesting article.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/heres-how-badly-the-twins-have-misfired-at-developing-their-top-prospects/

[Guest]

There's something wrong with this article: it doesn't blame each of the players for being disappointing.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Biggest issue I see is that it really doesn't tackle any of the "why" to this.  Honestly, they probably wrote it trolling these message boards.

[jimmer]

Looking forward to this article getting blasted :-)

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Biggest issue I see is that it really doesn't tackle any of the "why" to this.  Honestly, they probably wrote it trolling these message boards.

Yeah, this article is a bit like looking at the sky and proclaiming "BLUE!"

[TheLeviathan]

Not wrong, just not insightful.

[DocBauer]

Just read it. Meh. Not saying there aren't questions and issues, we've discussed them at length on here for the entire season, and some before now. And the author does target the yo-yo affect the Twins have had with some of these guys. But honestly, there was nothing informative offered in any fashion. In fact, while not defending what appears to be some mismanagement by the Twins in several cases, it reads like trolling to me.

 

Look, not every top prospect is going to work out, whether it be the Twins or someone else, we all know this. And some guys, like Dozier, don't start out as top prospects but become top players. It's part of the complexity and beauty that is baseball. But really, a little perspective should be in order.

 

Sano has shown real ability and real flashes and will continue to get even better. Kepler has advanced quicker than even I, a staunch supporter and believer, thought he would. Now that he's getting a chance to play, has Polanco done anything to decrease our opinion of him? Buxton, fairly or unfairly, has had Mike Trout comparisons at times, who also struggled his first year. And as the author states, Buxton has only about a full season's worth of experience at this point.He's massively talented, only 22, and actually seems more comfortable since this last recall. Rosario? Look at the flash and ability he showed last season. He starts off terrible this year, goes down to AAA, and has played quite well since his return. Stewart is mentioned. What isn't mentioned is his first half of A ball this year, still a winning record, low ERA at AA while being one of the youngest players there. Berrios? Again, a poor start to his ML time, but it's only a few starts, he's very talented, and I wouldn't be jumping off a bridge due to a top young pitching prospect struggling in such a short period of time getting his feet wet.

 

Are there some concerns? There are. But all these guys have less than 2 full years at the ML levEl, some are in their first, and some are young enough to have not made it that far yet. Sheesh!

[Darius]

There's something wrong with this article: it doesn't blame each of the players for being disappointing.

Kind of like Twins fans?

[jimmer]

Let's try to remember, when Trout got his first taste of the majors he was only 19 years old. He had 40 games, struck out less than 23%, and had a wRC+ of 87.

 

Then the next year he won ROY and deserved his 1st MVP (and he should be working on his 5th now).

 

We should stop pointing to Trout when talking about Buxton.  Trout is likely the best position player most of us have seen in our lifetime.

[nicksaviking]

I understand the complaint with the article that it's heavy on criticism and light on solution, but it's a piece by a national publication, not a Twins-centered source. I'm not sure it's intent is to inform us Twins fans of the issues with this club so much as a national PSA about complacency or whatever the moral is.

 

It seems fair even if it elicits a collective "Duh" with us.

[Kwak]

Reading the expected responses. One of the comments from the link stated that he saw these guys with the NB Rock Cats and they were "only a .500 team" [from the quote]. Many fans jumped on the ranking and became dizzy. No one has said that maybe these prospects might have been overrated.

 

The article also made it sound as if the 20xx Twins were loaded with in-house developed talent, and that the development isn't as effective as before. No reasons were cited as a cause.

[Shane Wahl]

So I just stopped grading student papers . . . and these are good students . . . and I am serious when I say that this article reminds me of a lot of them. I actually have been writing things like . . . "This provides some valid insights into x, y, or z, but then you didn't really take those insights anywhere, and then your paper just suddenly ended . . . "

 

Lots of things to agree about but then nothing . . .

[The Wise One]

If I were a player was not getting better due to getting bad coaching, a player would have to be pretty thick not to put 2 and 2 together and not work with a coach in the off seasons

[Platoon]

I imagine it could be considered a historical article. In the vein of what happened during the Civil War, but not why it happened. It did touch on the yo yo ing of prospects, which I at least found valid as a cause for slow development. When one takes into consideration that this team has not been a contender al year, that makes that philosophy harder to understand. But the part that made the most impact for me was the following, from the end of the piece: " Here's hoping the Twins pick the right pairs. (Of eyes) The alternative outcome is too bleak to ponder". If they don't get this right, and get someone in who makes out of the box good decisions we are all going to be watching bad baseball for the next ten years! Minimum!

[HitInAPinch]

"The bright side for the Twins is this: For all the disappointment, their core could still make us all say, "Gah!" in the near future. Add Buxton, Sano, Rosario, and Polanco to Max Kepler, and the Twins could have most of a lineup in place."

 

IMHO:  the author could have started and stopped right there.  There was, for what ever reason, a gap in talent.  The Twins plugged those holes with temporary solutions.  Those 5 listed above are turning into good looking pro's.  Add Dozier to the list and it's a pretty good looking lineup, sans another, younger veteran.

 

Pitching will likely be the main issue, again, next year and maybe/probably the year after.

[mikelink45]

How can I argue with this column.  We can add more names but that would only bring on tears.   Houston went down to the bottom and then rose by playing and staying with their minor leaguers.  The batters may figure it out on their own, the pitchers?

 

It is not an earthshaking insight, but then the author has not been reading the TD debates and discussions.  Like the casual fans who are now turning to football the season is really puzzling and, for them, not worth spending a lot of time analyzing.  

When you continue to read, wait till next year, wait until the prospects come up, there are some expectations.  Remember that when we built Target field it was so that the team could be competitive.  Rosy statements only last for short times and then it requires reality.

 

The key point has been the inconsistency.  When Suzuki is a DH at this point in the season I have no explanation and I have been trying to pay attention throughout the prolonged period of suffering. 

[Boom Boom]

I agree with the part about the Twins being too quick to demote struggling youngsters. This year in particular, they could have afforded to be more patient with guys like Buxton and Berrios, and earlier in the season as well with Rosario and Kepler.

[Jham]

 

"The bright side for the Twins is this: For all the disappointment, their core could still make us all say, "Gah!" in the near future. Add Buxton, Sano, Rosario, and Polanco to Max Kepler, and the Twins could have most of a lineup in place."

 

IMHO:  the author could have started and stopped right there.  There was, for what ever reason, a gap in talent.  The Twins plugged those holes with temporary solutions.  Those 5 listed above are turning into good looking pro's.  Add Dozier to the list and it's a pretty good looking lineup, sans another, younger veteran.

 

Pitching will likely be the main issue, again, next year and maybe/probably the year after.

... but compare to playoff line-ups.  Are any of these guys Chris Bryant, Bryce Harper, Edwin Encarnacion, or Xavier Bohgarts, etc?  We have no one who projects to be better than these guys, except Dozier, and who knows how long he's around.  We're either going to have put together an elite rotation, an elite bull pen, or hope for career years and luck.  Or we can restart the rebuild, trade off Buxton and Sano for younger prospects and hope we follow the Astros timeline versus the Royals/Pirates of the 90s/00s.  I think sometimes we overestimate how likely it is that an entire team of good players develops at once.  It's worked for us in the past, but usually, looking back, our talent levels were better than we thought.  Most of the time, rebuilds involve trying to get a couple transcendent talents to build around.  Sacrificing whole seasons to build an average squad is pretty risky.

[goulik]

I agree with the part about the Twins being too quick to demote struggling youngsters. This year in particular, they could have afforded to be more patient with guys like Buxton and Berrios, and earlier in the season as well with Rosario and Kepler.

The big worry I have is that it seems a major reason for the yo-yo effect has been managers that don't play the young guys. We saw this with Gardy for years and it was a common story during his era. Now Molly just sits them on a bench until the GM demotes them.

 

My last gripe: There really isn't much of a reason to play Suzuki for the rest of the year to be honest. Playing Him at DH? smh. There is NO explanation worth discussing. I wouldn't use him at DH unless every other hitter on the team was injured and we were down to 9.

[Platoon]

I can't quite agree with Jham on that. Buxton and Sano are going to be better than fine. Since he plays third, I think Sanos bat can carry his glove, and I don't think Buxtons glove will need any carrying. Kepler is very solid and Rosario will not hurt us. While Plolanco does not fill "my" criteria for a SS, he might at 2nd? But we won't know this year. In almost any other scenario I would keep Dozier. Streaks and all. But something, someone has to bring us SP. for without out that, all the rest of this is simply at best a second WC contender. While we also need a glove first SS, and better catching, it's still the pitching that has to be addressed first and foremost.

[HitInAPinch]

 

... but compare to playoff line-ups.  Are any of these guys Chris Bryant, Bryce Harper, Edwin Encarnacion, or Xavier Bohgarts, etc?  We have no one who projects to be better than these guys, except Dozier, and who knows how long he's around.  We're either going to have put together an elite rotation, an elite bull pen, or hope for career years and luck.  Or we can restart the rebuild, trade off Buxton and Sano for younger prospects and hope we follow the Astros timeline versus the Royals/Pirates of the 90s/00s.  I think sometimes we overestimate how likely it is that an entire team of good players develops at once.  It's worked for us in the past, but usually, looking back, our talent levels were better than we thought.  Most of the time, rebuilds involve trying to get a couple transcendent talents to build around.  Sacrificing whole seasons to build an average squad is pretty risky.

Cherry picking using extraordinarily skilled players who have established themselves quickly is a false comparison, IMHO.  They are more of an "abnormal" in terms of development.  Those guys I listed ARE improving.  That is more of the typical of a baseball players progress.   Patience is needed, like it or not.

[Jham]

 

Cherry picking using extraordinarily skilled players who have established themselves quickly is a false comparison, IMHO.  They are more of an "abnormal" in terms of development.  Those guys I listed ARE improving.  That is more of the typical of a baseball players progress.   Patience is needed, like it or not.

Sorry if I was less than clear.  I wasn't comparing their development.  I'm comparing their overall talent. If you don't have guys like that, do you tear it down and try to get one, or just try to develop your in-house guys to their top talent level and hope it's good enough?  Basically hope for some luck and career years.

 

I'm just looking at our roster and suggesting that none of our guys look to be as good those guys.  Rebuilding around a stud or trying to get a stud makes some sense.  Rebuilding around a potentially solid core is risky, because eventually, you have to beat teams that have those generational talents.  We thought we might have 2.  In hindsight, that was foolish.  There were signs and distinguishing factors between the extraordinary players mentioned, and our guys with only freak upside.  So tough decision.  

[Platoon]

I do think Sano is going to be a stud. He is not going to be Brooks Robinson, but Brooks could only have hoped to have half the stick. Or arm. This might have been his wake up call year. It's the first year he hasn't be "da man", and I think he likes being that guy. Like many I would have preferred a premiere SS to a corner guy, but in a year there are going to be a lot of guys who wished they had Sanos bat in their lineup. His year might have turned out differently without out some of the FO decisions that affected him, and his reactions to same.

[wsnydes]

Sorry if I was less than clear. I wasn't comparing their development. I'm comparing their overall talent. If you don't have guys like that, do you tear it down and try to get one, or just try to develop your in-house guys to their top talent level and hope it's good enough? Basically hope for some luck and career years.

 

I'm just looking at our roster and suggesting that none of our guys look to be as good those guys. Rebuilding around a stud or trying to get a stud makes some sense. Rebuilding around a potentially solid core is risky, because eventually, you have to beat teams that have those generational talents. We thought we might have 2. In hindsight, that was foolish. There were signs and distinguishing factors between the extraordinary players mentioned, and our guys with only freak upside. So tough decision.

I think it's too early to really know what we have. That's why it was important for them to play as much as possible this season. When Bryant came up, the Cubs didn't know for sure that they had a core group coming up around him. Like Pinch said, patience is needed right now, like it or not. That's why in one of our other discussions, I was advocating to wheel and deal next offseason, not this coming one. This team needs to figure out what it has first so that it doesn't try to build around a potentially great core instead of one that has planted it's roots.

[twinsnorth49]

I think it's too early to really know what we have. That's why it was important for them to play as much as possible this season. When Bryant came up, the Cubs didn't know for sure that they had a core group coming up around him. Like Pinch said, patience is needed right now, like it or not. That's why in one of our other discussions, I was advocating to wheel and deal next offseason, not this coming one. "THIS TEAM NEEDS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT HAS FIRST" so that it doesn't try to build around a potentially great core instead of one that has planted it's roots.

And we all wait breathlessly for them to start doing that.......well, except the holding the breath part.

[Jham]

 

I think it's too early to really know what we have. That's why it was important for them to play as much as possible this season. When Bryant came up, the Cubs didn't know for sure that they had a core group coming up around him. Like Pinch said, patience is needed right now, like it or not. That's why in one of our other discussions, I was advocating to wheel and deal next offseason, not this coming one. This team needs to figure out what it has first so that it doesn't try to build around a potentially great core instead of one that has planted it's roots.

You're right.  It is to early to REALLY know what we have.  But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to project.  And no one in our system projects to be close to Kris Bryant at this point.  You can keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best, or you can be proactive and try to get better prospects.  Bryant's pedigree had a much better chance of success, and more importantly, his type of success than Sano, Buxton, or anyone.  Bryant's slashes for 181 games: .327 .426 .667 1.092.  Sano's: .277 .372 .562 .934 in 453 games.  55 HR in 181 games vs. 107 HR in 453.  The Cubs may not have known that Bryant was a super star.  But, I mean, you see the numbers.
 

[wsnydes]

 

You're right.  It is to early to REALLY know what we have.  But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to project.  And no one in our system projects to be close to Kris Bryant at this point.  You can keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best, or you can be proactive and try to get better prospects.  Bryant's pedigree had a much better chance of success, and more importantly, his type of success than Sano, Buxton, or anyone.  Bryant's slashes for 181 games: .327 .426 .667 1.092.  Sano's: .277 .372 .562 .934 in 453 games.  55 HR in 181 games vs. 107 HR in 453.  The Cubs may not have known that Bryant was a super star.  But, I mean, you see the numbers.
 

True.  But the Royals built a winner without a superstar type.  As good as Gordon, Hosmer, and Moustakas are, none are Bryant.

[Mr. Brooks]

You're right. It is to early to REALLY know what we have. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to project. And no one in our system projects to be close to Kris Bryant at this point. You can keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best, or you can be proactive and try to get better prospects. Bryant's pedigree had a much better chance of success, and more importantly, his type of success than Sano, Buxton, or anyone. Bryant's slashes for 181 games: .327 .426 .667 1.092. Sano's: .277 .372 .562 .934 in 453 games. 55 HR in 181 games vs. 107 HR in 453. The Cubs may not have known that Bryant was a super star. But, I mean, you see the numbers.

 

You mean the polished college hitter put up better milb numbers than the 16 year old?

 

Sano's debut, at age 22 was better than Bryant's debut at age 23.

How about we see what Sano can do in his age 24 season before we decide that he can't put up Bryant numbers.

[DocBauer]

It's still a team game, built with many different pieces. One guy who is a stud, even two, doesn't make a winning team. Trout and the Angels come to mind at the moment.

 

We here at TD have been waiting for these young told talents and other quality talents to reach the majors and play. "Rebuild, play the prospects", we all generally say and agree. Well, despite some poor handling of said youngsters, including a few ridiculous ideas of giving guys days off for the playing of Suzuki at DH for instance, these youngsters ARE here. And for the most part, they ARE playing. Sano and Rosario are the longest tenured at this point and they have approximately a year and a half at the ML level. But we should blow the roster up and start over?

 

Why? How? We give up on rookies and near rookies just because they aren't immediate ROY and all star candidates? But somehow we're going to trade off these "failed" prospects and get something of better value back? Makes no sense.

 

I'm sorry, but it is going to take patience. Not the kind of patience of losing baseball while waiting for prospects to arrive and playing stopgaps in the meantime. (mostly talking about position players at this point) We're talking about patience while actually playing said prospects.

 

Now, the handling of these prospects on a daily basis, the the manager and coaches in charge of them, is a different arguement.

[Doomtints]

I'm assuming the honeymoon is over now on Beresford and we can ask wtf he is he doing in the majors?  He is not a part of the current team.  He is not a part of the future team.  Same goes for Albers.  Why are the Twins wasting time on these guys when they could be developing somebody?