Mike Napoli

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Didn't they cut Walker loose because they had too many corner OF/1B/DH types?

 

How does adding a much older more expensive version of the all or nothing hitter help the rebuild?

 

Haven't the Twins' minor league teams been racking up championships, or at least making playoffs? Doesn't that define building a winning culture from the bottom up?

 

This rumor does nothing but raise questions for me.

I would not assume their stance on ABW has to do with how many 1b/DH types the ML club has. ABW had options, so I don't think it was glut or roster crunch. They could have stashed him for two or more years. A decision had been made that he was not a fit or something.

 

The team needs to rebuild and go young, but of all positions to bring in a veteran presence, DH is the place to do it, especially with a commitment to playing Sano at 3rd

[Darius]

If true, that means that Sano is staying at third, and Polanco to second because Dozier is getting traded.

[Darius]

I'd take Napoli over Vargas or Park for sure. He's what we hope those two would develop into.

 

He's a guy who has been in a lot of big games, and has a ton of experience. They have to start changing the culture in the clubhouse also after a half-decade of 100 loss years.

[snepp]

If they want to add "VP", I'd prefer they do it with someone that can play a position, not add to what's already a 1B/DH logjam.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You can freely post this argument if you research Hunter's career and can't find the pattern that many people suspect is there. 

 

Right now there is no proof one way or the other that Hunter made a difference.  There are opinions on both sides.  If you are interested in changing the other side's opinion, do the research.

 

The fact that you are using this argument suggests to me that there is plenty of evidence that Hunter has made a difference not just with the Twins but with other teams, and you simply are throwing this out there to try to poison the well. 

Detroit was in the WS in 2012. Hunter joined the team in 2013 and they lost in the ALCS. They were swept in the division series in 2014. The Twins won 88, 87, and 94 games the three years after Torii left. All three totals are greater than the 79 wins in his last year with the team. In his tenure with LA he was a member of the 2010 Angels, which was the first team to finish under 81 wins since 2003. 

 

All of this is "Evidence," as well. Is it more likely that Torii Hunter had such seismic effects on teams that he ruined playoff runs or added 20+ wins, or do teams oscillate between periods (extended or brief) of up and down, and he just happened to join the Twins on a year with an upward trajectory. I would place my money on the latter. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Yes, it is on you.  People are saying they can understand singing Napoli because of his leadership, not that it is imperative that they sign him or that it should be a huge priority.  We just understand the thought process of signing him.

 

You on the other hand are saying there is absolutely no possible reason for the Twins to sign Mike Napoli.

A rumor about the Twins having interest in Napoli is posted. A large number of posters, myself included, don't see the merit in signing a player who is 35 years old, on the downslide, and plays a position that is already a cluster. The side in favor of bringing Napoli in cites "veteran leadership," as reason enough to offer him a contract. If you're going to say that his "leadership," justifies an offer the burden of proving the legitimacy of that claim is on you. 

 

Also to assert that his leadership will benefit the team because it can't be proven otherwise (absence of evidence) is in this case an informal fallacy as Mike mentioned above. 

[KirbyDome89]

Are Hughes, Perkins, Santana, Dozier, and Mauer not considered veterans? How many vets does a team need to improve enough to make a playoff run? What are the qualifications a player needs to reach veteran status? Is there a specific age a player has to be? Are there statistical milestones a player has to achieve? So many questions....

 

 

[The Wise One]

 

I believe they can still waive players, except for those added to the 40 man just in the past couple weeks.

Adam Brett Walker says that they waived him so you are incorrect.

[The Wise One]

 

Detroit was in the WS in 2012. Hunter joined the team in 2013 and they lost in the ALCS. They were swept in the division series in 2014. The Twins won 88, 87, and 94 games the three years after Torii left. All three totals are greater than the 79 wins in his last year with the team. In his tenure with LA he was a member of the 2010 Angels, which was the first team to finish under 81 wins since 2003. 

 

All of this is "Evidence," as well. Is it more likely that Torii Hunter had such seismic effects on teams that he ruined playoff runs or added 20+ wins, or do teams oscillate between periods (extended or brief) of up and down, and he just happened to join the Twins on a year with an upward trajectory. I would place my money on the latter. 

Hunter was not a leader on any of those teams, nor was he brought in to be one.   One player having a 20+ games in the standings is a hyperbole argument. Trout is the only non juiced current  player to score a WAR over 10.  Correlating the fall of the Angels to Hunter is funny. I guess  he caused the pitching to go haywire on the Angels because he was loose and they wanted to be uptight

[USAFChief]

Adam Brett Walker says that they waived him so you are incorrect.

Adam Brett Walker says he was added to the 40 man in 2015, which he confirms is not "just in the past couple weeks."

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Brett_Walker_II

[USAFChief]

Right, but I don't think they are allowed to use those spots on Rule V picks.

I'm reasonably confident that's not correct.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm reasonably confident that's not correct.

This is from Baseball America:

 

"Teams must file their 40-man rosters by Nov. 20, and only those not at the full allotment of 40 may select players."

 

Its somewhat vague, but if teams are allowed to open spots after Nov 20, then I don't see the purpose of the rule.

[USAFChief]

 

This is from Baseball America:

"Teams must file their 40-man rosters by Nov. 20, and only those not at the full allotment of 40 may select players."

Its somewhat vague, but if teams are allowed to open spots after Nov 20, then I don't see the purpose of the rule.

This is from Seth (in the "Twins add to 40 man roster" thread in the Minor League Talk forum):

 

"People need to remember that the Twins can still make trades and sign free agents. If they sign free agents they need to DFA someone off the 40-man roster. They can't DFA the guys they just added, so they have to have some guys on the 40-man roster that can be dropped. Santana (in my mind) is certainly in that category."

 

I'm confident that applies to making room on the 40 man for a rule 5 pick, as well.  And I'm super confident Seth knows what he's talking about.

[mikelink45]

Let's just construct a roster of all DH/1B - score dozens of runs and get a team ERA in double figures.  Sorry but Castro can't frame enough suspect strikes to offset a team that plays without gloves.  If Mauer is going, Napoli can fill in, but we know that is not going to happen.  If we were close to contending it might be a good move, but didn't we just hire three ex-Twins attitude guys to substitute for the veteran presence?  And don't we have veterans in Mauer, Castro, Dozier, Hughes, Perkins?  And I like Napoli, but not for this team unless he has hidden talents as a pitcher.

[jimmer]

Are Hughes, Perkins, Santana, Dozier, and Mauer not considered veterans? How many vets does a team need to improve enough to make a playoff run? What are the qualifications a player needs to reach veteran status? Is there a specific age a player has to be? Are there statistical milestones a player has to achieve? So many questions....

hard to say what qualifications it takes for a player to be called a 'veteran'. I used to think it was a player who, at minimum, had completed their mandatory 6 year mlb service time. But then I have seen where people call Gibson a veteran. He has less than 100 starts and this is his 1st year of arbitration.

[clone52]

 

I don't think they can waive a player to make room for a Rule V pick anymore.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a deadline for those moves affecting the Rule V draft, which is why they released Plouffe the day they did.

 

You can waive players any time you want.  You have to have people on teh 40 man by the deadline so they don't get picked.

[Doomtints]

Eh.  The Rule 5 draft is the most unexciting thing about baseball.  Don't expect anything earth shattering to happen here.  It's teams shuffling around their slowest prospects.

 

The Johan Santana pick is often thrown around as being brilliant, and it was.  And how long ago was that?  And what's happened since then?  

 

Wake me when it's over.

[Vanimal46]

 

Eh.  The Rule 5 draft is the most unexciting thing about baseball.  Don't expect anything earth shattering to happen here.  It's teams shuffling around their slowest prospects.

 

The Johan Santana pick is often thrown around as being brilliant, and it was.  And how long ago was that?  And what's happened since then?  

 

Wake me when it's over.

It's also the most overblown thing about baseball when prospects are left unprotected.... Example A: Zack Jones last season. 

[BK432]

 

Eh.  The Rule 5 draft is the most unexciting thing about baseball.  Don't expect anything earth shattering to happen here.  It's teams shuffling around their slowest prospects.

 

The Johan Santana pick is often thrown around as being brilliant, and it was.  And how long ago was that?  And what's happened since then?  

 

Wake me when it's over.

 

This is mostly true. Sometimes a player like Joey Rickard last year gets taken and has an OK season. He was close to replacement level after a good start to the season.

[Linus]

I think it was TK that said leadership is a bases loaded double. Sounds about right to me.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Hunter was not a leader on any of those teams, nor was he brought in to be one.   One player having a 20+ games in the standings is a hyperbole argument. Trout is the only non juiced current  player to score a WAR over 10.  Correlating the fall of the Angels to Hunter is funny. I guess  he caused the pitching to go haywire on the Angels because he was loose and they wanted to be uptight

So in his 18th year with Detroit he wasn't a leader but in his 19th season with the Twins he was? I agree the 20+ win scenario is a hyperbolic argument, but its not one that I'm making. I'm glad you see the humor in the Angels scenario, as that was exactly the point. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

hard to say what qualifications it takes for a player to be called a 'veteran'. I used to think it was a player who, at minimum, had completed their mandatory 6 year mlb service time. But then I have seen where people call Gibson a veteran. He has less than 100 starts and this is his 1st year of arbitration.

It was a pretty tongue in cheek post ha, but yeah Gibson is a great example. Nobody can pin down what makes a player a veteran. Along that same line "veteran leadership," isn't measurable so there is no reliable way to determine whether a player actually provides it. Apparently the Twins lack both though, so signing a 35 year old 1B/DH on the downslide of his career and adding him to the 3-4 other 1B/DH types already on the roster in the hope he provides leadership makes perfect sense.... 

[Mr. Brooks]

You can waive players any time you want. You have to have people on teh 40 man by the deadline so they don't get picked.

OK that makes sense.

[The Wise One]

 

Adam Brett Walker says he was added to the 40 man in 2015, which he confirms is not "just in the past couple weeks."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Brett_Walker_II

Yes, Milwaukee added him in the last couple of weeks, now he is an Oriole. So it would appear that you can outright off the 40 man players just added.

[The Wise One]

 

So in his 18th year with Detroit he wasn't a leader but in his 19th season with the Twins he was? I agree the 20+ win scenario is a hyperbolic argument, but its not one that I'm making. I'm glad you see the humor in the Angels scenario, as that was exactly the point. 

To compare Hunter's situation in Detroit to the situation he was in when he joined Minnesota is as funny as the Angels comment.

[KirbyDome89]

 

To compare Hunter's situation in Detroit to the situation he was in when he joined Minnesota is as funny as the Angels comment.

Yep, that was once again the point. The post about Hunter's past teams was satirical, I don't actually believe he made the teams he was on worse. I was pointing out the massive flaw in the logic being offered up as proof that his "veteran leadership," made 2015 possible, and its absence caused the disaster that was the 2016 season. He had a great year in 2013 (1st with Detroit) but the team failed to repeat the success of the previous year. Obviously, he isn't singled out as the reason that team didn't reach the WS again, that would be ridiculous, yet when he signs with an overachieving 2015 Twins team and subsequently retires before the 2016 team horribly underachieves he is lauded as the component the team was lacking this season. You see how the logic is being applied unevenly right?

 

If you're partial to having veteran players on the team thats fine. I'm not saying there is 0 merit in having some of those guys in a clubhouse. Veteran leadership or presence or whatever you want to call it is an intangible, meaning there is no way to quantify it, and therefore no way to know how much of an effect, if any, it has on a team. 

 

[The Wise One]

 

Yep, that was once again the point. The post about Hunter's past teams was satirical, I don't actually believe he made the teams he was on worse. I was pointing out the massive flaw in the logic being offered up as proof that his "veteran leadership," made 2015 possible, and its absence caused the disaster that was the 2016 season. He had a great year in 2013 (1st with Detroit) but the team failed to repeat the success of the previous year. Obviously, he isn't singled out as the reason that team didn't reach the WS again, that would be ridiculous, yet when he signs with an overachieving 2015 Twins team and subsequently retires before the 2016 team horribly underachieves he is lauded as the component the team was lacking this season. You see how the logic is being applied unevenly right?

 

If you're partial to having veteran players on the team thats fine. I'm not saying there is 0 merit in having some of those guys in a clubhouse. Veteran leadership or presence or whatever you want to call it is an intangible, meaning there is no way to quantify it, and therefore no way to know how much of an effect, if any, it has on a team. 

You have never lead a group of people, have you?  You have no idea in a group of inexperience what a difference a vocal leader can be.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You have never lead a group of people, have you?  You have no idea in a group of inexperience what a difference a vocal leader can be.

 

This is completely unfair...........completely. You have no idea if this person has led a group or not. You are arguing that leadership matters, if that's true:

 

Question, do you think actual baseball talent is more important, or leadership? How much difference do you think a leader can make (1 win, 2 wins, 5?)? If it is 5 or more, why aren't leaders paid 10s of millions of dollars per year in contracts? Why did some of Hunter's teams win a lot, and some not win much at all?

[Mr. Brooks]

This is completely unfair...........completely. You have no idea if this person has led a group or not. You are arguing that leadership matters, if that's true:

 

Question, do you think actual baseball talent is more important, or leadership? How much difference do you think a leader can make (1 win, 2 wins, 5?)? If it is 5 or more, why aren't leaders paid 10s of millions of dollars per year in contracts? Why did some of Hunter's teams win a lot, and some not win much at all?

Not only that, but the poster he we replying to didn't even dispute that leadership is a thing, he just pointed out that it's a tough thing to measure.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You have never lead a group of people, have you?  You have no idea in a group of inexperience what a difference a vocal leader can be.

Actually I have. Does that mean my previous post has been validated? You can keep skirting around the fact you don't have an answer for the flaws in the logic being used nor for unverifiable nature of "veteran leadership," but feel free to avoid the ad hominem advances.