Where does the talent come from

[TheLeviathan]

 

I won't answer for Howie but your schtick gets old too. The farm system wasn't bare when the new guys took over - they inherited a playoff team full of former top 100 prospects and a top 10 farm system per Klaw. Ryan's trades were the main reason the Twins were able to stay competitive for a decade. We have yet to see the new FO make any trade even as good as Liriano for Escobar. Let alone trades that would bring us guys like Santana, Sivla, Milton, Bartlett, Punto, Liriano, Castillo, Nathan, Boof, Lohse or even Lew Ford. His second run at GM, the trades didn't go as well but Span for Meyer was the type of trade they needed to make. I don't have much faith in May but he could still turn that trade around as well.

 

Except....I never said it was bare when the new guys took over.  You totally skipped the context and then launched into this.  His point was that TR didn't have the means to make trades his second run, but if that's your argument...he has only one person to blame.  (And it ain't Bill Smith)

 

The new guys did take over a system with some talent.  So far, I'm not enamored with their moves either.  However, I wasn't talking about them at all.  Nor was the conversation or your initial post about them at all.  What your initial post demonstrated is that the Twins, for too long, were shut out of adding talent via a number of avenues.  I don't think it's controversial at all to say that Ryan was not an aggressive trader - both as a buyer or a seller.  Ultimately, that did hurt the team.

 

These guys?  I did like their deadline aggressiveness, so in terms of strategy I at least appreciate that.  And they didn't ride the middle like TR and made a choice one way or the other.  I like that too.  How successful their trades were won't be known for awhile.

[gunnarthor]

 

This was a good analysis until you threw in the percentages. 

 

Houston and Boston have lower percentages in the draft bucket, but higher WAR in the same bucket. They're both better at drafting players.

I wasn't sure if % and/or production alone was better so I included both. I did find it interesting that the FA % for all teams was about the same although that's probably more coincidence than anything else.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I wasn't sure if % and/or production alone was better so I included both. I did find it interesting that the FA % for all teams was about the same although that's probably more coincidence than anything else.

pie charts would have made the intent of the percentages more clear.

[Seth Stohs]

 

So I did back of the napkin math only here but looked at three recent WS teams to see how they constructed their teams. I only added up the value of players worth 1 WAR or more. There's significant issues with this, of course. WAR isn't a great measurement for relief pitchers or power only hitters. In season trades might have had some impact by either bringing or removing some WAR that was/wasn't counted. And we're not counting negative WAR from crappy players. But, whatever.

 

Boston had about 57 WAR from players. It broke down like this

Trades - 19.5 (34%)

FA -        14    (25%)

Drafted - 19.5 (34%)

intern signing - 3.8 (6%)

 

Houston also had about 57 WAR as well

Trades -  17.3 (30%)

FA -    6.1        (10%)

Draft - 20.3      (36%)

Intern sign - 10.9  (19%)

waivers - 2.2   (4%)

 

And Cubs had about 41 WAR (slackers)

Trades - 20.1 (49%)!

FA -        4.8   (11%)

draft -     12    (29%)

intern sign - 4 (10%)

 

Last year, using the same criteria, the Twins amassed 29 WAR

Trades - 6.3   (22%)

FA -       2.5   (9%)

draft -    15.7 (54%)

int. sign  4.3 (15%) 

 

So, first, the Twins need to add WAR in all areas but nearly 16 WAR from drafted guys was better than I expected, frankly, with nothing from Buxton. International signings are actually right in line with the Cubs and Red Sox production wise and nothing from Sano there. Twins are way below on trades, both as % and actual production. That makes sense since the Twins didn't have a lot of top shelf items to move and their biggest trade (Span for Meyer) didn't work. Had they traded Perkins or a market developed for Dozier, who knows. Free agency as a % is actually in line but way below production of the WS teams, which makes sense as they have bigger payrolls.

 

On the plus side, Buxton and Sano combined for like -1 WAR so those two could help by not sucking next year. 

 

I'd be curious what percentage of each of those rosters were for each of those categories. 

 

For instance... 2018 Red Sox regulars drafted or signed internationally includes (without looking it up): Mookie Betters, Jackie Bradley Jr, Andrew Benintendi, Xander Boegarts, Pedroia didn't play much, their catchers, 

 

I'm more curious about that 2017 Astros roster because that included Springer, Correa, Bregman, Kuechel, Altuve, etc.

[gunnarthor]

 

I'd be curious what percentage of each of those rosters were for each of those categories. 

 

For instance... 2018 Red Sox regulars drafted or signed internationally includes (without looking it up): Mookie Betters, Jackie Bradley Jr, Andrew Benintendi, Xander Boegarts, Pedroia didn't play much, their catchers, 

 

I'm more curious about that 2017 Astros roster because that included Springer, Correa, Bregman, Kuechel, Altuve, etc.

That's true. Betts accounted for more than half of the Red Sox drafted WAR. But that was more work than I was willing to do.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Threads like this are one of the great things about TD... Nice job Gunnar...

[Dantes929]

While I certainly agree depth is important I don't buy into the idea that the really good teams have so much quality depth that they can lose half their team in a year and not break stride.    Twins very reasonably banked on Sano, Buxton, Lynn, Odorizzi, Reed, Hilgenberger, Dozier and Morrison to have quality years.    Sometimes it is just up to the players.    You can't have 8 of the top dozen players you bank on to completely tank.    Where is Boston without Betts and Sales being healthy and having by far career best years and Bogarts suspended for half the year and 5 others having below average years?     Twins were active in trades and free agency and were very reasonably expected to be better than 2017.      IPPWS.    Its Players Playing Well Stupid.     Don't believe the Twins had talent through FA, trades and ingrown talent to start the year?    Let this refresh your memory.       http://twinsdaily.com/topic/29089-article-twins-daily-2018-twins-predictions/page-2 

[Doomtints]

 

I wasn't sure if % and/or production alone was better so I included both. I did find it interesting that the FA % for all teams was about the same although that's probably more coincidence than anything else.

 

% is good to see the mix each team is doing. The Twins are definitely unbalanced in comparison, but the other teams are also better at doing what the Twins do....

[gunnarthor]

One last thing. I compared the 2017 Twins on the same basis -

Trade - 1.3 (4%)

FA -   8.2    (24%)

Draft - 17.8 (52%)

Int sign - 6.7 (20%)

 

Draft and int signings were again pretty similar but about 5 WAR better in  2017. FA was better mostly b/c of Santana's huge year and again not a lot of WAR contributed from trades. That's only two years of data of course but the amateur talent acquisition through international signings has looked good, really.

 

Amateur talent (draft + inter. signings)

2017 Astros - 31.2

2017 Twins - 24.5

2018 Red Sox - 23.3

2018 Twins - 20

2016 Cubs - 16

[Riverbrian]

Thanks for the research Gun.

 

If you'd like to drill down on trades specifically. Take a look at the actual number of trades made by all clubs and you'll find that the Twins traded less than every major league baseball team by a significant margin. 

 

A high number of productive trades is much harder to accumulate when you don't make very many of them in comparison with your peers.   

 

 

 

[amjgt]

That's true. Betts accounted for more than half of the Red Sox drafted WAR. But that was more work than I was willing to do.

Going to need a bigger napkin

[Battle ur tail off]

 

While I certainly agree depth is important I don't buy into the idea that the really good teams have so much quality depth that they can lose half their team in a year and not break stride.    Twins very reasonably banked on Sano, Buxton, Lynn, Odorizzi, Reed, Hilgenberger, Dozier and Morrison to have quality years.    Sometimes it is just up to the players.    You can't have 8 of the top dozen players you bank on to completely tank.    Where is Boston without Betts and Sales being healthy and having by far career best years and Bogarts suspended for half the year and 5 others having below average years?     Twins were active in trades and free agency and were very reasonably expected to be better than 2017.      IPPWS.    Its Players Playing Well Stupid.     Don't believe the Twins had talent through FA, trades and ingrown talent to start the year?    Let this refresh your memory.       http://twinsdaily.com/topic/29089-article-twins-daily-2018-twins-predictions/page-2 

 

You are ignoring the fact that there isn't a player on this team performed the way that Sale and Betts have or possess the talent they do. Sale was a trade that took big balls, and they got back an absolute stud for it. Betts was drafted developed and push hard and quick through their system and they saw results instantly for it. Same with Bogarts. They bought him, trained him and brought him up quickly and he was ready right away.

 

These guys are high end. They produced right out of the gate. Twins go for middle to average guys. That list you named has Sano and Buxton on it that are/were high end guys. The rest are middling types, that a team like the Red Sox would never consider "counting on" to lead their team

[Riverbrian]

 

While I certainly agree depth is important I don't buy into the idea that the really good teams have so much quality depth that they can lose half their team in a year and not break stride.    Twins very reasonably banked on Sano, Buxton, Lynn, Odorizzi, Reed, Hilgenberger, Dozier and Morrison to have quality years.    Sometimes it is just up to the players.    You can't have 8 of the top dozen players you bank on to completely tank.    Where is Boston without Betts and Sales being healthy and having by far career best years and Bogarts suspended for half the year and 5 others having below average years?     Twins were active in trades and free agency and were very reasonably expected to be better than 2017.      IPPWS.    Its Players Playing Well Stupid.     Don't believe the Twins had talent through FA, trades and ingrown talent to start the year?    Let this refresh your memory.       http://twinsdaily.com/topic/29089-article-twins-daily-2018-twins-predictions/page-2 

 

Only a few teams are actually trying to have so much quality depth. The Dodgers are one of them and the Dodgers survived horrible injury luck this year. Much Worse than the Twins. 

 

What the Dodgers didn't have... that the Twins had coming out of their ears... were players tanking at a very large scale... But again... the Dodgers benched Brian Dozier fairly quickly and turned to Kike Hernandez. 

 

Injuries and Bad Play is an excuse that I'm hearing frequently... it's not a valid excuse. It happens every year and the time has come to prep for it in the off season and the time has come to not tolerate sub-par play. 

 

There are enough players. This isn't an impossible ask. In the words of Pink Floyd "You say the hill's too steep to climb... Climb it". 

 

 

[Dantes929]

 

You are ignoring the fact that there isn't a player on this team performed the way that Sale and Betts have or possess the talent they do. Sale was a trade that took big balls, and they got back an absolute stud for it. Betts was drafted developed and push hard and quick through their system and they saw results instantly for it. Same with Bogarts. They bought him, trained him and brought him up quickly and he was ready right away.

 

These guys are high end. They produced right out of the gate. Twins go for middle to average guys. That list you named has Sano and Buxton on it that are/were high end guys. The rest are middling types, that a team like the Red Sox would never consider "counting on" to lead their team

Not sure what your point is here.   The three guys you named were three high end guys that played better than they ever have before.    Twins have two high end guys that were horrible.   Switch that around and you have different results.    Plus the middling guys aren't the ones you count on to "lead" the team but they are also really, really important.    2010 Twins had two superstars having superstar seasons but were 46-43 at one point and lost Morneau.   It was the middling players who actually started playing to a middling level or better that got the team to a 94 win finish.    You count on the middling guys also and you just can't have so many of them under perform.    You talk about the Sox training and pushing prospects hard and getting results.   As far as I can see the Twins promoted Sano and Buxton pretty quickly.    If it is that training part you have an issue with I am ok with that.   None of this is saying the Twins had as much talent as the Red Sox but for the Red Sox guys they counted on to play well played well or great.   The Twins had guys they reasonably counted on to play well or great and too many of them just didn't .

[gunnarthor]

 

Thanks for the research Gun.

 

If you'd like to drill down on trades specifically. Take a look at the actual number of trades made by all clubs and you'll find that the Twins traded less than every major league baseball team by a significant margin. 

 

A high number of productive trades is much harder to accumulate when you don't make very many of them in comparison with your peers.   

I've tried to find how many trades teams make but I can't find a link. Thematically, I think you're probably right that the Twins don't make as many trades as other teams but I would be surprised if they were actually last (although it could depend on the time-span we're looking at). 

 

Teams with more resources - Red Sox, Yankees - can make more trades b/c they have more pieces to trade and the Twins were in that ugly rebuild where they didn't have any true studs to move, like the Shark or Stanton. If Morneau didn't have a concussion, maybe he's a better trade chip. The Twins really only had three potential blue trade chips - Span, Dozier and maybe Perkins - over those years. 

 

But I'm not sure if it's just the small number of trades that's the problem. Obviously, that's part of the problem since with more opportunities, we might get a diamond in the rough (Escobar). But part of it has to be that other teams are more aware now of the importance of prospects. One year of Eric Milton - coming off an injury, IIRC - netted Punto and Carlos Silva? That trade was horrendous for Philly and there's no way that trade happens today (1.4 WAR for one season of Milton v. 14.5 WAR for those two before FA) or the AJ trade (0.3 WAR v 27 WAR from Boof, Nathan and Liriano).

 

It might be impossible for the Twins to build a team like the 04 Twins again where they got nearly 25 WAR from trades. Or 06 where trades netted them 26 WAR. We'll see what happens with the trades from 17 and 18.

[nicksaviking]

 

Not sure what your point is here.   The three guys you named were three high end guys that played better than they ever have before.    Twins have two high end guys that were horrible.   Switch that around and you have different results.    Plus the middling guys aren't the ones you count on to "lead" the team but they are also really, really important.    2010 Twins had two superstars having superstar seasons but were 46-43 at one point and lost Morneau.   It was the middling players who actually started playing to a middling level or better that got the team to a 94 win finish.    You count on the middling guys also and you just can't have so many of them under perform.    You talk about the Sox training and pushing prospects hard and getting results.   As far as I can see the Twins promoted Sano and Buxton pretty quickly.    If it is that training part you have an issue with I am ok with that.   None of this is saying the Twins had as much talent as the Red Sox but for the Red Sox guys they counted on to play well played well or great.   The Twins had guys they reasonably counted on to play well or great and too many of them just didn't .

 

What high end guys do the Twins have? Isn't that the issue here? The Twins don't have a Betts and Bogaerts, a Lindor and Rameriz or a Bregman and Correa. 

 

I do not think it's reasonable for the Twins or the fans to expect young players to be high end players until they've already shown the ability to do it consistently. But they do need to develop those high end players.

[Dantes929]

 

Only a few teams are actually trying to have so much quality depth. The Dodgers are one of them and the Dodgers survived horrible injury luck this year. Much Worse than the Twins. 

 

What the Dodgers didn't have... that the Twins had coming out of their ears... were players tanking at a very large scale... But again... the Dodgers benched Brian Dozier fairly quickly and turned to Kike Hernandez. 

 

Injuries and Bad Play is an excuse that I'm hearing frequently... it's not a valid excuse. It happens every year and the time has come to prep for it in the off season and the time has come to not tolerate sub-par play. 

 

There are enough players. This isn't an impossible ask. In the words of Pink Floyd "You say the hill's too steep to climb... Climb it". 

Injuries and bad play are related but separate.   Dodgers had injuries but most of their guys played as expected.     1990 Twins had a losing record.   They added an aging veteran coming off two mediocre seasons, counted on an unproven rookie and added a DH that had a decent but not great track record.   All three had great years and enough of the other guys had good to great years that they went from 78 wins to 94.....    

 In contrast the 2017 Twins had a winning record.  They added two starters with good track records, two relievers with good track records and added a DH with a decent track record.   This should have been a better team both for depth and for quality.    If they had added Darvish they probably would have been dark horse for a lot of experts to win it all.    Look at that link on my previous post.  They weren't all optimists predicting 90 wins.   The naysayers were pretty high on the Twins outlook as well.    If we don't tolerate sub par play then we get rid of everyone except Berrios, Gibson, Rogers, Rosario and maybe Polanco and Garver.   I don't know what the answer is.    If they stand pat I can easily see them winning 90 or winning 70.   If they make big moves I could still see them inning 90 or 70.    Its why GM's get the big bucks but also why any decent fantasy baseball owner might do a better job of it.

[Riverbrian]

I've tried to find how many trades teams make but I can't find a link. Thematically, I think you're probably right that the Twins don't make as many trades as other teams but I would be surprised if they were actually last (although it could depend on the time-span we're looking at).

 

Teams with more resources - Red Sox, Yankees - can make more trades b/c they have more pieces to trade and the Twins were in that ugly rebuild where they didn't have any true studs to move, like the Shark or Stanton. If Morneau didn't have a concussion, maybe he's a better trade chip. The Twins really only had three potential blue trade chips - Span, Dozier and maybe Perkins - over those years.

 

But I'm not sure if it's just the small number of trades that's the problem. Obviously, that's part of the problem since with more opportunities, we might get a diamond in the rough (Escobar). But part of it has to be that other teams are more aware now of the importance of prospects. One year of Eric Milton - coming off an injury, IIRC - netted Punto and Carlos Silva? That trade was horrendous for Philly and there's no way that trade happens today (1.4 WAR for one season of Milton v. 14.5 WAR for those two before FA) or the AJ trade (0.3 WAR v 27 WAR from Boof, Nathan and Liriano).

 

It might be impossible for the Twins to build a team like the 04 Twins again where they got nearly 25 WAR from trades. Or 06 where trades netted them 26 WAR. We'll see what happens with the trades from 17 and 18.

I did the research over the summer. I’ll have to see if I can find it and repost it.

 

I did a bunch of research on various things when I got off the game threads in an attempt to find former ground on my concerns.

 

I believe you are somewhat right about the quality of trade chips causing the low amount of trades to a degree not entirely but to a degree.

 

However not having trade chips can be traced as a major issue attached to the previous front office in regards to development, identification and playing time deployment. All this research is the main reason why I’m a broken record on the same subjects over and over again.

[Major League Ready]

 

So I did back of the napkin math only here but looked at three recent WS teams to see how they constructed their teams. I only added up the value of players worth 1 WAR or more. There's significant issues with this, of course. WAR isn't a great measurement for relief pitchers or power only hitters. In season trades might have had some impact by either bringing or removing some WAR that was/wasn't counted. And we're not counting negative WAR from crappy players. But, whatever.

 

Boston had about 57 WAR from players. It broke down like this

Trades - 19.5 (34%)

FA -        14    (25%)

Drafted - 19.5 (34%)

intern signing - 3.8 (6%)

 

Houston also had about 57 WAR as well

Trades -  17.3 (30%)

FA -    6.1        (10%)

Draft - 20.3      (36%)

Intern sign - 10.9  (19%)

waivers - 2.2   (4%)

 

And Cubs had about 41 WAR (slackers)

Trades - 20.1 (49%)!

FA -        4.8   (11%)

draft -     12    (29%)

intern sign - 4 (10%)

 

Last year, using the same criteria, the Twins amassed 29 WAR

Trades - 6.3   (22%)

FA -       2.5   (9%)

draft -    15.7 (54%)

int. sign  4.3 (15%) 

 

So, first, the Twins need to add WAR in all areas but nearly 16 WAR from drafted guys was better than I expected, frankly, with nothing from Buxton. International signings are actually right in line with the Cubs and Red Sox production wise and nothing from Sano there. Twins are way below on trades, both as % and actual production. That makes sense since the Twins didn't have a lot of top shelf items to move and their biggest trade (Span for Meyer) didn't work. Had they traded Perkins or a market developed for Dozier, who knows. Free agency as a % is actually in line but way below production of the WS teams, which makes sense as they have bigger payrolls.

 

On the plus side, Buxton and Sano combined for like -1 WAR so those two could help by not sucking next year. 

 

Using this simplistic of a model to evaluate asset management strategy fails to account for the differences in trades in terms of asset management philosophy and/or implications. It does not make sense to categorize the trades Cleveland made for Kluber / Bauer / Clevinger or Coraasco as the same asset acquisition strategy (trade) as the trade for Chris Sale. Cleveland probably gave up less future WAR in the acquisition of Kluber / Bauer / Clevinger / Coraasco combined and they produced a combined WAR of 20.8 last year and all came with 6+ years of control.

 

The Yankees are another good example. If you look down their roster, especially with position players, half of their WAR is a result of trade and the other half drafting. However, the prospect cost for these players was marginal.

 

Aaron Hicks / 4.7 - Traded for a BU Catcher (JR Murphy)
Didi Gregorius / 4.2 - Acquired while value still minimal
Giancarlo Stanton / 4 - Prospect cost reduced significantly by taking on salary
Gleyber Torres / 2.9 - Traded for while in A+
Luke Voit / 1.3 - Traded for while in AAA
Andrew McCutchen / 0.8 - Deadline Trade

 

If you look a little deeper at the data, trading for prospects or MLB players that have yet to establish themselves and drafting (including International) are by far the most significant contributors to WAR. This is not to say acquiring Chris Sale is a bad idea. What it means is that drafting and trading for players before they are established is the best way to get to the position of adding final pieces like Chris Sale.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

However not having trade chips can be traced as a major issue attached to the previous front office in regards to development, identification and playing time deployment. All this research is the main reason why I’m a broken record on the same subjects over and over again.

 

It's also a big reason why you're selling at the deadline

[Riverbrian]

Injuries and bad play are related but separate. Dodgers had injuries but most of their guys played as expected. 1990 Twins had a losing record. They added an aging veteran coming off two mediocre seasons, counted on an unproven rookie and added a DH that had a decent but not great track record. All three had great years and enough of the other guys had good to great years that they went from 78 wins to 94.....

In contrast the 2017 Twins had a winning record. They added two starters with good track records, two relievers with good track records and added a DH with a decent track record. This should have been a better team both for depth and for quality. If they had added Darvish they probably would have been dark horse for a lot of experts to win it all. Look at that link on my previous post. They weren't all optimists predicting 90 wins. The naysayers were pretty high on the Twins outlook as well. If we don't tolerate sub par play then we get rid of everyone except Berrios, Gibson, Rogers, Rosario and maybe Polanco and Garver. I don't know what the answer is. If they stand pat I can easily see them winning 90 or winning 70. If they make big moves I could still see them inning 90 or 70. Its why GM's get the big bucks but also why any decent fantasy baseball owner might do a better job of it.

It’s the same situation for every team in baseball. If the players perform you win. If they don’t you lose. It’s why teams will ping pong from good years and bad years and everything in between. Injuries and bad play are unpredictable no matter what algorithms project. It ends up being the equivalent of a spin of the roulette wheel. The combination of things that happened to the Twins probably couldn’t be survived but it’s still no excuse for playing failing players everyday and being slow to find a Cave or Astundillo.

 

There is no excuse for the combination of tanking players and the burning of roster spots on players that are not played at the same time. Hiding a rule 5, Rostering a LaMarre, Petit or Motter that isn’t good enough to try or sticking with a Wilson or Morrison.

 

You can say every team does this and you’d be close to correct but I’m telling everyone that the Dodgers don’t and they are closer to bulletproof as a result. They didn’t buy it. They identified Muncy and Taylor and Kike and Justin Turner by simply saying Muncy is out playing Forsythe. Muncy plays more and Forsythe plays less and after years of this approach. They have quality cheap depth in their pocket and the cheap depth gives the ability to burn large dollar amounts on free agents that sometimes don’t perform as expected and survive.

 

I’ve been talking about a lot of things this off season but I can boil it down to two points. Fill the rosters with players that the manager will play and dont waste a precious roster spot. Give the majority of the playing time to the players who are producing more.

 

Don’t let the players take you down without trying something else. This simple step will create depth and speed up any rebuild tenfold. Morrison doesn’t have to be cut. He can just simply play less until he pulls it together or better yet... put him on the DL where he belonged so I don’t have to read about hip pain being the reason his numbers were bad.

[Riverbrian]

It's also a big reason why you're selling at the deadline

100% right. Expiring contracts in a lost season need to be converted into a possible future value or your standing still.

 

We’ve had a lotta lost seasons to apply this fundamental approach.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

Not sure what your point is here.   The three guys you named were three high end guys that played better than they ever have before.    Twins have two high end guys that were horrible.   Switch that around and you have different results.    Plus the middling guys aren't the ones you count on to "lead" the team but they are also really, really important.    2010 Twins had two superstars having superstar seasons but were 46-43 at one point and lost Morneau.   It was the middling players who actually started playing to a middling level or better that got the team to a 94 win finish.    You count on the middling guys also and you just can't have so many of them under perform.    You talk about the Sox training and pushing prospects hard and getting results.   As far as I can see the Twins promoted Sano and Buxton pretty quickly.    If it is that training part you have an issue with I am ok with that.   None of this is saying the Twins had as much talent as the Red Sox but for the Red Sox guys they counted on to play well played well or great.   The Twins had guys they reasonably counted on to play well or great and too many of them just didn't .

 

They were 3 young guys that have played some dang good ball and though of as good players for quite a few years already. These weren't hope and prayer types, or waiting on someone to get good, or have a super season. They were good already. Chris Sale was one of, if not the best pitcher in baseball, they went out and got him. Aggressive.

 

I agree about developing players. It is my hope that this new FO has the pieces in place now that this organization will finally start kicking out players again. Hopefully some high end ones at that. 

[nicksaviking]

 

100% right. Expiring contracts in a lost season need to be converted into a possible future value or your standing still.

We’ve had a lotta lost seasons to apply this fundamental approach.

 

Signing average pitchers to un-tradealbe four year deals instead of more appealing two year deals when your team isn't going anywhere doesn't help with this.

[gunnarthor]

 

Signing average pitchers to un-tradealbe four year deals instead of more appealing two year deals when your team isn't going anywhere doesn't help with this.

Nolasco and Santana? I think we traded Nolasco and, either way, those were the going rates for those arms. Nolasco, Santana, Garza, Jiminez, McCarthy etc weren't going to sign for 2 years in those markets. Twins either had to pay fair value or not sign those free agents.

[Riverbrian]

Signing average pitchers to un-tradealbe four year deals instead of more appealing two year deals when your team isn't going anywhere doesn't help with this.

I remember being for the Nolasco signing and against the Hughes signing so I clearly admit I was wrong. This is also why I'm not zeroing in on specific names anymore and focusing on a big picture fundamentals instead.

 

But Yeah... In hindsight... They took the wrong approach here. When you sign a free agent to a deal. The very nature of what it takes to sign a free agent maximizes their value and it makes it hard to trade them afterwards. But, the Twins never declared a rebuild and instead tried to find competing pieces out of the secondary level.

 

They should have declared rebuild and then went with players that could actually increase in value with opportunity over time.

 

This is a big factor in the slowing down of our rebuild.

[nicksaviking]

 

Nolasco and Santana? I think we traded Nolasco and, either way, those were the going rates for those arms. Nolasco, Santana, Garza, Jiminez, McCarthy etc weren't going to sign for 2 years in those markets. Twins either had to pay fair value or not sign those free agents.

 

I agree, but they should have gone for option #2. If your team stinks and isn't going to compete that year, then why wouldn't you go after pitchers who will take a one or two year deal that you can later trade? Like Rich Hill, Jason Hammel, Trevor Cahill or Scott Feldman .

 

On the field, there is seldom a marketed difference between average pitchers who sign for four years and average pitchers who sign for one or two years. If you're giving out long term deals, give them to better players. And don't be a cellar-dweller.

[Riverbrian]

Well said. This is a big reason why Molitor had to go. He tended to go too long with guys who weren't performing, assuming these were his decisions.We all tend to fall in liove with guys and pretend we don't see their faults - the 2108 Dozier, Kepler love despite his lack of performance at the plate, Wilson because he's scrappy - and also go too long with guys who aren't performing in the hope they get better.

 

I think the OF and the BP will be a good test this spring of whether anything has changed. Based on perfdormance, Rosario, Cave and Kepler should be the OF. I can see starting Buxton because of his upside and defense, and then Kepler sits down or goes to 1B while Cave gets a chance. Kepler comes back in as a starter if one of the other 3 falter. Hildenberger gets a shot but moves to the back end and/or AAA if he looks like he did in the second half of last year. Same for Sano. Reed and Duffy stay in the BP only if they perform. No scholarship players. Performance based playing time.

I never called for Molitor’s head because I didn’t know if it was Molitor or group think but however it was happening... it has to stop and I was just hoping that lessons were learned for 2019.

 

Molitor is gone now... if it happens again... I’ll know it was group think and the lesson hasn’t been learned.

 

Great post. I’m with ya. Secure yer hatches. We will be facing decades of built in resistance fighting the good fight and I could use a hand.

[Riverbrian]

Thanks. I'm right there with ya. I've lived in LA for awhile and following other teams does kind of open your eyes on certain things. One thing out here is that if you don't perform, you're yesterday's news and they cut, trade or demote you. Yasiel Puig was the second coming of Mickey Mantle, then went in the tank and they sat him down and made him earn at-bats. He whined in the newspaper and they ignored him. Now he's improved because he wanted playing time. He's playing better and he gets more time. He's also happy to be here. Maybe a lesson for handling Kepler?

 

There are hopeful signs. I was happy to see the Twins make Sano go to A Ball and start over last year. It was the right thing to do. I was sad Molitor got the axe, but again, it was the right thing to do despite his years of service to the team. He was the wrong manager for this team at this time. Maybe we're moving in the right direction. There's always hope.

Yep. Not just Puig as you know. Joc Pederson who was a heralded prospect took on a diminished role instead of suffering with his struggles.

 

AGon was gone quickly and the list goes on and the roster spots go to players actually getting it done.

 

The Dodgers have money to fill rosters. They shouldn’t have room to find a Muncy. The Twins don’t have that kind of money and have under performance spanning decades that cry out for the discovery of. We should have plenty of room to find a Muncy but we consistently don’t.

 

As a result the Dodgers are always drafting after us round after round and they find the Bellingers and Buehlers and the Twins consistently don’t.

 

I don’t know why they beat us at everything but I believe it starts with simply playing the players who are playing better.

 

The Dodgers do that and the Twins don’t. The Twins play who they think should be playing better.

 

(Fist Bump)

[nicksaviking]

 

Yep. Not just Puig as you know. Joc Pederson who was a heralded prospect took on a diminished role instead of suffering with his struggles.

AGon was gone quickly and the list goes on and the roster spots go players actually getting it done.

The Dodgers have money to fill rosters. They shouldn’t have room to find a Muncy. The Twins don’t have that kind of money and under performance spanning decades. We should have room to find Muncy but we consistently don’t.

As a result the Dodgers are always drafting after us round after round and they find the Bellingers and Buehlers and the Twins consistently don’t.

I don’t know why they beat us at everything but I believe it starts with simply playing the players who are playing better.

The Dodgers do that and the Twins don’t. The Twins play who they think should be playing better.

(Fist Bump)

 

I'd think this is monetary related as well. To me it seems the Twins make more efforts than necessary to validate the price they paid for free agents. Pricey vets get a much longer leash here, though surely that's not isolated to Minnesota. It would be nice if we got off of that way of thinking though.