Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Akil Baddoo crushes Homerun in first major league at bat


AZTwin
 Share

There are least 3 posts I would like to copy and paste but that would difficult, long, and perhaps boring, lol.

 

Unless you are a bad team with limited talent and in re-build, your 40 man is very complex. If you are a contending team, you HAVE to consider depth for your team, not just an opening for a roster spot for an A ball player with skills but limited results thus far. How many good, contending teams would EVER protect an A ball OF on the 40 man with limited results thus far over someone who not only has produced at a higher level, but could actually be "expected" to contribute when called on for said contending team?

 

The Twins ARE a contending team with talent, depth, and some great prospects. Some of those prospects, well ahead of Badoo, are on the 40 man already. Some are going to have to be added next season, if not before. Already, there is discussion about potentially adding a quality BP arm or two and who would have to be let go or transferred, unfortunately, to the 60 man IL just to make room for them.

 

It sounds so easy doesn't it, cut Gordon, cut Garlik, cut Smeltzer, and just add and promote someone else. But then someone gets hurt, and you have to promote someone from a lower level. Think Polanco about 5yrs ago. And then the guy you let go does really well with a different organization and you wonder why we didn't keep him? Vicious circle with best guesses.

 

Oh, BTW, if you fill your 40 man then you can't sign FA without cutting someone. Almost forgot that POINT!

 

I hope for the best for Badoo as baseball fan and a fan of the young men in the Twins system. Selfishly, I hope he struggles enough, and avoids injury, and the Tigers give him back to the Twins. But not protecting him was the right move to keep roster spots open for signings and depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are least 3 posts I would like to copy and paste but that would difficult, long, and perhaps boring, lol.

Unless you are a bad team with limited talent and in re-build, your 40 man is very complex. If you are a contending team, you HAVE to consider depth for your team, not just an opening for a roster spot for an A ball player with skills but limited results thus far. How many good, contending teams would EVER protect an A ball OF on the 40 man with limited results thus far over someone who not only has produced at a higher level, but could actually be "expected" to contribute when called on for said contending team?

The Twins ARE a contending team with talent, depth, and some great prospects. Some of those prospects, well ahead of Badoo, are on the 40 man already. Some are going to have to be added next season, if not before. Already, there is discussion about potentially adding a quality BP arm or two and who would have to be let go or transferred, unfortunately, to the 60 man IL just to make room for them.

It sounds so easy doesn't it, cut Gordon, cut Garlik, cut Smeltzer, and just add and promote someone else. But then someone gets hurt, and you have to promote someone from a lower level. Think Polanco about 5yrs ago. And then the guy you let go does really well with a different organization and you wonder why we didn't keep him? Vicious circle with best guesses.

Oh, BTW, if you fill your 40 man then you can't sign FA without cutting someone. Almost forgot that POINT!

I hope for the best for Badoo as baseball fan and a fan of the young men in the Twins system. Selfishly, I hope he struggles enough, and avoids injury, and the Tigers give him back to the Twins. But not protecting him was the right move to keep roster spots open for signings and depth.

And yet on the flipside, people wanted to get rid of Rosario for the last 3 years lol.  Now we got rid of him and we have a disaster with our outfield and outfield prospects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  When the Twins protected players from the Rule V draft, they finished with 37 players protected from the draft.  They easily could have added a few more but chose not to

 

Soooooo, what does that have to do with Garlick? That was your point right? The Twins chose Garlick over Baddoo?

 

They set Baddoo free. Maybe the reasoning was to keep their roster open to sign some of the six major league free agents they ended up signing. Maybe they (logically) assumed a guy who's never played above A ball and hasn't played in two years was a very long shot to get claimed AND stick on a MLB roster. 

 

Or, maybe, they knew this guy was behind a lot of other very talented players and his only real shot at making his dreams come true was to find them with another club. Looks like the long shot paid off. So what, it wasn't going to pay off for the Twins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Soooooo, what does that have to do with Garlick? That was your point right? The Twins chose Garlick over Baddoo?

 

They set Baddoo free. Maybe the reasoning was to keep their roster open to sign some of the six major league free agents they ended up signing. Maybe they (logically) assumed a guy who's never played above A ball and hasn't played in two years was a very long shot to get claimed AND stick on a MLB roster. 

 

Or, maybe, they knew this guy was behind a lot of other very talented players and his only real shot at making his dreams come true was to find them with another club. Looks like the long shot paid off. So what, it wasn't going to pay off for the Twins.

Now you are changing the argument from "there was no room" to "they had to leave room so they could sign Garlick" proving my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

that is illogical.  There is no correlation between leaving Baddoo off the 40 man roster and the signing of Garlick.  A coincidence, I'll buy into.  But not a correlation.  It would only be a correlation if the Twins said "let's leave Baddoo unprotected so we can pick up Garlick."

 

You are wrong. They were absolutely correlated.  The twins had a few spots open and decided to leave them open for "flexibility" to take guys like Garlick.  The right comparison will always be do we keep our prospects or do we want guys like Garlick?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet on the flipside, people wanted to get rid of Rosario for the last 3 years lol.  Now we got rid of him and we have a disaster with our outfield and outfield prospects

They did? We do?

 

SOME people weren't tremendous fans of Rosario. From my best recollection, nobody was looking to get rid of him 3 year ago. Was there SOME debate about his value 2 years ago? Yeah, maybe some. The replacement debate really started in 2020 and this last off-season based on finances and replacement cost/value as well as pure roster finances. Even the majority of "time to move on" posters acknowledged he was productive and fun and didn't necessarily want to see him go. I'm in that group. I never wanted to see him leave, I'm a fan. But even as fan, I saw the talent comjng up and the financial implications involved. Had 2020 been a normal or semi-normal year, I believe the Twins would have spent the $10M to sign him for one more year to buy time. But we can't re-write history.

 

Sooner or later, 2021 or 2022, room had to be made for the future.

 

Is LF a mess? IMO, NO. It is only in transition. EVERYONE knew Arraez would be part of LF unless Kirilloff just took off. But to blindly assume he would just grab the spot and run with it jumping from AA ball with only the alternate site in 2020 to make the jump was optimism. The FO knew that as well. It's part of the reason they claimed Garlik not once, but twice. They love Kirilloff and Larnach. They like Rooker. They also like Cave and knew Arraez could be part of the equation, at least early. These guys in the FO are pretty smart.

 

LF is NOT a mess, it's a spot with opportunity and a transitional spot for Cave, Garlik and Arraez to play and produce while waiting for Kirilloff and Larnach....and to a degree for Rooker...to grab hold. Rooker is a DH who can play some 1B and corner OF as/if he improves defensively. Kirilloff and Larnach will be fixtures at 1B and corner OF to replace Cruz. There is a method to the madness here. Garlik is a fill-in who has a great milb track record who has never shined at the ML level thus far. And you could make an arguement he hasn t had a sustained opportunity or could be a late bloomer. IMO, he's a short term option only unless he surprises.

 

But LF is NOT a mess, simply a position with multiple options who can contribute until someone grabs hold. And that will probably be Kirilloff very soon, though I hope very much Rooker will show he's ready to be a 5th OF/1B/DH option come 2022.

 

But none of this accounts for Badoo, potentially lost. Celestino is above Badoo. Period! A couple of kids like Urbina and Rodriguez are generally ranked as high or higher than Badoo. I wish the best for the kid and hope he is returned to us. But we are in no way decimated if not. Nor is LF some some sort of disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Shane Mack comes to mind for me. But I do agree that, as infrequent as it is, losing someone like Baddoo is bound to happen to teams with a ton of depth in the system. Frankly, I'd be happy to see Baddoo have a Shane Mack-like career. It's not probable though.

 

BTW, the Tigers are probably going to be respectable this year. I think the entire ALC may be under-estimated.

Mack couldn’t beat out a hall of fame player in San Diego

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are changing the argument from "there was no room" to "they had to leave room so they could sign Garlick" proving my point.

The Twins did no such thing. They exposed Baddoo at the beginning of the offseason and claimed Garlick at the beginning of spring training. Between those two dates, an entire offseason happened, replete with signings and moves.

 

You’re stretching hard to link a Rule V loss to a flyer taken to open spring training, something teams do all the time.

 

Players like Baddoo are why the Rule V draft exists at all; to drain deep, competitive organizations of fringe talent and feed that talent to lesser teams, allowing buried players to get a chance in MLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baddo is not only a great bat, he's also fast and pretty good glove at CF which we don't have a lot. We could still need depth of decent CFs. Although now we have Broxton and Celestino close but for many years we had no one which really hurt us. Baddo isn't a flash in the pan. It's a bad mistake any way you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Baddo is not only a great bat, he's also fast and pretty good glove at CF which we don't have a lot. We could still need depth of decent CFs. Although now we have Broxton and Celestino close but for many years we had no one which really hurt us. Baddo isn't a flash in the pan. It's a bad mistake any way you look at it.

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make. 

Not only that, he didn't play last year and didn't play much in 2019 due to injury. So ... young, inexperienced, and away from even playing for a couple of years. While I always liked Baddoo as a prospect and thought he had potential, there were too many ahead of him. As someone said above, the decision had to be made and perhaps the FO hoped he would get overlooked because of that inexperience and lack of playing time. Detroit has to keep him on the roster all season ... it's what building teams do. If he succeeds, good for Baddoo. But it is hardly a mistake made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think everyone makes a good point. He was very much blocked from the majors on the Twins AND the Twins could have found a way to keep him on the 40 man if they really wanted to.

 

I think if you had a nice private conversation over a glass of good scotch with the FO, they would tell you that they thought there was a very small chance he would get selected due to his experience level... AND that they were surprised and disappointed that he was taken!

 

It happens....

On the rocks or neat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make. 

On top of all of this, I'm 100% certain the Twins wanted to keep Baddoo and quite confident they wanted to keep him more than a few other players.

 

But when it comes to the 40-man, sometimes you dangle the biggest risk in hope no one will bite. 

 

And dangling a guy who hasn't played a full season in a very long time, a guy that hasn't played in the upper minors, is also a very risky guy to draft in Rule V.

 

In this case it didn't work for the Twins. The Tigers bit anyway. Bummer. 

 

With that said, this situation is far from over. Even after the hot start, I'd put even money on Baddoo being offered back to the Twins before the end of the season. Give pitchers some time to form a book on Baddoo and he could instantly revert to a .400 OPS player as teams exploit his weaknesses and inexperience.

 

Or maybe Baddoo succeeds and thrives with the Tigers. It happens. Bummer for the Twins but basing decisions on the 95th percentile outcome on a fringe 40-man player isn't how good, deep, contending teams operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it absolutely is not. You are acting like Baddoo is an All-Star. The kid is 23 and never played above A-Ball. He may end up a good player, but there is no evidence for that right now. The Twins are not in a position to have a 23 year old with limited experience on their 40 man. Stop extrapolating your own feelings about a player onto the tangible baseball decisions the front office has to make.

 

We have a lot of great hitting prospects, most I'd rated above Baddo. No one could've guess how great Baddo has performed this ST and early season. I'd checked on him early in ST, hoping for a quick return with no such luck. I never indicated him anything more than a good prospect in a position where we could use more depth. What I'm saying is that FO should have managed the 40 man better as to not to have left him unprotected or anyone else in the future. I don't like to see good players go for nothing in return
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We have a lot of great hitting prospects, most I'd rated above Baddo. No one could've guess how great Baddo has performed this ST and early season. I'd checked on him early in ST, hoping for a quick return with no such luck. I never indicated him anything more than a good prospect in a position where we could use more depth. What I'm saying is that FO should have managed the 40 man better as to not to have left him unprotected or anyone else in the future.

 

You can't protect everyone. If he sticks with the Tigers all year and does great, good for him. Still doesn't mean it was a mistake by the FO. You win some, you lose some ... and there is no way to predict things like this. As was explained above, he missed almost two seasons of baseball, not just last year, has never played in the high minors, is inexperienced. We have a lot of prospects that have potential. Frankly, I was sorry to lose him, but it was a gamble they had to take. Still doesn't make it a mistake or mismanagement, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I'm saying is that FO should have managed the 40 man better as to not to have left him unprotected or anyone else in the future. I don't like to see good players go for nothing in return

If a front office leaves decent but risky prospects unprotected in Rule V, it means almost by default they're doing a hell of a lot right because if they're risking players like Baddoo in the draft, it means they have 35+ better, or at least higher floor, players in front of him on the 40-man roster.

 

And that means they're probably a very good team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a front office leaves decent but risky prospects unprotected in Rule V, it means almost by default they're doing a hell of a lot right because if they're risking players like Baddoo in the draft, it means they have 35+ better, or at least higher floor, players in front of him on the 40-man roster.

 

And that means they're probably a very good team.

I looked at the situation at your point of view. And I believe that I was harsh in saying that it was mismanagement or error in dealing with Baddo the way they did because that's the way the vast majority of teams deal with this problem.

But to really compete we need to think outside the box. I've debated in a prior threads. We need to be proactive in trading from our strength to strengthen our weaknesses and constantly upgrading. Upgrading allows more room on the 40 man. Which allows us to develop as many prospects as we can eventually to play on the MLB team or trade them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  When the Twins protected players from the Rule V draft, they finished with 37 players protected from the draft.  They easily could have added a few more but chose not to

I think that you're somewhat right on Baddoo vs Garlick -- but it doesn't stop there. It's also Baddoo vs every non-40-man prospect that's ahead of him in the Twins system.

 

At the time of the Rule 5 draft, the Twins were probably expecting Royce Lewis to make a debut in 2021, as well as Larnach, maybe Winder, Sands, and other guys we don't even know about. The Twins don't have to leave 40-man spots open for all of these guys, of course, but they do need to keep some flexibility. Every guy like Baddoo that you add makes the roster less flexible at a high cost -- you basically have to plant him on the 40-man for at least the next year or lose him on waivers. Garlick is no star, but he doesn't have to offer much to offset the cost of rostering Baddoo in that scenario.

 

So leaving off a guy like Baddoo, and challenging other teams to keep him on their 26-man roster for the whole season in Rule 5, is a perfectly understandable choice. Rule 5 is a much more difficult for teams than simply claiming a guy on waivers.

 

Of course, if you absolutely love Baddoo, you can find a way to protect him too. But if he's just another guy with potential, with virtually no shot to play in 2021 and well behind others on the org depth chart, you sometimes have to take a chance with exposing them in Rule 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone makes a good point. He was very much blocked from the majors on the Twins AND the Twins could have found a way to keep him on the 40 man if they really wanted to.

 

I think if you had a nice private conversation over a glass of good scotch with the FO, they would tell you that they thought there was a very small chance he would get selected due to his experience level... AND that they were surprised and disappointed that he was taken!

 

It happens....

I don't like scotch. How about bourbon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If a front office leaves decent but risky prospects unprotected in Rule V, it means almost by default they're doing a hell of a lot right because if they're risking players like Baddoo in the draft, it means they have 35+ better, or at least higher floor, players in front of him on the 40-man roster.

 

And that means they're probably a very good team.

It could also mean that the FO is not very good at grading their own talent. This isn't the first minor leaguer that they let go who became a solid MLer on another team. 

 

My guess is the Twins thought no one would take Baddoo since he missed so much time and, even if they did, he would have a lot of rust and not look great so they'd get him back. That seems like a reasonable guess but it's not right to say the Twins had 35+ better than him since, IIRC, we had some open spots and a handful of fungible relief pitchers. Again, I didn't pay enough attention at the time to say what the Twins did wrong but the PR the FO gets here is becoming a bit much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It could also mean that the FO is not very good at grading their own talent. This isn't the first minor leaguer that they let go who became a solid MLer on another team. 

 

My guess is the Twins thought no one would take Baddoo since he missed so much time and, even if they did, he would have a lot of rust and not look great so they'd get him back. That seems like a reasonable guess but it's not right to say the Twins had 35+ better than him since, IIRC, we had some open spots and a handful of fungible relief pitchers. Again, I didn't pay enough attention at the time to say what the Twins did wrong but the PR the FO gets here is becoming a bit much.

PR? Oh, come on.

 

There's a difference between "PR" and refusing to knee-jerk over a handful of games.

 

It's entirely possible the front office made a mistake with Baddoo. Historical context says it's more likely they didn't.

 

Have you looked at this 40-man roster? There's not a lot of room to take on marginal prospects who looked (extremely) unlikely to contribute to the 2021 team.

 

And if you're suggesting they should have replaced a fungible reliever with an (eighth?) outfielder on the 40-man, it's you who doesn't really understand how 40-man roster management works, not the front office. Offloading pitchers and replacing them with position players is a good way to start putting potentially valuable players on the waiver wire in May because, like every season, pitching depth inevitably becomes an issue and you need viable arms on the roster to throw innings in Minneapolis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It could also mean that the FO is not very good at grading their own talent. This isn't the first minor leaguer that they let go who became a solid MLer on another team. 

 

My guess is the Twins thought no one would take Baddoo since he missed so much time and, even if they did, he would have a lot of rust and not look great so they'd get him back. That seems like a reasonable guess but it's not right to say the Twins had 35+ better than him since, IIRC, we had some open spots and a handful of fungible relief pitchers. Again, I didn't pay enough attention at the time to say what the Twins did wrong but the PR the FO gets here is becoming a bit much.

Solid MLBer? He's had 8 PAs above A ball. 

 

He very well may end up as such (or anything else for that matter), but one can hardly label him at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solid MLBer? He's had 8 PAs above A ball. 

 

He very well may end up as such (or anything else for that matter), but one can hardly label him at this point.

 

They had room on the roster, I think he is saying, and a minor trade involving some fringe guys could have made more room.

 

I don’t have an opinion on Baddoo but I would have taken a chance on Tyler Wells over a handful of other pitchers currently on the 40-man. Chalmers and Ober were obvious keepers and have a promising future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the situation at your point of view. And I believe that I was harsh in saying that it was mismanagement or error in dealing with Baddo the way they did because that's the way the vast majority of teams deal with this problem.

But to really compete we need to think outside the box. I've debated in a prior threads. We need to be proactive in trading from our strength to strengthen our weaknesses and constantly upgrading. Upgrading allows more room on the 40 man. Which allows us to develop as many prospects as we can eventually to play on the MLB team or trade them

To clarify my point, I'd like to use SD as an example. They are a team with a ton of prospects and big 40 man problem. Also they want to compete against LAD so they need to upgrade their pitching. They didn't go after FA because that wouldn't help their 40 man problem. They attacked the trade market. Using 4 prospects they landed Snell, using 7 players they landed Darvish (plus his private catcher for free) and 5 players to land Musgrove. That's 16 low valued players, (quite a few lotto tickets with non in their top 5 prospects) for 3 top of the rotation pitchers. Some may argue that Musgrove isn't that good looking at his stats but looking at under lying conditions and being SD most dominating pitcher out of the gate, I believe he is. Instead of going for the bragging rights to the rule 5 loser's award they made themselves highly competitive and helped their 40 man problem, now in the near future.

I'm not insinuating the FO is terrible and need to be fired. Their development is one reason why we have this talent. I'm just showing an area where we need improvement. Where we can protect prospects like Baddo and Wells until we are ready to play them or trade them. Another interesting point about Baddo is that he bats left where our others CFers batright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify my point, I'd like to use SD as an example. They are a team with a ton of prospects and big 40 man problem. Also they want to compete against LAD so they need to upgrade their pitching. They didn't go after FA because that wouldn't help their 40 man problem. They attacked the trade market. Using 4 prospects they landed Snell, using 7 players they landed Darvish (plus his private catcher for free) and 5 players to land Musgrove. That's 16 low valued players, (quite a few lotto tickets with non in their top 5 prospects) for 3 top of the rotation pitchers. Some may argue that Musgrove isn't that good looking at his stats but looking at under lying conditions and being SD most dominating pitcher out of the gate, I believe he is. Instead of going for the bragging rights to the rule 5 loser's award they made themselves highly competitive and helped their 40 man problem, now in the near future.

I'm not insinuating the FO is terrible and need to be fired. Their development is one reason why we have this talent. I'm just showing an area where we need improvement. Where we can protect prospects like Baddo and Wells until we are ready to play them or trade them. Another interesting point about Baddo is that he bats left where our others CFers batright.

These are all very fair points and I would definitely like to see more trade action from this FO.

 

Except it doesn’t really apply in the singular case of Baddoo (but perhaps made sense with others in the past).

 

There simply isn’t a market out there for decent prospects who haven’t played above A ball, haven’t really played in two years, and need to be added to the 40-man roster.

 

That’s a hard sell and a situation that probably doesn’t arise often if we don’t spend a year in a global panoramica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are all very fair points and I would definitely like to see more trade action from this FO.

Except it doesn’t really apply in the singular case of Baddoo (but perhaps made sense with others in the past).

There simply isn’t a market out there for decent prospects who haven’t played above A ball, haven’t really played in two years, and need to be added to the 40-man roster.

That’s a hard sell and a situation that probably doesn’t arise often if we don’t spend a year in a global panoramica.

Totally agree with you, we can't luck out like SD and be able to trade so many unproven prospects. I only mentioned them to prove it can be done. If you read more carefully, I stated that I'd like to protect and develop prospects like Baddo and Wells, not necessarily trade them (only if they are strongly requested by the trading partner) I'd prefer to trade players which we've developed and find that they'd be better off playing on a different team. Seek out teams which could use such players and have players which fits our needs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...