What Went Wrong with Former Twins Prospects Josh Winder and Yunior Severino?

[Riverbrian]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

He was not a 6.5 out of 10.

It was I who tossed out the 6.5 thing out. Just for clarification... I wasn't calling Rooker a 6.5 out of 10. 6.5 was random number for player X that the club has to make a decision on. 6.4 was for player Y that the club has to make a decision on. I used the random numbers to express the enormous pile of players in the middle that front offices have to sort through and make decisions on. Most players reside in this big pile in the middle.  

I agree with what you are saying. I believe that they missed on Rooker big time... It can't be argued that they missed on Rooker. It's not my job to assess talent. It is their job to assess talent and in the end... they missed on Rooker... and it was a big miss. Just like they missed on Nick Anderson big time. 

I believe all teams miss. Sometimes a Rooker comes out and shows the world the miss. Most time those misses remain hidden to the world because the player just fades away which almost happened to Rooker. 

No matter... I believe all teams miss. I believe that they would miss less if they realized that they are going to miss and instead of forcing it... maybe provide more opportunity for players to prove them wrong. Some players get chance after chance... Some players get none and the difference between them is slight in that big pile in the middle. 

[bean5302]

17 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

It was I who tossed out the 6.5 thing out. Just for clarification... I wasn't calling Rooker a 6.5 out of 10. 6.5 was random number for player X that the club has to make a decision on. 6.4 was for player Y that the club has to make a decision on. I used the random numbers to express the enormous pile of players in the middle that front offices have to sort through and make decisions on. Most players reside in this big pile in the middle.  

I agree with what you are saying. I believe that they missed on Rooker big time... It can't be argued that they missed on Rooker. It's not my job to assess talent. It is their job to assess talent and in the end... they missed on Rooker... and it was a big miss. Just like they missed on Nick Anderson big time. 

I believe all teams miss. Sometimes a Rooker comes out and shows the world the miss. Most time those misses remain hidden to the world because the player just fades away which almost happened to Rooker. 

No matter... I believe all teams miss. I believe that they would miss less if they realized that they are going to miss and instead of forcing it... maybe provide more opportunity for players to prove them wrong. Some players get chance after chance... Some players get none and the difference between them is slight in that big pile in the middle. 

Oh, I know, and I get it. The overall sentiment on this site has been pretty critical and dismissive of Rooker since 2021. Much more negative than I even felt from from what I considered bizarre detractors of Wallner. I think it's fair to say there were a lot of commenters and writers who didn't even view Rooker as a 6.5 out of 10, more like a 4 out of 10, but I was using your comment as a surrogate for general sentiment.

All teams do miss, but to miss that badly with that many signs should be a serious mark. I used an example of Nomar Mazara when evaluating Alex Kirilloff recently. The Rangers and White Sox gave Mazara opportunity after opportunity, the same with the Twins and Kirilloff. You have to do it when you have guys which rank up quick, destroy upper minors pitching and have significant flashes of plus value at the MLB level. The Twins literally gave a29-a31 Kyle Garlick more opportunity (299 PA) than a25-a26 Rooker (234 PA).

[Riverbrian]

21 hours ago, bean5302 said:

The Twins literally gave a29-a31 Kyle Garlick more opportunity (299 PA) than a25-a26 Rooker (234 PA).

Garlick... A specialist taking roster space... clogging the pipes... gumming up the works. The rabbit hole of taking a spot and making it harder to find someone who doesn't need to specialize.

Since you don't find someone who doesn't need to specialize because you chose someone who specialized. You have to find another specialist who again makes it harder to find someone who doesn't need to specialize and on and on it goes.

For those who don't understand why Margot, Farmer and Garlick matter. This is why they matter. They insure that you will keep needing Margot, Farmer's and Garlicks and keep making it harder to find Rooker's.  

The Rooker miss is synergistic... it isn't just missing on Rooker. The miss is multiplied when you consider who they chose to keep instead. Who they chose to keep was also a miss. Garlick, Celestino... The Turtle... Gordon. 

It's interesting that Astudillo also got more opportunity than Rooker got. Some people think what's the big deal? 

It's a very big deal... they didn't have space for Rooker because THEY predetermined what Rooker was going to be. They predetermined that Astuadillo, Garlick and Celestino would get the phone calls telling them they are going to the show. 

They not only missed on a superstar in the making but missed by almost equal distance to the real bad side on who they kept.

Add the scale of not believing in Rooker to the scale of believing in Celestino and you have a miss that ended up being the Size of New Hampshire to Arizona out of a couple of players 6.5 vs 6.4 in that big pile of players in the middle. 

Oops. 

 

 

[bigdave]

Severino looked completely clueless in most of his at-bats at St. Paul. Swinging at pitches outside the zone, etc. I feel bad for Winder. He seems like a decent pitcher, if he could ever stay healthy.

[Schmoeman5]

On 11/17/2024 at 12:23 PM, bean5302 said:

Oh, I know, and I get it. The overall sentiment on this site has been pretty critical and dismissive of Rooker since 2021. Much more negative than I even felt from from what I considered bizarre detractors of Wallner. I think it's fair to say there were a lot of commenters and writers who didn't even view Rooker as a 6.5 out of 10, more like a 4 out of 10, but I was using your comment as a surrogate for general sentiment.

All teams do miss, but to miss that badly with that many signs should be a serious mark. 

The Rooker who has played great in Oakland is not the same Brent Rooker who played in Minnesota. He has revamped his whole hitting approach. I always liked Rooker. If he hadn't changed his game he might be on his way out of baseball. But he did and it's results have been off the charts. I'll bet his projection numbers going into 2023 weren't even close to his actual numbers. Id agree 100% that anyone who saw Garlick or Celestino as better options went out and got corrective lenses. But Rookers improvement was done on his own. The metrics don't or can't forecast this type of improvement. So it's hindsight.  That's it. That and the Twins MO of right vs lefties platoon. With that philosophy he wouldn't have gotten the chance to be an everyday player. 

[twinstalker]

Seriously?  Winder got hurt and Severino was never a prospect past his age 17 year.

[Riverbrian]

On 11/18/2024 at 2:26 PM, Schmoeman5 said:

The Rooker who has played great in Oakland is not the same Brent Rooker who played in Minnesota. He has revamped his whole hitting approach. I always liked Rooker. If he hadn't changed his game he might be on his way out of baseball. But he did and it's results have been off the charts. I'll bet his projection numbers going into 2023 weren't even close to his actual numbers. Id agree 100% that anyone who saw Garlick or Celestino as better options went out and got corrective lenses. But Rookers improvement was done on his own. The metrics don't or can't forecast this type of improvement. So it's hindsight.  That's it. That and the Twins MO of right vs lefties platoon. With that philosophy he wouldn't have gotten the chance to be an everyday player. 

It's always hindsight. 😉

Don't players make adjustments as part of their development? Sometimes big revamps... Sometimes little tweaks and everything in between... video aided, data aided, coaches on staff suggesting this, suggesting that with the goal of getting the most out of every player. There is a clock on every player before hard decisions are made on who stays and who goes. 

If what Brent Rooker is doing for Oakland was somewhere inside him while he was walking around Fort Myers... it's in the best interest of the organization to get that Oakland version of Rooker out of him. They didn't get it out of him, they didn't see it and they let him go. They couldn't pull Brent out of that pile of players in the middle. 

I don't doubt you when you say that Rooker made adjustments that turned him into a different player.

With his adjustments shining and on display in 2023... It still took an injury to Seth Brown before Rooker was given that fateful chance by the A's that he ran with. 

Seth Brown and Ramon Laureano were the guys on the corners that the A's believed in over others. The A's could barely pick Rooker out of that pile in the middle. Without Brown's injury... Rooker probably wouldn't have gotten enough opportunity to show he was a new Rooker. 

It's always hindsight. However... there is a foresight process before the hindsight. The Twins, Padres, Royals and I'll add the A's. Had trouble seeing it. 

There's the getting the most out of a player part and almost just as important... there is the getting Garlick, Celestino, Margot out of the way part.

Not just the Twins... but all organizations often choose Garlick for some reason. 

[stringer bell]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

There's the getting the most out of a player part and almost just as important... there is the getting Garlick, Celestino, Margot out of the way part.

Not just the Twins... but all organizations often choose Garlick for some reason. 

I think front offices are caught up in the "high floor" stuff. Taking players like Margot and Farmer as examples of this in that they know "he can't be really bad" because the player is an experienced veteran. Then comes the first half of the 2024 for both of these players--near total disaster. Both rallied enough that they weren't DFA'd but either season could have been replaced by a minimum salary rookie with some potential to be better.

[Riverbrian]

7 hours ago, stringer bell said:

I think front offices are caught up in the "high floor" stuff. Taking players like Margot and Farmer as examples of this in that they know "he can't be really bad" because the player is an experienced veteran. Then comes the first half of the 2024 for both of these players--near total disaster. Both rallied enough that they weren't DFA'd but either season could have been replaced by a minimum salary rookie with some potential to be better.

Amongst us on Twinsdaily. There is a tendency to believe that a late blooming Rooker is a rare occurrence. There is no question that It is a rare occurrence and I won't argue that.

However... I believe that it is quite possible that this type of occurrence is made even more rare because players like Rooker who made the adjustments at age 28 are not given the chance to show the fruits of their labor while teams fill up roster space with Margot and Farmer who perform below average and are allowed to struggle without consequence. 

I can't give you specific names because the players who are not given a chance just disappear into the wind.

Will some unnamed player on the Rockies lose an opportunity because of Farmer next season? I don't know but if Farmer has another season like last year... The answer is yes. In the end the Rockies will waste an entire of potentially getting better letting Farmer be Farmer. They will spend 3.25 million dollars in order to not give someone else a chance for the major league minimum. If Farmer has a good year... never mind... they found someone.  

With Rooker... for whatever reason... justified or not justified at the time.... Hindsight or foresight. It simply can't be argued that the Twins missed on him because Rooker is hitting better than any player on the Twins current roster and many other rosters for that matter.   

Meanwhile the string of specialists that have taken up roster space are nowhere to be found. Garlick (Left Handed Pitcher specialist and Celestino (Can play CF specialist) are looking for minor league deals. That's the complete opposite to Rooker who became one of the best hitters in the league.

There is a grand canyon in difference between can't find work and one of the best hitters in baseball. That's how large this miss was. The Twins chose the Donkey behind door #1 instead of the Washer/Dryer behind door #2 or the brand new car behind door #3. The worst part is that they chose the donkey because they needed something they could occasional hook a plow to and they had a hat with earholes that only a donkey could wear. 

I have no idea what Yunior is or can be. I won't pretend to know. I do know that he we could have given him a roster spot on multiple occasions due to injury and we didn't. Correct Call? I don't know but I believe that Farmer and Margot were not correct calls... year long not correct calls.   

The Twins at best tread water with specialists... at worst... they don't tread water and they place development and discovery into the back seat. Development is the only way the Twins will get better. Finding a Kerry Carpenter type because Margot isn't in the way... is one less thing to do next off-season.    

I don't blame the Twins for missing Rooker with the information they had at the time. I blame the Twins for not developing Rooker and I blame the Twins for who they chose and gave chance after chance to instead.  

[DJL44]

24 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I don't blame the Twins for missing Rooker with the information they had at the time. I blame the Twins for not developing Rooker and I blame the Twins for who they chose and gave chance after chance to instead.  

That's fine, as long as you give them credit for turning Willi Castro into an All-Star.

[Riverbrian]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That's fine, as long as you give them credit for turning Willi Castro into an All-Star.

I do

It happened with opportunity.