Revisiting Brent Rooker’s Twins Departure: A Tale of Opportunity and Development

[chpettit19]

Twins misjudged what Rooker could be. No arguing against that. It happens, though. To every team. Anyone know how the Astros got Yordan Alvarez? The Dodgers traded him to them. For Josh Fields. Now Fields was very good in 2.5 years for the Dodgers. But do you think they'd rather have 117.1 innings of Fields out of their pen or a 166 OPS+ in 2668 (and counting) PAs from Alvarez? Every team misses. And they all miss big at some point.

The Brent Rooker situation always brings me back to the 1 year (or even 1/2 year) mediocre vet deals. @Riverbrian has already been crushing it on here explaining why they drive me so crazy. And why I'm all over these boards this offseason pushing Emmanuel Rodriguez being the opening day left fielder (Larnach at DH) over bringing in a Margot 2.0 in 2025. Stop blocking higher ceiling, top picks who are destroying the minor leagues with 1-year vets who's ceiling is league average! Please.

What I will say, though, is that we don't know what the Padres were willing to take back. Maybe the Twins offered Larnach or Kirilloff or Cave or whoever else and the Padres said no. I don't like saying a team "gave up" (or anything like that) on a player they traded. Now they definitely misjudged him because they wouldn't have done that deal if they knew what he'd become. But there's a very real chance they had him grouped with Larnach, Kirilloff, etc. and the Padres picked him. Now maybe that isn't the case and the Twins just saw him as being the oldest guy and not ready yet and the computer said guys his age who haven't made it never make it, but there's 2 sides to every trade. The other team doesn't just have to take whatever the Twins say they have to take. They get a say in who they want back.

[Riverbrian]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Twins misjudged what Rooker could be. No arguing against that. It happens, though. To every team. Anyone know how the Astros got Yordan Alvarez? The Dodgers traded him to them. For Josh Fields. Now Fields was very good in 2.5 years for the Dodgers. But do you think they'd rather have 117.1 innings of Fields out of their pen or a 166 OPS+ in 2668 (and counting) PAs from Alvarez? Every team misses. And they all miss big at some point.

The Brent Rooker situation always brings me back to the 1 year (or even 1/2 year) mediocre vet deals. @Riverbrian has already been crushing it on here explaining why they drive me so crazy. And why I'm all over these boards this offseason pushing Emmanuel Rodriguez being the opening day left fielder (Larnach at DH) over bringing in a Margot 2.0 in 2025. Stop blocking higher ceiling, top picks who are destroying the minor leagues with 1-year vets who's ceiling is league average! Please.

What I will say, though, is that we don't know what the Padres were willing to take back. Maybe the Twins offered Larnach or Kirilloff or Cave or whoever else and the Padres said no. I don't like saying a team "gave up" (or anything like that) on a player they traded. Now they definitely misjudged him because they wouldn't have done that deal if they knew what he'd become. But there's a very real chance they had him grouped with Larnach, Kirilloff, etc. and the Padres picked him. Now maybe that isn't the case and the Twins just saw him as being the oldest guy and not ready yet and the computer said guys his age who haven't made it never make it, but there's 2 sides to every trade. The other team doesn't just have to take whatever the Twins say they have to take. They get a say in who they want back.

As usual Mr. Chia Pet. You see it. 

Others who simply say... Oh well it happens don't see it. 

[dxpavelka]

8 hours ago, mickster said:

They did not lose in letting Rosario go - yes he had a 15 minutes of fame in the postseason - but other than that, not much

[dxpavelka]

Just now, dxpavelka said:

8 hours ago, mickster said:

They did not lose in letting Rosario go - yes he had a 15 minutes of fame in the postseason - but other than that, not much

They replaced him with Kiriloff and Larnach.  SHOULD have been a slam dunk. Wasn't.  Not only did they not have 15 minutes of post season fame they didn't even have 15 minutes of post-season.  Look at the post season numbers since he left:  Rosario:  24 hits, 11 runs, 11 RBI.  Kiriloff & Larnach combined post season hits, runs & RBI:  ZERO.  But who really cares about post-season?

[old nurse]

On 12/1/2024 at 1:54 AM, Danchat said:

Lamont Wade is actually worth of an article because he did instantly become a useful player for the Giants while the Twins got a AAAA reliever for him. That was a legitimate blunder.

Hendricks and Rooker less so are far enough removed from being a Twin that I find it less of a problem. The Padres and Royals are just as culpable for not cracking the case to fixing Rooker like the A's did.

Ian Hamilton was a case where some, including me, were advocating for his usage but despite the team badly needing MLB-level relievers, they only ever saw him as an expendable arm not worth an extended look in the majors. Never understood the thought process on that one.

The Yankees changed how Hamilton pitches.  The added a sinker so it is a 50/50 guess on a fo/fo guess FS or Slider 

[old nurse]

On 12/1/2024 at 12:27 AM, dxpavelka said:

Rosario post season since he left:  24 hits, 11 runs scored, 11 RBI, a ring and an NCLS MVP.  Kiriloff and Larnach combined on all of those things:  ZERO. 

Yup. He had a good post season record. Most of those came in one series, It happens that a player can have a 4 game hot streak, just like they can have a cold one. That is baseball. 

[h2oface]

On 11/30/2024 at 4:07 PM, Rod Carews Birthday said:

The reality is that nobody out there really saw this as a possibility until it happened - probably not even his Mom. 

I think that is just silly. The reality is that the FO abslolutely saw it as a possibiliity, and that is the very reason they drafted him out of Mississippi State with the 35th overall pick after he absolutely crushed his last college season, and most of the posters on TD also saw it as a possibility and praised the draft pick, as most do with any new high pick, gushing with optimism and hope. And Rooker certainly did. That is why he plays baseball.

The Twins misdiagnosed, and bet on the wrong guys in all their wisdom, and traded Rooker. It doesn't really matter what the fans think, ever, because they are never part of the decision. The FO missed another one (and so did SD and KC), and we are still looking and hoping.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

8 hours ago, h2oface said:

I think that is just silly. The reality is that the FO abslolutely saw it as a possibiliity, and that is the very reason they drafted him out of Mississippi State with the 35th overall pick after he absolutely crushed his last college season, and most of the posters on TD also saw it as a possibility and praised the draft pick, as most do with any new high pick, gushing with optimism and hope. And Rooker certainly did. That is why he plays baseball.

The Twins misdiagnosed, and bet on the wrong guys in all their wisdom, and traded Rooker. It doesn't really matter what the fans think, ever, because they are never part of the decision. The FO missed another one (and so did SD and KC), and we are still looking and hoping.

So you’re saying that everyone was as high on him at the time of the trade as they were when he was drafted?  Really?  Every player drafted in the early rounds of the draft is drafted because there is potential to become an excellent MLB player.  Over the time that the Twins had him under control, that optimism faded such that he was included in the trade.  It’s pretty simple.  I’m not saying he was a slug, just that he didn’t look as promising at that point as some other players.  Whether the Twins were right to do so is pretty easily determined in hindsight, but not as easily done in the moment when the shine has faded a bit.  

Also, yes, I’m sure that Rooker kept believing in himself.  Of course he did.  That’s just healthy on his part, but that doesn’t necessarily make him the creator of a reliable narrative about his potential.  

[Riverbrian]

56 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

So you’re saying that everyone was as high on him at the time of the trade as they were when he was drafted?  Really?  Every player drafted in the early rounds of the draft is drafted because there is potential to become an excellent MLB player.  Over the time that the Twins had him under control, that optimism faded such that he was included in the trade.  It’s pretty simple.  I’m not saying he was a slug, just that he didn’t look as promising at that point as some other players.  Whether the Twins were right to do so is pretty easily determined in hindsight, but not as easily done in the moment when the shine has faded a bit.  

Also, yes, I’m sure that Rooker kept believing in himself.  Of course he did.  That’s just healthy on his part, but that doesn’t necessarily make him the creator of a reliable narrative about his potential.  

With respect I ask.

When did he lose that shine? What caused him to lose that shine? He hit a home run every 14 AB's in the minors.

Did a .688 OPS in 189 Major League AB's cause the shine loss? 

Please don't take my questions the wrong way. I am curious. He's been labelled as AAAA and such by others.  

[Rod Carews Birthday]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

With respect I ask.

When did he lose that shine? What caused him to lose that shine? He hit a home run every 14 AB's in the minors.

Did a .688 OPS in 189 Major League AB's cause the shine loss? 

Please don't take my questions the wrong way. I am curious. He's been labelled as AAAA and such by others.  

For me, when the trade was made I regarded him as basically an equal version of Kirilloff/Larnach, with the caveat that Kirilloff and Larnach were top 100 prospects several times over, compared to one brief mention for Rooker.  None had established themselves well in the majors at that point.   One of those players apparently needed to be included in the trade and his inclusion seemed at least as reasonable at the time as if they had chosen one of the others.  Some here have suggested that every poor player the Twins have had should have been replaced by Brent Rooker, but the reality is that it was a small group (a glut if you will) of players that were really a part of this.  As Rooker scuffled for SD and KC the following year, I pretty much wrote him off and convinced myself that they had chosen well.  Obviously that was a mistake on my part as he has come on nicely.  There's probably a bit more to it than that that I have forgotten, but that's the short version. 

My guess is that the team was looking at the three of them and made a decision that someone was redundant, which in their eyes meant Rooker.  No, I don't think that the .688 OPS made it happen by itself, but I think they questioned whether he would be able to have sustained success in the majors given his large strikeout rate and questionable defensive home.  Yes, he could have/should have been the new DH, but after Cruz had tied up the position for a couple of years I think the Twins were desiring to go to a DH by committee approach, so they didn't see the need for him as a DH without a defensive home.  Did they miss?  In hindsight, absolutely.  However, the move wasn't at all ridiculous at the time.  My flippant comment about not even Rooker's mom thinking he would be this good was just that -- meant to be humorous, but in reality, I'm guessing even she and her son were a little (pleasantly) surprised. 

As I've said in other places, unfortunately players don't necessarily develop in a straight line and when they don't, evaluation gets pretty complicated.  Making it even messier is that sometimes new situations produce results that were unthinkable (both good and bad) as the old situation.  As a (retired) band director, I always found it amazing that the same words coming out of a different person's mouth suddenly became salient with a particular student.  Can't explain it, but it definitely happens.  As an aside, I had what I would have called a third rate trumpet player switch instruments halfway through high school, and now he has won international competitions on his new instrument.  Sure didn't see that coming. . .  Would Rooker have become the same slugger if he had been in MN?  Maybe, but it's hardly a sure thing.  Will he have a long star studded career?  I hope so for his sake, but that's also hardly a sure thing.  Sometimes it's just lightning in a bottle and you catch it, or in the Twins' case, you let it get away. 

Taking this well beyond Brent Rooker, there is a pretty good chance that the team is going to trade an infielder this off season.  There is potential to trade any of the Miranda/Julien/Castro/Lee/Lewis crowd.  None of those has done enough to make me confident that they will be stars (although you could argue that Castro is what he is -- which is pretty good), but knowing which one to trade and not get burned is pretty tough.  I'm definitely in the minority, but I have more faith in Julien than I do in Lee and I'm not convinced that Lewis will not become another Kirilloff.  My fear is that the Twins will choose the wrong guy to trade and their consequences are much greater than if I choose the wrong guy in the roster in my head!

[RpR]

Rooker has played 70 games in the outfield in the past two years.

IF, if the Twins had kept him he would be the new full time DH, which would mean a lot of other players would have been sitting on the bench, all the time (Buxton) the bench is not big enough.

[dxpavelka]

On 12/2/2024 at 9:14 PM, old nurse said:

Yup. He had a good post season record. Most of those came in one series, It happens that a player can have a 4 game hot streak, just like they can have a cold one. That is baseball. 

Yup. More production in those 4 games than the two # 1 draft picks that replaced him had in 4 YEARS. That's baseball.

[old nurse]

12 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Yup. More production in those 4 games than the two # 1 draft picks that replaced him had in 4 YEARS. That's baseball.

Rosario played in 8 different playoff series. 5 of them he stunk. One should not pretend he was extraordinary. Regular season he had an OPS of .748.  That is a couple points different than Keplers without the defense. More people here than not wanted to get rid of Kepler for a while. People can remember the great, but forget the bad when it suits them 

[dxpavelka]

19 hours ago, old nurse said:

Rosario played in 8 different playoff series. 5 of them he stunk. One should not pretend he was extraordinary. Regular season he had an OPS of .748.  That is a couple points different than Keplers without the defense. More people here than not wanted to get rid of Kepler for a while. People can remember the great, but forget the bad when it suits them 

Some of us don't like to make a move just to save money. 

[Riverbrian]

On 12/3/2024 at 11:35 AM, Rod Carews Birthday said:

For me, when the trade was made I regarded him as basically an equal version of Kirilloff/Larnach, with the caveat that Kirilloff and Larnach were top 100 prospects several times over, compared to one brief mention for Rooker.  None had established themselves well in the majors at that point.   One of those players apparently needed to be included in the trade and his inclusion seemed at least as reasonable at the time as if they had chosen one of the others.  Some here have suggested that every poor player the Twins have had should have been replaced by Brent Rooker, but the reality is that it was a small group (a glut if you will) of players that were really a part of this.  As Rooker scuffled for SD and KC the following year, I pretty much wrote him off and convinced myself that they had chosen well.  Obviously that was a mistake on my part as he has come on nicely.  There's probably a bit more to it than that that I have forgotten, but that's the short version. 

My guess is that the team was looking at the three of them and made a decision that someone was redundant, which in their eyes meant Rooker.  No, I don't think that the .688 OPS made it happen by itself, but I think they questioned whether he would be able to have sustained success in the majors given his large strikeout rate and questionable defensive home.  Yes, he could have/should have been the new DH, but after Cruz had tied up the position for a couple of years I think the Twins were desiring to go to a DH by committee approach, so they didn't see the need for him as a DH without a defensive home.  Did they miss?  In hindsight, absolutely.  However, the move wasn't at all ridiculous at the time.  My flippant comment about not even Rooker's mom thinking he would be this good was just that -- meant to be humorous, but in reality, I'm guessing even she and her son were a little (pleasantly) surprised. 

As I've said in other places, unfortunately players don't necessarily develop in a straight line and when they don't, evaluation gets pretty complicated.  Making it even messier is that sometimes new situations produce results that were unthinkable (both good and bad) as the old situation.  As a (retired) band director, I always found it amazing that the same words coming out of a different person's mouth suddenly became salient with a particular student.  Can't explain it, but it definitely happens.  As an aside, I had what I would have called a third rate trumpet player switch instruments halfway through high school, and now he has won international competitions on his new instrument.  Sure didn't see that coming. . .  Would Rooker have become the same slugger if he had been in MN?  Maybe, but it's hardly a sure thing.  Will he have a long star studded career?  I hope so for his sake, but that's also hardly a sure thing.  Sometimes it's just lightning in a bottle and you catch it, or in the Twins' case, you let it get away. 

Taking this well beyond Brent Rooker, there is a pretty good chance that the team is going to trade an infielder this off season.  There is potential to trade any of the Miranda/Julien/Castro/Lee/Lewis crowd.  None of those has done enough to make me confident that they will be stars (although you could argue that Castro is what he is -- which is pretty good), but knowing which one to trade and not get burned is pretty tough.  I'm definitely in the minority, but I have more faith in Julien than I do in Lee and I'm not convinced that Lewis will not become another Kirilloff.  My fear is that the Twins will choose the wrong guy to trade and their consequences are much greater than if I choose the wrong guy in the roster in my head!

I like what you say about development not being in a straight line. I agree one thousand percent. I hate the AAAA tag. I get what it means but like you said development isn't in a straight line. There is no reason that age 27 means spoiled. Coaches don't stop working with you at age 27, you can find that adjustment that unlocks something at any time. Development isn't linear... however,,, the CBA imposed timelines are linear in regards to how long you can develop someone before advancement is required... like 40 man placement, 3 options yada yada. 

My point that I'm trying so hard to make everyone see and I know that I'm failing with some.

It's not that we lost Rooker. IT'S WHO WE KEPT INSTEAD. Who we kept makes it X amount easier to lose someone like Rooker.

I get the attempts at justification being made by many... however the responses afterwards "Oh Well... It Happens". "Who could have seen this coming"... "we had a Log Jam"... don't see it. 

Letting a Rooker type talent get away for no value sucks especially for an organization that can't survive without development... especially for an organization that can't afford to sign a ROOKER type talent via free agency. It sucks but it happens to all teams... maybe not Rooker large but assessment mistakes happen to all teams.

However... it's not the main problem that is hurting our development. 

The development problem is the players that we kept instead. Getting absolutely no development out of multiple rosters spots. Players that are out of baseball today taking up roster spots yesterday. Rooker destroying baseballs in Oakland is the BILL COME DUE for Garlick, Astudillo and Celestino taking up roster space instead.

I don't care who among us could predict what Rooker was going to become. I'm telling everyone that the FRONT OFFICES can't predict it and if they can't predict it... why are they locking into below average? Garlick, Astudillo, Celestino... Specialists just prevent you from locating someone better. I've been saying this for years. 

Rosters spots are limited by the CBA. There is a large pile of players on a non linear development course crashing into linear timelines outlined in the CBA.

Yet Right Now... the Twins front office is combing through spreadsheets trying to find another Margot... to dip Wallner, Larnach and Julien into cement... dip them into cement to ensure that their will always require a Margot type and ensure that their value to a team or trade value to other teams will never exceed Joc Pederson. Only to rinse and repeat with Erod and Jenkins in the future.   

I can make a reservation at this same restaurant right now for three years in the future. Twinsdaily can repeat the "Oh Well It Happens" discussion in 2027 when someone else that we gave away is in an all star game in a different uniform. 

Rooker strikeout rates? Was that the issue? Maybe... who knows but I have an argument against that. That argument is just one year later... The Twins signed Joey Gallo. Who has done nothing but demonstrate a high propensity of striking out. Spent 10 million on him knowing he would strike out a high rate. Gallo kept his spot all year. Who'd we lose because we kept Gallo all year. I don't know but because Gallo kept his spot all year... the odds increase that we lost someone.  

 

 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

I do agree with you that signing veterans who have lost it (or who never had it) is a fools errand.  However, I don’t follow the straight line you draw from the Rooker trade to having Astudillo, Celestino, and Garlick.  Garlick, yes.  He was definitely signed to be the RH bat in the OF, but Celestino was more of an emergency situation with Buxton injured (Rooker wasn’t going to play CF) and Astudillo, well. . . . Who knows what that was about?  But I would maintain that Garlick was the only one whose Twins tenure was related to Rooker.  

Mostly I think it seems that the Twins have an aversion to trusting young players and giving them the reps to succeed at the major league level.  They are searching desperately for that linear development, and when it doesn’t quite happen they panic and go elsewhere.  At the moment I’m just hoping that they finally let Wallner play this year.  Not sure what will happen with Julien/Lee/Miranda though.  Oddly, Lewis seems to have escaped this situation.  While his debut was nothing short of spectacular, the wall he hit at the end of 2024 looms pretty large out of the gate this year.  Talent evaluation is mighty hard.  

[RpR]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

.I don't care who among us could predict what Rooker was going to become. I'm telling everyone that the FRONT OFFICES can't predict it and if they can't predict it... why are they locking into below average? Garlick, Astudillo, Celestino... Specialists just prevent you from locating someone better. I've been saying this for years.  ...

...Rooker strikeout rates? Was that the issue? Maybe... who knows but I have an argument against that. That argument is just one year later... The Twins signed Joey Gallo. Who has done nothing but demonstrate a high propensity of striking out. Spent 10 million on him knowing he would strike out a high rate. Gallo kept his spot all year. Who'd we lose because we kept Gallo all year. I don't know but because Gallo kept his spot all year... the odds increase that we lost someone.  

 

 

2021-222 Rooker was just plain lousy with a horried glove.

Gallo hit 21 home runs, he and Garlick both had an OPS over 700, while Gallo had a very good glove and Garlick was average in Left Field.

Every one here sees mostly what they wish but concerning Rooker, you are blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other.🤥