Is it realistic to expect us to be contenders in 2015 or 2016

[Mike Sixel]

I think it is actually possible, frankly. But, it hinges on adding real MLB players, not just on using their prospects.

 

1. Sano comes up and adds 2-4 wins over Plouffe, easy I think.

2. Arcia is up all year, and is Kubel like as a hitter, 2-3 wins over what they got this year.

3. Gibson is not as bad as this year, adding 1-2 wins (another easy 1 I think)

4. Sign one legit (or trade for one) SP, replacing Albers/Pelfrey/Diamond/....from this year, adding 2-4 wins.

5. Buxton is up in 2015, and is 3-6 wins better than Hicks was this year.

6. Meyer/May is/are up, and are 1-3 wins better than each guy they replace.

 

That's not that unrealistic, frankly. You can really jumpstart that by signing Ellsbury (worth 3-5 wins more than Hicks gave this year), putting Arcia at DH (1-4 wins better than Doumit), and waiting on Buxton and Hicks or someone else to play Cf/RF in 14/15. Had they signed Greinke or Sanchez this last offseaon, they would already be 3-6 wins ahead, and would have less to add (which is why you don't wait for FAs forever).

 

realistic? not sure. Possible? Absolutely.

[ashbury]

Your methodology seems ridiculously arbitrary.

 

I concur with the already-stated opinion that your post would have been just as clear without the including ridicule of another TD poster. I offer no opinion on bovine osculation.

[iastfan112]

I concur with the already-stated opinion that your post would have been just as clear without the including ridicule of another TD poster. I offer no opinion on bovine osculation.

 

I ridiculed an argument not a poster. Very fairly I feel as well, none of the winners of the central in the past 5 years have averaged 20 QS a month. Including things like assists that just measure defenders touching a ball on outs is also flawed, strikeouts decrease that number yet clearly doesn't make for a worse defensive team.

 

I expect if someone is going to list criteria that the Twins must accomplish to succeed that they have a solid, well reasoned argument behind it. I welcome TheGrin refuting my arguments with data supporting his. Perhaps the use of ridiculous was a bit of hyperbole on my part but I stand by my assessment that a number of the criteria presented seemed based on whim rather than a statistical or historical basis.

[Ultima Ratio]

This team will not be competitive until the rotation is fixed. That could be a long, long while. Pitching wins.

[Major League Ready]

I think it is actually possible, frankly. But, it hinges on adding real MLB players, not just on using their prospects.

 

1. Sano comes up and adds 2-4 wins over Plouffe, easy I think.

2. Arcia is up all year, and is Kubel like as a hitter, 2-3 wins over what they got this year.

3. Gibson is not as bad as this year, adding 1-2 wins (another easy 1 I think)

4. Sign one legit (or trade for one) SP, replacing Albers/Pelfrey/Diamond/....from this year, adding 2-4 wins.

5. Buxton is up in 2015, and is 3-6 wins better than Hicks was this year.

6. Meyer/May is/are up, and are 1-3 wins better than each guy they replace.

 

That's not that unrealistic, frankly. You can really jumpstart that by signing Ellsbury (worth 3-5 wins more than Hicks gave this year), putting Arcia at DH (1-4 wins better than Doumit), and waiting on Buxton and Hicks or someone else to play Cf/RF in 14/15. Had they signed Greinke or Sanchez this last offseaon, they would already be 3-6 wins ahead, and would have less to add (which is why you don't wait for FAs forever).

 

realistic? not sure. Possible? Absolutely.

 

It would be great to have Ellsbury but should the Twins think Ellsbury is a good investment if his asking price is so high that Boston does not want him back? Obviously, they know him better than any other team and their revenue is at least $100M more than the Twins. Plus, he is going to ask to be vastly overpaid in his declining years. That is not a good idea for this team. Now, if he would take a 3 or maybe 4 year deal, great. Of course, that is not going to happen. He is going to go to the team that is willing to take a big chance that he won't be substantially overpaid in the last couple years of this contract.

 

If we are going to take a chance, let's do it on international prospects like Abreu or Tanaka where the contract will be for prime years.

[ThePuck]

For those expecting our top prospects to all be important parts of a quick rebuild, please read the article linked at the beginning of the thread.

[Guest USAFChief]

I agree with UR...starting pitching is the key. And I'm not confident management has the will or ability to fix that.

 

So I'm going to have to say "no.". Its not realistic, although I think it could be if paragraph 1 changes.

[cmb0252]

For those expecting our top prospects to all be important parts of a quick rebuild, please read the article linked at the beginning of the thread.

 

I read it and it makes me more excited. 60% of position players ranked in the top 20 succeed and looking at the graph the higher you are ranked the more likely you will succeed (which mimics the results BA got when they did the same study). We have two position players in the top 5 including the #1 prospect in baseball. The poster goes on to say the most likely position to turn into stars are OF, 3B, and SS which bodes well with Sano/Buxton.

 

Anyone who follows prospects knows not all top 100 prospects will succeed, much less become stars, but the more you have the better. Especially if they are top 5 level talents. Also, what is always lost in these "debates" is how poor a lot of free agent signings are relative to cost. A few prospects bust or turn out to be just average players no big deal. Sign several bad contracts and you can be hampered for years.

 

Obviously the best course of action is to draft well and add good players via FA, which if it was easy, ever team would do it. With more teams signing their young players to long extentions the FA market has become not only weak but significantly over payed.

[nicksaviking]

The worst part about even thinking about all of this, is how the Twins so horribly miscalculated the level of "rebuild" they would need to undergo, and because of this, are about 2 seasons behind in putting it in motion.

 

Agreed. A team can get lucky and compete, ethier due to positive factors in support of the team, or negative factors in opposition of the opposition.

 

Still, this team is not on the right track. I'm sure they will find positions for Sano, Buxton and Meyer once ready, but what about the supporting pieces? They have yet to identify anyone aside from Dozier who has looked at all encouraging. They still have a roster full of 28-year-olds, most of whom look to be positioning themselves for a roster spot next year. The rebuild isn't happening now, and are we really going to be considering 2014 a rebuild season if Willingham, Thomas, Presley, Plouffe, Colabello, Doumit, Mastroianni, Rameriz, Bernier, Correia and/or Deduno are going to be considered for the 25-man roster?

[S.]

Here we have Albers, Diamond, Gibson, Deduno (all potentially good number 3 starters).

I guess this statement depends on if you're saying "potentially good number 3 starters" by Twins' standards or for the Majors in general. Personally, I dont think Albers is a major league starter at all. If we're lucky, Diamond is a mediocre #5, but I think realistically he's yet another AAAA guy. Deduno is a question mark at best, but even his "good" season this year hasn't shown much that would lead me to believe he could be a good number 3 starter in the major league sense. Gibson is the only one there that I think has the potential, but he has a lot to prove at the major league level before I can really feel too good about him either.

[Willihammer]

A few prospects bust or turn out to be just average players no big deal. Sign several bad contracts and you can be hampered for years.

 

Prospect busts hurt just as badly as FA busts. And, like with the draft, the higher you draft (the more money you spend) lesser are your odds of a given guy busting.

[Steve Lein]

It's all about pitching in my opinion.

 

This is a historically bad starting rotation, and has been for 3 straight years now. What have they done to improve it? Nothing. The players they've signed were no better talent-wise than what they already had, so all they've done is moved laterally.

 

If they want any chance at turning this around in the next few seasons, they need to get a guy who can be a #1 in their rotation and it has to be from Free Agency or a trade (e.g.: from outside the organization). Alex Meyer has a lot of promise, but a great way to kill a rebuild is to put all of the responsibility to turn around the rotation on a prospect's shoulders when he gets here and overwhelm him. I'd much rather he be brought up with the expectation they don't need him to be "the guy" right away, or something similar to what the Cardinals have been able to do with Shelby Miller. I kind of think this expectation in a way was put on Gibson this year, and could have contributed to some of his struggles.

 

I just hope the potential the Twins sell to any free-agent SP's they might try to go after with Buxton/Sano/etc... coming soon, is enough to bring them here. If it's not, they're going to have to lose one of them or a few other Top-10 type prospects to make a turnaround happen by 2015/16. They simply don't have enough ready in-house talent on the pitching side.

[old nurse]

What the study could have proved is outside of being in the top 20 rankings are meaningless in terms of assessing talent. There are players like Nick Blackburn who have a good year in the high minors and make it in at the bottom of the list. Ranking are also based on perceived potential, not actual output. Toolsy outfielders can get ranked without ever being great at any level. Prospect ranking as a metric is sort of wins for a pitcher. It might mean something but not necessarily a good measure of talent

[Mr. Brooks]

I think we need to have our 1999, and 2000 before we can have our 2001.

1999 being the year the prospects actually get up here, 2000 being the year they gel and learn how to stay competitive all year, and 2001 being the year they finally put it together.

Wake me up when Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Meyer and May get up here. Until then, we are still at least 3 years out.

[Oxtung]

I think we need to have our 1999, and 2000 before we can have our 2001.

1999 being the year the prospects actually get up here, 2000 being the year they gel and learn how to stay competitive all year, and 2001 being the year they finally put it together.

Wake me up when Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Meyer and May get up here. Until then, we are still at least 3 years out.

 

That is certainly a possibility. On the other hand many teams go from losing many games to winning a bunch in 1 season ('91 Twins and the Rays turnaround come to mind). I haven't looked at what causes the difference but if anyone is interested in a research project that would be interesting!

[Mike Sixel]

91 Twins signed an Ace pitcher to one of the largest contracts in the majors (while in the horrible dome revenue situation) even though they were one of the worst teams in the majors the year before. Not sure why you'd ever sign a FA unless you were only 1 player away, but they did it anyway.