ESPN's MLB Future Power Rankings

[old nurse]

The legend for the Mobility catagory is "do they have a lot of young, cheap players, or old immovable guys"

 

Those guys are not young, they are old. Even if you want to interpret the word "movable" as tradeable, Correia, Doumit and Willingham are likely not very tradeable, and Mauer would only be tradeable to to about four teams.

 

But regardless, on a scale of "Young and Cheap" to "Old and Immovable" everyone of those guys is on the "Old and Immovable" side of the fulcrum. I don't see how there is any debate, despite the rebuild, the Twins are not a young team.

 

Perkins and Burton are very moveable parts. To an extent due to inexpensive contracts next year so are Doumit and Willingham. Mauer is immovable by contract. Even with that, only 2 players on a 40 man roster is not a hindrance to moving players. Every thing else on the roster is young and cheap. Might not be great player, but cheap in terms of contracts.

[nicksaviking]

Perkins and Burton are very moveable parts. To an extent due to inexpensive contracts next year so are Doumit and Willingham. Mauer is immovable by contract. Even with that, only 2 players on a 40 man roster is not a hindrance to moving players. Every thing else on the roster is young and cheap. Might not be great player, but cheap in terms of contracts.

 

Even if we disagree on Doumit and Willingham, the criteria for Mobility wasn't "tradeability" it was young and cheap vs old and immovable. The Twins don't have many players on the 25-man roster that are under 26. Many of the guys we think of as "young" are journeymen minor leaguers that are simply fresh to the league. Only Arcia and Ryan Presley are young players who are on the 25-man and have regularly contributed this year.

[Major League Ready]

I think that's true to an extent, but there's a distinct difference between "How much money do they have to spend?" and "How much money do they spend?"

 

I'd like to believe TF was intended to get us better off than the 20th highest payroll ad infinitum.

 

I don't have access to the article but the summary above does not mention "how much money do they spend". It looks to me like a pure revenue ranking. If that's the case the Twins are middle of the pack in revenue so the ranking of 10 or mid-point on the scale would seem to make sense. Is there additional information that suggests this ranking is based on something more than revenue?

[TheLeviathan]

The cheap guys are all moveable for the price paid for them. Not a block on mobility. They can sign/acquire whatever they want and just dfa what hey don't want without a loss.

 

Please list who is young and cheap that anyone would even bother with the phone call. I count Perk, Burton, Duensing, Dozier. Most everyone else is old or just plain not good enough for anyone to move for.

[Mr. Brooks]

Not that I necessarily disagree with the ranking, but the one rule I have with ESPN's mlb coverage is this: Completely ignore anything Jim Bowden has to say.

 

Because MLB Executives of the Year who have rebuilt 2 different franchises don't know much about baseball?

[old nurse]

Even if we disagree on Doumit and Willingham, the criteria for Mobility wasn't "tradeability" it was young and cheap vs old and immovable. The Twins don't have many players on the 25-man roster that are under 26. Many of the guys we think of as "young" are journeymen minor leaguers that are simply fresh to the league. Only Arcia and Ryan Presley are young players who are on the 25-man and have regularly contributed this year.

 

Isn't expendable moveable? If you consider age of a rookie according to a Times article I read a while ago is 24. The Twins would have very few rookies at that age as they have had very few exception young players so their ages would be a little older.

[old nurse]

Please list who is young and cheap that anyone would even bother with the phone call. I count Perk, Burton, Duensing, Dozier. Most everyone else is old or just plain not good enough for anyone to move for.

Isn't DFA moving them? There isn't a contract to pay. There isn't an obligation.

[Mr. Brooks]

Isn't DFA moving them? There isn't a contract to pay. There isn't an obligation.

 

Are you trying to make the argument that having a bunch of DFA candidates is a GOOD thing? That the Twins should receive a BETTER score because of this?

I really think you are missing the point of the 'mobility' score.

The type of players that score you points in the 'mobility' category are guys like Span and Revere. They were quality, young, cost controlled players who give you flexibility because you can either get quality innings from them at a cheap price, or you can trade them for significant pieces, and if they struggle they presumably have options remaining which gives you even more flexibility.

The current Twins roster doesn't have many of those type of players. I would say Dozier and Perkins are probably the only ones that fit that category.

[Beezer07]

Because MLB Executives of the Year who have rebuilt 2 different franchises don't know much about baseball?

 

No. Because everything he writes for ESPN is complete garbage. Ever read one of his "here are some trades that need to happen" articles?

[Mr. Brooks]

No. Because everything he writes for ESPN is complete garbage. Ever read one of his "here are some trades that need to happen" articles?

 

Maybe he's trolling you?

I don't read a lot of his stuff, because I refuse to pay for Insider. But I do know for a fact that he knows baseball.

[TheLeviathan]

Isn't DFA moving them? There isn't a contract to pay. There isn't an obligation.

 

That's not the spirit of the list. What possible sense would it make to judge the roster based on how easy it is to DFA them? Is that even a distinction at all?

[jay]

The good news is they're unanimous in placing the minors talent as MLB-leading with a 30 score. We can quibble about the score for majors talent, but it's close. Here are the scores I would give:

 

Majors - 5

I'd call the Astros, Cubs, and White Sox worse with a toss-up between the Padres, Phillies, Brewers, Mariners, and Twins for the next few slots. Strengths in the bullpen, Joe Mauer, and a few young players keep the Twins off the bottom.

 

Minors - 30

The dynamic duo of Buxton and Sano are complemented by a deep system.

 

Finances - 18

With the revenues from Target Field, the Twins should be at least capable of commonly maintaining a payroll in the mid to upper half of MLB.

 

Management - 12

Terry Ryan and crew are well respected within the industry for their scouting prowess. The need remains to adapt to the advances in the industry and accept more risk at times. Gardy is respected as a veteran coach, but similarly needs to advance his management style. The ownership, front office, and management have been incredibily stable with plenty of tenure across the organization.

 

Mobility - 18

Outside of Joe Mauer's contract (who is still in his prime and isn't going anywhere), the Twins have no large, not to mention immovable, contracts. Issues reside around how many players would be desireable to other teams, but the Twins are in a flexible position.

 

Adapted to the scale of 100 used by ESPN, this would result in a score of 55.5 which would have been good for 10th.

((5+30)+(18+12)*(2/3)+(18)*(1/3))*(100/110)

 

Anyone else? Thoughts?

[TheLeviathan]

18 is far too high for mobility. Cheap garbage isn't movable.

 

i think ESPN was pretty much spot on from what I can see.

[snepp]

Count me in the group that interprets "mobility" as meaning they have movable "assets."

 

40-man dreck with no value aren't much of an asset, making their mobility moot.

[amjgt]

Count me in the group that interprets "mobility" as meaning they have movable "assets."

 

40-man dreck with no value aren't much of an asset, making their mobility moot.

I'm in the camp that considers mobility more as "flexibility" than what you are considering it.

 

They don't get into enough detail on the list to know which camp is "right"

[old nurse]

There are no players with contracts hindering them from adding an infielder, right fielder or pitcher. In that sense there are no old immovable players. On the axis of old immovaable players versus young cheap players that can get you players, the Twins are not even on it. You have Mauer that you can't move, Correia, Doumit and Willingham not likely moveable at this time, Burton, Perkins, Arcia, Pinto, Florimon, and Dozier that you would get a return for. Plouffe, and the rest of the relievers you could get a low level prospect for. The problem is they aren't considered young except for Arcia and Pinto.

[ashbury]

That's not the spirit of the list. What possible sense would it make to judge the roster based on how easy it is to DFA them? Is that even a distinction at all?

 

The list ESPN constructed was to look at the coming 5 years' competitiveness. I'm not entirely clear on what they really mean by the mobility metric, but to tie it closely to the current talent level seems redundant because they already have a category for that. The interesting question to me is, suppose you want to make a move (promote a stud prospect, sign a good free agent) in year 3 or year 5 say, are you hamstrung by other contracts? But, that's partly why I'm not clear on what they mean, because the Twins have a lot of flexibility, yet their mobility rating is on the low side. Mauer's the only constraint beyond year 2.

[Mike Sixel]

I just like you typed "moot", and not "mute".....

[snepp]

I just like you typed "moot", and not "mute".....

 

I briefly considered trolling for grammar nazis, but decided against it.

 

 

I'll save my muting for DickBert.

[Beezer07]

Maybe he's trolling you?

I don't read a lot of his stuff, because I refuse to pay for Insider. But I do know for a fact that he knows baseball.

 

So you haven't read the material to which I refer, but you don't hesitate in telling me I'm wrong? Good to know.

[Mr. Brooks]

So you haven't read the material to which I refer, but you don't hesitate in telling me I'm wrong? Good to know.

 

I did not tell you that you were wrong. I simply asked a question.

[TheLeviathan]

The list ESPN constructed was to look at the coming 5 years' competitiveness. I'm not entirely clear on what they really mean by the mobility metric, but to tie it closely to the current talent level seems redundant because they already have a category for that. The interesting question to me is, suppose you want to make a move (promote a stud prospect, sign a good free agent) in year 3 or year 5 say, are you hamstrung by other contracts? But, that's partly why I'm not clear on what they mean, because the Twins have a lot of flexibility, yet their mobility rating is on the low side. Mauer's the only constraint beyond year 2.

 

I interpret it as movable assets. What is it in your rankings you see to lead to your conclusion?

 

Can someone post the mobility ranks?

[ashbury]

I interpret it as movable assets. What is it in your rankings you see to lead to your conclusion?

 

I didn't read behind the paywall so I'm only going by what I see in this thread. With a '5' for MLB talent level and a '30' for prospect talent level, I don't get the need for the other category being movable assets, since the assets themselves have already been rated. If Byron Buxton and Miguel Sano were available for trade, that alone would seem like enough to move the Mobility needle above '13', if that's what Mobility is measuring. But clearly these players aren't, so how does a MLB talent level of '5' become a '13' for Mobility if it's the assets that are being rated for the latter? "We have terrible quality, but it's available in large quantity"?

[TheLeviathan]

I didn't read behind the paywall so I'm only going by what I see in this thread. With a '5' for MLB talent level and a '30' for prospect talent level, I don't get the need for the other category being movable assets, since the assets themselves have already been rated.

 

I think an example would help. I would say the Philadelphia Phillies are a clearly more talented team than the Twins. But they also have a large number of aging, immovable contracts. I, personally, would rate them a decent bit higher in "mlb talent" (their rotation alone warrants this) but probably equal or even below the Twins in "mobility".

 

Does that make sense?

[iastfan112]

Mobility is just ease of getting rid of the player in my opinion. Cheap garbage is easy to move, you just DFA it and say oh well. MLB talent already judges whether the players are garbage are not the mobility part factors in how easy it is to move the player.

 

As far the the list jay did I think he rates the Twins finance side too high, while having the theoretical capability to spend, too often the Twins have cheaped out over the past decade.

[Pius Jefferson]

Why are the Yankees 11th?

 

Majors-Really they've overachieved offensively this season.

 

Minors-Rated among the worst farm systems in baseball.

 

Finance-Very unusual for the Yankees but this probably their biggest concern. They want to be under the luxury tax but they have to figure out what to do with Robinson Cano.

 

Management- I think Giradi is a good manager. You know the owners who be willing to spend, but even they have a limit. Never gotten the love for Brian Cashman.

 

Mobility-They've got to be near the bottom in this category.

[jay]

The mobility scores and the category itself don't make sense to me. Teams like the Dodgers, Tigers, and Yankees (all saddled with huge contracts) all have scores above 20. In my mind, it should be 'flexibility' like ashburyjohn spoke to above. Thankfully, it's only 1/11th of the total score.

 

At the end of the day, I think the exercise highlights how far we have to go in a number of areas that can be influenced.

[Siehbiscuit]

This ENTIRE piece is about the future of these organizations.

 

Mobility - Having assets to move to improve your club in the future.

 

The Mobility portion is having assets to move that can make your team better. DFA'ing the AAAA talent that the Twins have and not having anything better is moving players, but not in this context. Does simply DFA'ing a guy like Deduno (a below average MLB starter) help this organization get better? The Twins only have a few moves they could make to improve the long-term health of this team. We could DFA - Deduno, Diamond, Pelfrey, Correia, Florimon, Plouffe, etc, etc and be "mobile," but doing that doesn't make the team better. Mobility means, in this case, having he assets availabe to move that will garner a favorable return.

 

Willingham isn't immovable, but with his performance this year, a trade involving him won't fetch much that would improve our team (see Morneau trade or Liriano trade). Compare that to the James Shields trade a year ago. He was a reasonably priced, good to very good starting pitcher that had very good trade value.

 

The Twins don't have many good (non-prospect) assets to trade.

 

Dodgers, Tigers, and Yankees all have players that teams would jump all over on the trade market. Hanley Ramirez would get a king's randsom. As would Puig, Kershaw and Kemp. Even guys like Ethier and Crawford would still fetch a decent return.

 

The Tigers could move Cabrera for some teams entire top 10 list. Fielder would fetch a great return, as would Verlander, Scherzer and Sanchez.

 

The Yankees have fewer assets, but they still have a few. Sabathia could be moved for some prospects, Granderson as well could be moved for quality players. The Yankees are strapped with some very bad contracts, Jeter, ARod and Mark Tex, but overall they still have top level talent that could still be moved to acquire young talented players.

 

The Twins best players (outside of Mauer and Perkins) are not attractive to other teams.

[snepp]

Minor quibble, I don't think Fielder fetches anything, not with that abomination of a contract.

[jay]

This ENTIRE piece is about the future of these organizations.

 

Mobility - Having assets to move to improve your club in the future.

 

I was buying in until you tried telling us about HanRam, Ethier, Crawford, Fielder, Sabathia, etc. Mauer and Perkins would fetch as much as Sabathia and Granderson and the Yanks are strapped beyond that.

 

If it's about assets to improve the future of your club, wouldn't the top ranked minor league system provide plenty of assets whereby to do that?