I think thes numbers are realistic, and they should make a trade....

[TheLeviathan]

I'd say that Kansas City, without some of their young guys making real progress in 2014, actually took a step backward. It's going to be hard to replace Santana's 2013 campaign.

 

Given the talent profiles and almost universal down performances, I think real progress is a strong possibility. They had almost every single thing wrong that could go wrong with their offense go wrong.

[Mike Sixel]

I think KC's offense will be better. The SP, not so sure. Cleveland is going to lose pitching. Detroit is still one of the 2-5 best teams in MLB. The WS appear destined to be bad, imo.

 

Either way, I think the Twins should continue to try to get better, for 2014, 2015, and beyond. The Cards have shown you can do both.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

Given the talent profiles and almost universal down performances, I think real progress is a strong possibility. They had almost every single thing wrong that could go wrong with their offense go wrong.

 

It could definitely wash out. Their offense didn't progress meaningfully but still has upside.

 

On the other hand, their rotation is almost certainly worse without Santana.

[TheLeviathan]

It could definitely wash out. Their offense didn't progress meaningfully but still has upside.

 

On the other hand, their rotation is almost certainly worse without Santana.

 

Right now yes, but lots of chatter that they are shopping around. There offense could be considerably better.

 

Just imagine if, in 2-3 years, we had Arcia, Sano, Hicks, and Rosario all well below expectations. We'd still very much believe in lofty projections. I think KC has to believe that and has some valid reasons for doing so. Basically, if they don't bet on that turnaround, they'd be better off blowing the whole thing back up again sadly.

[jokin]

Well, if you look at the numbers....it does possibly work. You get Mauer for 40 more games, and you get a healthy Willingham, and you get not negative WAR from LF and CF, and Arcia is 2 games better.....that's 8 wins right there. You get two legit pitchers instead of 60+ starts from AAAA filler, that's 8 wins right there. Now all you need is some luck with Dozier and Pinto, and Sano up and average for a 3B.

 

Brock, Mauer is 30.....you may as well trade him if you aren't going to try to win this year or next. I don't get why people don't want them to try to win.

 

And, I didn't say it would happen, I said it could happen.

 

The arguments against boil down to:

 

It won't happen (this isn't an argument at all)

It can't happen (it happened last year)

Why try to make it happen

We will know more about the future after this year (after Willingham (gone?) and Mauer are a year older, and next year's FA market looks like the worst ever)

 

It's funny, if I write a negative comment, I get all kinds of logical reasons why I am wrong. If I write a positive one, all I get are statements, and very few if any actual logical arguments.

 

I do agree, it is optimistic, but I disagree that it can't happen.

 

I hope the owners of this site do something about the constant drumbeat of "negativity" on this forum....... /takes tongue firmly back out of cheek.....

[Han Joelo]

Thanks for the optimistic post. I am a glass half full guy myself. Unfortunately, if I'd listed ten things than need to happen for the Twins to be competitive last year, I have to admit that only 2-3 happened: Dozier, the bullpen, and I guess KC pitching to his contract. The rest was injuries, regression, or lack of progression.

 

For your theory to work, the Twins would have to "regress to the mean," and have 6-7 of 10 things break in their favor. While I think a veteran ace is necessary to win the WS, the time might not be quite ripe. Here's my Kool-Aid Rose Tinted Hopes for this season:

 

Willingham and Doumit play well enough to net some decent prospects. I have a funny feeling Doumit is heading down the Lamb route, though--DFA'd in spring training, paid to sit on the couch.

 

Sano and Buxton make solid/splashy debuts at some point, and point the franchise in a new direction.

 

Hicks rebounds, and redundantly becomes an extremely valuable trade chip. Ditto to lesser extent for Plouffe and Parmalee. And Gibson.

 

Next off-season use Hicks as a centerpiece for a trade such as the one you've proposed.

[TKGuy]

I will tell you this. The signings this offseason have certainly raised the excitement level above ambivalent. I think we are going to be a much more competent team than the last two years. I would sure love to get the kids a half a season of playing time in the majors. Hell, we could still get second in the division and be 20 games back.

[Otwins]

Thanks for the article Mike. I am glad someone thinks we can win. I hope your right.

[twinsfan34]

I'd say that Kansas City, without some of their young guys making real progress in 2014, actually took a step backward. It's going to be hard to replace Santana's 2013 campaign.

 

Danny Duffy will win more games than Ervin Santana in 2013. Mark it down.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/duffyda01.shtml

[Brock Beauchamp]

Danny Duffy will win more games than Ervin Santana in 2013. Mark it down.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/duffyda01.shtml

 

I couldn't care less about wins.

[Guest USAFChief]

Danny Duffy will win more games than Ervin Santana in 2013.

Mark it down.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/duffyda01.shtml

 

That would have been a much bolder prediction had you made it last offseason.

 

it would still have been way wrong, mind you.

[Major League Ready]

It's funny, if I write a negative comment, I get all kinds of logical reasons why I am wrong. If I write a positive one, all I get are statements, and very few if any actual logical arguments.

 

I do agree, it is optimistic, but I disagree that it can't happen.

 

At some point it becomes a meaningless exercise to supply a logical argument. This thread was not based on a reasonable assumptions or a reasonable assessment. Exactly 7 days prior to posting this thread, you posted a thread with the exact opposite assessment. The difference being one was intended to support the signing of Ellsbury. The other support for trading for Hamels or Lee. So, don’t be surprised if some of us quit supply a logical argument. What is the point.

 

The conclusion or recommendation in both cases was not a product of analysis. The analysis was a product of the conclusion. Many have argued her that these types of moves do not make sense for a rebuilding team. So, you have switched tactics to supporting this acquisition and in doing so have pushed the assumptions and therefore the conclusion to the ridiculous. Positioning Boston’s turnaround as evidence the Twins could do the same was just additional irrational logic. The two teams are in absolutely completely different positions. There is no doubt you know this but resort to using the argument anyway.

 

The case you have stated here is very similar to what one can only imagine was Moore’s thinking in the Meyers/Shields trade. However, if that move was 1-2 years premature, this type or move for the Twins would be 2-3 years premature.

[Mike Sixel]

In 2-3 years, Willingham will be gone, Mauer will be approaching his mid-30s, Hughes contract will be expiring, Nolasco will be in his last year.....what was the point of signing those two pitchers if you are not going to put other good players on the roster with them? Why not just keep waiting for prospects to come up?

[jokin]

In 2-3 years, Willingham will be gone, Mauer will be approaching his mid-30s, Hughes contract will be expiring, Nolasco will be in his last year.....what was the point of signing those two pitchers if you are not going to put other good players on the roster with them? Why not just keep waiting for prospects to come up?

 

Mke, stop it with your "(un)reasonable assumptions & assessments" and "switching tactics" and stuff, already..... The "I Trust in TR and his Rebuild for the Entire Decade" crew are still adjusting to the "logic" within the new organizational meme.

[Mike Sixel]

At some point it becomes a meaningless exercise to supply a logical argument. This thread was not based on a reasonable assumptions or a reasonable assessment. Exactly 7 days prior to posting this thread, you posted a thread with the exact opposite assessment. The difference being one was intended to support the signing of Ellsbury. The other support for trading for Hamels or Lee. So, don’t be surprised if some of us quit supply a logical argument. What is the point.

 

The conclusion or recommendation in both cases was not a product of analysis. The analysis was a product of the conclusion. Many have argued her that these types of moves do not make sense for a rebuilding team. So, you have switched tactics to supporting this acquisition and in doing so have pushed the assumptions and therefore the conclusion to the ridiculous. Positioning Boston’s turnaround as evidence the Twins could do the same was just additional irrational logic. The two teams are in absolutely completely different positions. There is no doubt you know this but resort to using the argument anyway.

 

The case you have stated here is very similar to what one can only imagine was Moore’s thinking in the Meyers/Shields trade. However, if that move was 1-2 years premature, this type or move for the Twins would be 2-3 years premature.

 

could you specifically point out which parts are unrealistic? I am genuinely curious which parts are unrealistic in your mind.

[drunksam]

I couldn't care less about wins.

 

*As a stat for pitchers.

[Ultima Ratio]

At some point it becomes a meaningless exercise to supply a logical argument. This thread was not based on a reasonable assumptions or a reasonable assessment. Exactly 7 days prior to posting this thread, you posted a thread with the exact opposite assessment. The difference being one was intended to support the signing of Ellsbury. The other support for trading for Hamels or Lee. So, don’t be surprised if some of us quit supply a logical argument. What is the point.

 

The conclusion or recommendation in both cases was not a product of analysis. The analysis was a product of the conclusion. Many have argued her that these types of moves do not make sense for a rebuilding team. So, you have switched tactics to supporting this acquisition and in doing so have pushed the assumptions and therefore the conclusion to the ridiculous. Positioning Boston’s turnaround as evidence the Twins could do the same was just additional irrational logic. The two teams are in absolutely completely different positions. There is no doubt you know this but resort to using the argument anyway.

 

The case you have stated here is very similar to what one can only imagine was Moore’s thinking in the Meyers/Shields trade. However, if that move was 1-2 years premature, this type or move for the Twins would be 2-3 years premature.

 

I'm not as optimistic as the OP's analysis thinks it leads, but all this is induction, a rational though imperfect projection.

 

It would be helpful if you could explain why the bolded above are true in your mind. Let's see some exposition and explanation of this on your part.

 

Regardless of the OP's past threads/posts this does appear to be a conclusion based on analysis rather than a conclusion in search of support. One can legitimately question the veracity and predictive power of WAR and WAR projections (both of which I am incredulous), but it is out there and accepted as an imperfect tool by many reasonable people.

 

Regarding the Boston/MN comparison: Yes, I think it is unlikely that the Twins have wherewithal to spend! (wisely) on "elite" FAs to make a quick turnaround like Boston, but it's possible given that the Twins plenty of money available (though this depends on FAs available) and prospects available (if one wants to go that route).

 

It can be done, but can it be done well?

 

I'm in the camp that thinks it's time to start winning a little more now. This "rebuilding" or whatever we've been doing cannot continue in perpetuity.

[beckmt]

It is unrealistic to presume everything going right vs everything going wrong(It was close to that last year). Pitching is still the name of the game and the Twins do not have enough. The pickups will bring our starting rotation from horrible to below average. Do believe that Gibson and Meyer will be here sometime this year, but only to have them get the experience in the majors before the Twins try to compete. Much on how this division shakes out depends on whether the Tigers hurt or helped themselves this offseason. Still agree that the Twins are 2-3 years away against the 1-2 years most of the posters believe.

[Willihammer]

The case you have stated here is very similar to what one can only imagine was Moore’s thinking in the Meyers/Shields trade. However, if that move was 1-2 years premature, this type or move for the Twins would be 2-3 years premature.

 

 

Moore's "timing" was 2 months off, not 1-2 years.

 

KCR through May: 22-30

June-Sept: 64-46

 

Hosmer, Moustakas & Perez though May: .656 OPS

Hosmer, Moustakas & Perez June-Sept : .819 OPS

 

They dug themselves a hole early, then rebounded to finish at 86 wins. They weren't so far off from the playoffs as everyone seems to think around here. In fact, Moore's "timing" was pretty much dead-on I'd say.

[Brock Beauchamp]

They dug themselves a hole early, then rebounded to finish at 86 wins. They weren't so far off from the playoffs as everyone seems to think around here. In fact, Moore's "timing" was pretty much dead-on I'd say.

 

Except for the fact that they still finished in third place.

 

And the fact that Moore didn't need to rush his "big push", as KC has no pending free agents hitting the market other than Santana, the other piece of his 2013 push.

 

He could have just as easily kept Myers, only won a couple less games (Shields, while good, was only worth ~2 wins more than half a season of Myers), and entered this offseason with a lineup that looks far more potent than it does right now.

 

Oh, and he'd have five seasons of control over Wil Myers.

[Willihammer]

Also I'm curious. To everyone that thinks Moore was such an impatient nincompoop and should have waited till this offseason to trade for pitching, who should he have gotten? You can throw out Fister becuase the Tigers aren't dumb enough to give him to a divisional rival.

 

Brett Anderson? I like Anderson but he is no James Shields. Who else is on the trade block that they should have waited to get?

[Willihammer]

Except for the fact that they still finished in third place.

 

See 2013 NLC. Being the 3rd best team doesn't necessarily keep you out of the playoffs anymore.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also I'm curious. To everyone that thinks Moore was such an impatient nincompoop and should have waited till this offseason to trade for pitching, who should he have gotten? You can throw out Fister becuase the Tigers aren't dumb enough to give him to a divisional rival.

 

Brett Anderson? I like Anderson but he is no James Shields. Who else is on the trade block that they should have waited to get?

 

They could make the same deal for Myers right now and get David Price in return. If anything, Myers' value is higher now than it was 12 months ago. They could have pursued Fister, Lee, Anderson, Bailey, or any number of pitchers being bandied around every offseason.

 

The Royals still have several good prospects in the pipeline. If you have prospects, there is never a shortage of pitchers to be had from non-contending or rebuilding teams.

[Willihammer]

They could make the same deal for Myers right now and get David Price in return. If anything, Myers' value is higher now than it was 12 months ago. They could have pursued Fister, Lee, Anderson, or any number of pitchers being bandied around every offseason.

 

The Royals still have several good prospects in the pipeline. If you have prospects, there is never a shortage of pitchers to be had from non-contending or rebuilding teams.

 

That's a heck of an assumption. What if the Rays traded Shields for someone else's outfielder? Say, Avisail Garcia? You can't assume they're still jonesing for Myers a year after trading Shields. Maybe they want an MLB ready pitcher to take Price's spot instead?

 

That certainly seems to be what the A's wanted for Anderson. Who could the Royals have given up for him?

 

And the Tigers trading Fister within the division? Pipe dream.

 

Moore seized an opportunity in the trade market, he didn't wait for one to fall into his lap after they were "ready" to compete. That would have been a huge mistake IMO.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's a heck of an assumption. What if the Rays traded Shields for someone else's outfielder? Say, Avisail Garcia? You can't assume they're still jonesing for Myers a year after trading Shields. Maybe they want an MLB ready pitcher to take Price's spot instead?

 

That certainly seems to be what the A's wanted for Anderson. Who could the Royals have given up for him?

 

And the Tigers trading Fister within the division? Pipe dream.

 

Moore seized an opportunity in the trade market, he didn't wait for one to fall into his lap after they were "ready" to compete. That would have been a huge mistake IMO.

 

Then give the Rays Zimmer instead of Myers. The Royals have three prospects in BA's top 100, four if you include Myers. Two of those guys are top 30 prospects on BA's latest list.

 

They have the players to make a deal if they needed to make a deal.

 

What about Lee? What about Bailey? You don't think Moore could pry away one of these pitchers with one of the four top 100 prospects he'd have under his control?

 

People seem to be under the completely false assumption that good starting pitching is the Yeti of baseball. If you have the money and/or the prospects, you can almost always find a guy to front a rotation. You just have to pay for it... Which the Royals did last season.

 

And they got burned for it. They wasted half of the ~9-10 wins Shields will provide them and lost what looks to be at least 20 wins from Myers. And what did they get for it? So far, not a damned thing. A notch or two up the standings but not enough for it to matter come October.

[Mike Sixel]

And if KC makes the playoffs, does that prove it was a good decision? What if they don't make the playoffs because NYY and Boston and Detroit make a lot of great decisions and buy themselves into the playoffs, should KC just sit back and suck because they don't think they can win it all? Or, should they try to get better, even if it costs something of value in return?

 

I think they overpaid for Shields. But I don't think we can know they would have been any closer this year, w/o Shields and with Myers, and then you'd be arguing "they weren't close last year, they are still 1-2 years away, they should not trade prospects". At some point, imo, you need to try to get good for the present, not just for the future.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And if KC makes the playoffs, does that prove it was a good decision? What if they don't make the playoffs because NYY and Boston and Detroit make a lot of great decisions and buy themselves into the playoffs, should KC just sit back and suck because they don't think they can win it all? Or, should they try to get better, even if it costs something of value in return?

 

I think they overpaid for Shields. But I don't think we can know they would have been any closer this year, w/o Shields and with Myers, and then you'd be arguing "they weren't close last year, they are still 1-2 years away, they should not trade prospects". At some point, imo, you need to try to get good for the present, not just for the future.

 

When that trade was made last year, I said "KC has not shown that they have the bats to make a push. This is too early."

 

Sure enough, they didn't have the bats to make a real push at the playoffs. The bulk of their players are still pre-arb and years away from FA. They have several more good players coming in the next 12 months. There was no reason to push the timetable forward and because they did, Wil Myers is now on the Rays and the Royals still haven't made the playoffs in a billion years.

 

Say they didn't make the trade. With the late season emergence of a couple of their guys and the flat-out dominance of Wil Myers, they would now have the bats to compete. At that point, yeah... You make that push. You're not crossing your fingers and hoping for player advancement, you have evidence that those players are ready to compete.

 

And they have Bubba Starling, the 28th best prospect in MiLB, as trade bait. If that's not enough to do it, they have Zimmer, the 24th best prospect in MiLB and a pitcher, to offer. They have assets on the farm to make a push whenever they need to make a push.

 

But before you make a push, you make sure your ducks are in a row on the MLB roster. And Moore just didn't do that. He pulled the trigger and crossed his fingers. Not to avoid injury, which is a reasonable concern for any general manager. He crossed his fingers and hoped that his players would get better. That's a ridiculous assumption. You let the players show you something and then you make a move.

[Mike Sixel]

I disagree with the premise that you have to see progress before you count on progress. That seems to be the basis for your argument. Based on that, the Twins should do nothing until they see Sano and Buxton and Arcia up, and making progress, right? Or is there more grey in your argument than I am giving credit? The Twins have less hitting than KC showed the year before last on their current roster. And yet you seemed to argue they should go out and sign some FA pitchers. Why not just throw the guys out there they have, and see if any of them swim?

 

Clearly, I don't think you believe that. Is the delta that the Twins are signing free agents, and KC dealt a prospect? What if KC had traded a pitcher that might or might now work out, for a proven pitcher, would that be more acceptable?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I disagree with the premise that you have to see progress before you count on progress. That seems to be the basis for your argument. Based on that, the Twins should do nothing until they see Sano and Buxton and Arcia up, and making progress, right? Or is there more grey in your argument than I am giving credit? The Twins have less hitting than KC showed the year before last on their current roster. And yet you seemed to argue they should go out and sign some FA pitchers. Why not just throw the guys out there they have, and see if any of them swim?

 

Clearly, I don't think you believe that. Is the delta that the Twins are signing free agents, and KC dealt a prospect? What if KC had traded a pitcher that might or might now work out, for a proven pitcher, would that be more acceptable?

 

Bolded: exactly. All the Twins are losing right now is money.

 

I'm all for incrementally making the team better. I was all for the Santana trade, as it cost the Royals very little.

 

But when you're trading the fourth best prospect in baseball, a guy who is ready to be on a MLB roster right now, you better be damned sure that the rest of your team is ready to step and up compete because you're giving up a lot for a guy who is only going to be with your team for one or two seasons.

[TheLeviathan]

But when you're trading the fourth best prospect in baseball, a guy who is ready to be on a MLB roster right now, you better be damned sure that the rest of your team is ready to step and up compete because you're giving up a lot for a guy who is only going to be with your team for one or two seasons.

 

i guess where I quibble Brock is this "damned sure" notion. It's hard to be damned sure of anything. I think they had reason to believe they'd add runs just by player progress. So you couple that with a few good pitching acquisitions and you're set. Even league average and they were probably a playoff team.