by jiminy

One of the most annoyting things he said was they should have traded Dozier. Anyone who paid the tiniest bit of attention knows they spent a huge amount of time trying to do that. The fact that they didn't doesn't mean they don't grasp the concept of a bad team trading a star to stockpile talent for when they are good again. It means they didn't get any good offers. I think they were smart not to dump him for nothing. Trades made in desperation are rarely good value. Anyway I'd rather watch Dozier hit 42 homers than watch Sano and Buxton strike out because they should have been in AAA. Same goes for this year. Buxton's earned a chance, but Sano just seems to get worse and worse. Maybe they are incentivizing the wrong things with him. Reaching the majors should be a reward for improving his place discipline. Record strikeouts are only okay if you're destroying the ones you hit, and he's not.

He's right that they promoted too many people too early. If they pan out later, we gave away their best year at peek value in exchange for a sucky year now. And it doesn't mollify the fans to dangle a star prospect before he's ready and watch him fail, it's just depressing.

I have to agree, there's a lot to love about playing all out. I really do like Buxton a lot, and love his effort. I just miss him when he's injured, that's all. And I think he'd be a better player now if he had been playing this whole time. Also, he only has so many years of his service time before he costs more than Joe Mauer. Every month on the bench is a month before he's gone or costing a quarter of the team payroll. If it were up to me, Buxton would not even have been in the big leagues yet, so we could afford him two more years in his prime. And Sano wouldn't be playing either, until he commits to not striking out at record levels. These guys should both be stars for a long time, and I'd prefer their service time were spent on their star years, not their awkward apprenticeships. That's precisely what the minor leagues are for. If you're in a pennant race, sure, call them up early, if you think they can push you over the top. But not ust to dangle your future stars in front of the fans to keep them from staying home, when you're not winning anyway. That just means they either leave for the Yankees two years earlier, just when you're getting good. Either that or you sign them to mega-contracts two years earlier and have no payroll left to build a team around them. It's going to be a pretty small window of contention if they peak just before it's time to pay them 9 figures. And it's not like watching Sano and Buxton play in 2016 made the Twins a pleasure to watch, or sold a lot of tickets. All it did was dampen enthusiasm for this year as well. Imagine if Buxton and Sano had stayed in the minors for all of 2016, how excited we would be for their debuts in 2017! And they'd probably be better for it. Do you see any indication Sano is trying to improve his strikeout rate? Imagine if that were a condition of reaching the majors--you don't think he'd be a lot farther along, because he knew he wouldn't play until he improved? What's the downside? We would have missed watching him play right field?

He broke a finger diving for a ball in 2014.

I disagree. Getting injured unnecessarily during practice is just stupid, and the coaches should absolutely forbid it. He is way, way too valuable to this team's future to throw it all away by flinging yourself into a hard surface. During a close game or playoff game, sure, go for it. During spring training? No, no, no. This isn't just hypothetical. He's lost over a year of playing time already. This recklessness has got to stop. If you were hiring a driver to transport $100 million dollars, would you tolerate him driving 80 mph through city streets, taking turns on two wheels? Of course not. Your primary goal would be to make sure the valuables get there without a crash. Well, Buxton is worth $100 million, and he treats his body like a disposable tissue. He has no right to do that with an asset the team and millions of fans have invested so much of their hopes in. He could and should be a year and a half farther along than he is. But instead he does things like run all out straight into another player. I admire his work ethic, his dedication, his intensity, his commitment, everything about him. He's doing exactly what he should do, give his all every second he's on the field. This is not on him. It's on the coaches. They need to rein him in, and mean it. I just don't buy the argument that if he doesn't dive for every ball his whole game will go poof and he won't be Byron Buxton. I think 99.9% of Byron Buxton is just fine. Especially compared to zero percent of Byron Buxton, which is what you get if you insist on trying for 100% even during practice.

I don't think we should just accept Buxton risking injury during practice. I think dives like that should be strictly forbidden unless the game counts. And personally I'd be fine with banning dives in the regular season too unless they're in a pennant race. No reckless injuries till 2018. Even during the regular season, and in a pennant race, you could argue the risk-reward doesn't add up. It's like running a red light to get to work faster. Your productivity may go up by one minute that day, maybe even every day. But you roll the dice wrong one day, just one day, and it was all not worth it, by a mile. Buxton risking injury to slightly increase the chances of catching a ball is like gambling $100 million to win one dollar. It just makes no sense. What are the odds that one out, if he makes the catch it, which is far from a sure thing, will win the game, let alone swing the pennant race? Probably lower than the odds that diving turns a single into a triple, as he misses the ball and it rolls to the wall. Remember when Cuddyer slid head first into third and tore up his hand, ruining his season? That kind of risk is a much bigger danger to your season than the tiny advantage, if any, over sliding in feet first. This macho, knucklehead culture of refusing to do anything to avoid injury should not be acceptable any more than saying it's cool to play Russian roulette. That's what it is. Buxton is not just playing Russian roulette with his own life, he's risking the entire future of the entire team and the hopes of the entire state. The coaches should put a stop to it--at least during practice games.

On a competitive team, he'd have real value as a pinch runner and defensive replacement. On this team, he'd just sit on the bench, delaying his development. Please, don't let him start on the major league roster. He said himself he's still figuring out when to run. Let him run, run, run in the minors, not stall out with maybe two chances a week. He also still needs to learn to hit the best pitching. Skipping AAA hasn't worked since Joe Mauer, and maybe Jason Kubel. This kid is nothing like them. Let him play.

I like your main argument that there's no point in starting veterans who will be gone in two years anyway, when all they do is prevent us from seeing which youngsters will be building blocks when the good times come. I'd have no problem trading any veteran for prospects. It's better for the future when they mature, and better for development and evaluation of the young players now. However I am skeptical that any of the top free agent pitchers will ever come here. They wouldn't want to, but more to the point, Pohlad would never outbid the Yankees for an ace pitcher. Or rather, outbid every single team in both leagues? Not gonna happen. And probably just as well -- we couldn't afford to eat a contract like that if they failed, which they do almost half the time. So I don't share your sense of urgency in cleaning house to make room for a free agent ace, though I do share your opinion that veterans can clog the openings for youngsters. But it's not just Molitor that wants to mix in veterans. In that interview with Falvey Myah linked to, he says, "Our goal is to build around that young core," but then says, "So we want to make sure we surround the young players with the right veteran talent and guys that will fit to build the culture we’re looking for" and mentions Belisle and Castro as people who help make "a nice mix." I'm sure they would happily swap Santana for top pitching prospects though. Realistically, that's their only hope of getting an ace. They're not going to sign someone like Price or Zimmerman or Greinke. And that may be just as well. Their best bet might be to sign or promote people to the closer role, inflate their statistics with meaningless saves, and swap them for young starters. The mystique of the "proven closer" is one of the last true market inefficiencies, and they should be doing everything they can to exploit that. Maybe they could even swap a mediocre reliever all puffed up with save stats for a stud young catcher or a starting shortstop. I vaguely remember things like that happening before...

Funny, I feel completely differently about the Tigers than I do about the Yankees and Dodgers. Those guys I despise. The Yankees I perceive as arrogant and rolling in money, the Dodgers as having way too much TV money, and what tradition they have is stolen from Brooklyn. But the Tigers? How can you not like the Tigers? They're a middling midwestern city like us, but fallen on far harder times. And the owner puts his heart and soul and checkbook into the team. That's what you're supposed to do, right? Isn't that what we wished the Pohlads would do, care, and put their money where their mouth is, instead of a business plan based on increasing the value of the team through threats to leave and public subsidies, and shooting for respectable not victory? I think Illich is awesome. I wish he owned the Twins! I know there are two schools of thought--your local division mates are either your most hated rivals, or they are your pennant bearers against other divisions. As for me, if the Twins don't make the playoffs, I become a Central Division fan. I feel like they represent us, and defend our pride and honor against the coastal behemoths. I'd prefer to see any Midwestern city beat any richer team. The fact that the Tigers spend more than the Twins do doesn't make them rich, it makes them awesome. I begrudge them nothing. That city has been through a lot. And the fact that their owner wants to spend his own money to bring a championship to his hometown is fantastic. Good for him. Yes, they did have many down years, but that just makes them more sympathetic to me. And they did hold out for a new stadium, but Illich paid for 60% of it, and then launched the payroll into the stratosphere after it was built. Unlike the Pohlads, who now collect rental money for concerts and millions in naming rights for a stadium they didn't build. I have nothing against Detroit or Cleveland, and if the Twins don't win the division, I'll be happy for whoever does. My best case scenario is for the AL Central to be the best in baseball, and for the Twins to win every year in a close race.

I know Rule 5 picks are by definition not your top players, but having the top pick in the draft should still count for something. Because surely one team has 41 good players in their system. That's all it takes -- one team. Of course most teams' 41st player isn't going to do much. But in any given year at least one team should have such a loaded system that their top non-protected guy has real talent. I'm not saying Haley is that guy, but I wouldn't assume no one will ever strike gold again.

Sano could end up at DH soon as well, further increasing competition for playing time among the Mauer/Park/Vargas group.

My memory of the scouting reports after the draft is there was some concern about a long swing and not great bat speed. I think that's what people mean by having a low ceiling. They fear he's made the most of his talent, but it might not translate to higher levels. Nothing wrong with making the most of your skills of course! But there was some worry about his upside. Not taking all this too seriously myself though. Most of them don't make it, and if you knew which ones would and which ones wouldn't you wouldn't need minor leagues. Glad he's on our side.

Wow, Fangraphs is sure not impressed with DeLeon. They think he'll a third or fourth starter, not an ace. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-21-prospects-los-angeles-dodgers/ They say his low-90s fastball and fly ball tendencies don't project dominance. They love Alvarez though. But he's so far off and so raw that they think there's over a 40% chance he doesn't reach mlb at all. Maybe if you got both it would be worth it but they don't sound like the core of a contender. Pretty big gamble to wait and see if Dozier can do it again though. We'll see.

The question is not, do these guys have potential, but, do they have more potential than the top four guys in other organizations? I don't see anything here suggesting these guys are exceptional. Every team has a farm system. If the goal is to win a World Series, unless you can show me our prospects are better than most other teams' prospects, they're not a reason to think we're passing anyone in the standings. Sure, they might work out. But so might anybody else's prospects. Doesn't mean I won't watch with interest and hope. I buy lottery tickets, too. I have a chance of winning. I just don't have a better chance than anyone else. That's how I feel about these guys leading a championship charge. Sorry.

Remember also that Valencia was already given away on waivers for nothing--that's how the A's got him. And he's a bad fielder. From Athleticsnation.com (about the smartest fan site you'll find): "On the surface, Danny Valencia has had a pretty good tenure in Oakland since he was claimed on waivers from the Blue Jays last August. His line of .287/.346/.446 made him among the best hitters on the team, and he hit in the middle of the lineup for most of the time here. However, he did just about everything else badly – including being one of the worst defensive 3Bs in history, according to UZR. He didn't fair much better in the outfield or at 1B. The real problem, though, came in the clubhouse. In August, he punched Billy Butler in the face so hard that he missed a week with a concussion. He was rumored to be a non-tender or a DFA candidate, so getting some value back for him is a nice surprise." I would hope Plouffe is worth more than Valencia. But I guess we'll see. He's a worse hitter, so maybe not.

I agree that it looks like he has been injured a long time. Which makes this look like yet another failed example of letting someone tough it out and play through injuries, hoping they'll get better, instead of dealing with an injury before it gets worses. When the surgeon finally went in, he found a completely detached labrum, instead of merely a torn one. This situation is now so serious it jeopardizes his chances of ever coming back with full effectiveness. Which makes you wonder, what if the surgery had been done earlier, before the tear got so bad? Most likely the healing would have been faster, and the chances of him returning to his full effectiveness much higher. Waiting did not make the problem go away. It added perhaps an extra year of high cost, low effectiveness before the surgery, and a longer recovery after the surgery, with a worse prognosis. If you have a leaky roof, patch it at the first sign of rain. Don't wait for the whole roof to collapse.

That was a fun gif! I watched it over and over. Thanks! I wish the "condensed games" on mlb.com were edited that way. Seeing only the last pitch of an at bat just doesn't work for me. But seeing the whole pitch sequence back to back would be awesome. I haven't tried their condensed games in the past few years but the last time I checked there was only the final pitch of the at bat and no sound. You got no sense of the game at all. The condensed NFL games include sound, edited so you get a complete sentence of play by play; even with that it cuts it to 30 minutes from 3 hours. With baseball, you could show every pitch from windup to catchers mitt in about a second each, and then in the decisive pitch, you could add sound, and it still would probably only take a half hour.

Good points all -- but also a good counterpoint by Jorgenswest: isn't it possible that he is doing well now because he was NOT brought up too soon and thrust into a major league lineup he wasn't prepared for, like Buxton and so many others? This doesn't dismiss all the other concerns raised, but it's a fair point. Maybe Gomez, Hicks, Rosario, Arcia, et al should have worked on their plate discipline in the minors a little longer, too.

The key word here is "work." Considering the team is rebuilding, I'm fine with him playing terribly if it's the fastest way for him to improve. But I am very concerned with the reports about his lack of motivation and effort. If he refuses to address his plate discipline issues, skipping batting practice even as he racks up record strikeouts, I would question whether he is improving as much as he should be. Errors don't matter this year, if he's trying; what matters is putting in the work. But his hitting is NOT getting better. He is hitting much worse this year than last year. The league is challenging him to make adjustments, and he hasn't. Is he doing everything he can to learn? That's the question to me. If he's working his ass off up here, sure, be patient and help him learn. If he's not, send him down until he commits 100% to getting better. It helped Arcia, Rosario, and Vargas. Don't let him slack off. I don't care if it takes years. The only thing that matters this year is how it affects his next 20 years. Look, I know the Star-Tribune likes to single out a favorite whipping boy and slag his character to drum up passions. I don't claim to know how hard Sano is working. But this article really concerned me: http://www.startribune.com/twins-considering-a-minor-league-demotion-for-miguel-sano/389201711/ It's not just some cynical columnist like Reusse or Souhan. It's Brunansky, saying "He needs to commit to be better," and Molitor, saying "I'm not seeing it every day." If you had the potential he has, and were having the year he's having, would you skip batting practice? It's unthinkable! Coddling didn't work with Delmon Young. We can't afford another Delmon Young. Maybe just ttalking about sending him down will light a fire under him, and that will be enough. But if it isn't, I'm absolutely fine with sending him to AAA. If it means we don't see him play for a while, fine. The goal is for him to end up in the Hall of Fame. Take the long view.

Okay I looked, and I see a big cluster of ground outs to the right side of the infield. Is your interpretation that his babip is not low because of bad luck but because he grounds out too much?

Boy, if his only hope of getting the job is a splashy trade, he has no hope. He doesn't have anybody very exciting to offer, so there's no way of getting anybody very exciting back.

Regarding their prioritizing of relief pitchers, on the face of it, it does seem odd. But it could be justifiable if they think the reliever has a much, much better chance of panning out than the available starter -- modest risk, modest reward often beats low risk, high reward. (And of course some relievers actually might make it as starters, like Jay, though I agree that's rare.) They also might just value relievers more than we do. Perhaps you're right and they're wrong. Or perhaps they're right. KC convinced me that a shutdown bullpen can cover a multitude of sins in the starting rotation, and at a much lower cost. Yes you can get relievers like Jepsen cheaply, but it's not so easy to buy the Royals' bullpen on the open market. If three of the 500 relievers they drafted in the past few years reach that level of success, those drafts will have been worth it.

I think it's a fair point to evaluate picks based on positional availability on the open market. And without looking at any data it does sound right that decent corner outfielders are the easiest guys to pick up without breaking the bank. So it's fair to argue that top picks should be spent on positions of scarcity, or positions of extremely high price on the open market. All that said, it does not necessarily mean you should draft starting pitchers in the first round. I agree top starting pitchers are the hardest thing to buy on the open market. But: 1) TOP corner outfielders are really expensive too. Yes you could buy Denard Span. But you could not buy Giancarlo Stanton. 2) Starting pitchers may have the highest reward but also the highest risk. Would you rather have a pretty good chance at a pretty good outfielder, or a very, very low chance at a very, very good starting pitcher? You could make a case for either, but also make a case that either makes sense. 3) Another variable you have to take into account is the dropoff by round based on position. It could be that starting pitching prospects, once you get past the elite few like Strassburg, don't tend to pan out at a significantly different rate based on the round they were drafted, and hitters do. I don't know this, but I wouldn't assume it's all the same. And it does fit what I read anecdotally: pitchers are all a long shot. So why waste a high pick on someone in round 1 who doesn't have a significantly better chance of making it than someone from round 3, if the hitting prospects drop off much more quickly? 4) You are never really choosing between positions in the abstract, you are choosing among a PARTICULAR set of pitchers and a PARTICULAR set of hitters. Certainly you should take positional scarcity into account -- which it looks like the Twins did by prioritizing the catcher position -- but ultimately you have to pick the player you think is better, or has a better chance of becoming better, regardless of positions. The Twins were reported before the draft to be prioritizing starting pitchers and catchers. The fact that they chose a hitter doesn't mean that wasn't true. It just means they weren't wowed by any of the pitchers available at 15 enough to pass on a hitter they liked better. I have no doubt there were several pitchers they ranked higher, who they would have chosen if they were available. But they were gone. If they picked by position alone, passing on a better prospect out of some slavish dedication to drafting by position, we'd all be justifiably furious. At some point, you have to trust your scouts. And we have no choice but to trust them too, and hope they're right. Basically, all I'm saying is, one can agree with every one of your points -- and personally I do -- and still choose an outfielder because there are other variables involved, too. Position is just one variable among many. And it's NOT the most important one. Talent is.

Hard not to worry about a guy whose power depends on a long swing and who has subpar handspeed, which might mean that he's closer to his ceiling than a less polished youngster who didn't have a baseball coach for a dad. But more to the point, that's ALL I know about him, meaning I really know nothing of substance, and will wait and see with the usual mix of hope and trepidation.

Don't forget J. J. Hardy and Carlos Gomez! It was the talk of Ramos that reminded me--that wasn't the only terrible trade! And I have to say, I thought the Ramos trade was gut-wrenchingly awful at the time, and not just for the bad return (an okay reliever overvalued because he was a "proven closer"). I objected just as much to the rationale that they didn't need a second catcher because they had Mauer. If you have invested $184 million in one player, shouldn't protecting his health be paramount? And isn't the best way to protect his health not to over-use him? And isn't the best protection against that having a second catcher? Even if you want Mauer's bat in the lineup every day, that lets you DH him all you want. And if something goes wrong, which is the norm with catchers, you're not, well, where they are now. Terrible, terrible trade. Giving him up for Capps added insult to injury, but the real injury was wearing out Mauer. People always talk about his injuries but he actually played more games than almost any other catcher. What a waste.