markos

I feel like this argument is analogous to arguing that park factors don't matter because Mike Trout has a higher OPS than anyone on the Rockies. Just because there are good players scattered throughout the draft doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of the value in the draft is skewed toward the top picks. Just looking at your comment here, 7 of the 20 best WAR players (35%) were top-10 picks, even though they make up only 3% of your draft pool. Draft position matters, and any draft analysis that doesn't take take it into account is not telling the full story.

Article at Beyond the Box Score looking at Santana's value: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/7/27/12291862/ervin-santana-minnesota-twins-trade-value-deadline Basically, the argument is that if Santana was a free agent after this season, he would likely get as much or more than the 2/$28M left on his current deal. If the Twins agree to eat some of that salary, he is probably worth "a moderately-valued prospect".

There seems to be a real disconnect between how the public "experts" are valuing elite relievers (and prospects) versus how much teams are actually willing to pay. Even smart, analytical organizations like Houston and Chicago are paying a lot for relievers, and guys like Joe Sheehan, Dan Szymborski, Dave Cameron, et al. are basically shaking their heads. I'm not sure what to make of that disconnect.

Chris Mitchell released an updated version of his KATOH prospect projection system, and posted new top-100 lists based on his projections. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/an-improved-katoh-top-100-list/ Lots of Twins made the lists (he released two different flavors), including the usual Berrios, Polanco, Gonsalves and Gordon. Palka made the list, and two unheralded names: Zach Granite Luis Arraez Granite ended up with a crazy ranking of #17 overall. He has certainly been under my radar. I just noticed that he has been very solid in AA, and actually has more walks than strikeouts (always a good sign!). If he is a legitimately good centerfielder, he could easily carve out a good career as a 4th-outfielder. And if he generates a little more pop, he could be a decent starter. Still, it seems a little steep to have him ranked at #17. His model must value floor over upside. Arraez has been crushing it, and, like Granite, has been avoiding strikeouts pretty well. Also, his model is now including the minor-league defensive metrics from Clay Davenport, and his numbers indicate that Arraez has been excellent at 2B.

Regarding Nolasco, Dave Cameron mentioned the Orioles and Marlins as two teams that essentially zero farm system available to get a decent pitcher (even though they really, really need pitching help), so their only hope would be to take on salary on someone who is mostly terrible and just hope for the best. Nolasco was a name he mentioned in that category. It is kind of unbelievable, but Nolasco's 117 ERA- would be 4th best on the Marlins and 3rd best on the Orioles.

You're right. I had only looked at 2016 SS, which currently (and must be coincidentally) has a 0.6/0.6 total for AL/NL. I must be misinterpreting the text I bolded in my previous comment.

Dave Cameron guessing on trades at the deadline. Two Twins were mentioned: Ervin Santana to the Red Sox and Nolasco to the Orioles. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/predicting-the-trade-deadline-moves/

At least according to the Fangraphs info on UZR, it is split by league http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/ DRS uses all of MLB for its scores. I wonder how much this can account for the difference between DRS and UZR?

That could be. But given that there are separate awards for the AL and NL, my guess is that they split the leagues.

The scores (if like the other defensive statistics) are relative to league-average, and the AL currently has two amazing SS in Lindor and Simmons skewing the average higher than normal.

I think the timing is being overblown a little bit. Yes, it is a little unusual, but not unprecedented or even that rare. Just off the top of my head, the Diamondbacks, Royals and Padres all fired GMs pre-All-Star break in the past 10 years. Also, it doesn't necessarily mean that good candidates won't be available. Neal Huntington was part of the Indians front office in 2007 when they went to the ALCS, but he left in September to lead the Pirates. David Stearns did the same thing last year when he moved from the Astros to the Brewers. Assuming the Twins do a 4-6 week interview process, they will be hiring the next GM in September at which point every candidate should be available.

I thought Stern suggested that Taylor talk to Donnie Walsh for advice. Walsh recommended Kahn.

I feel like there is a recursive problem with suggesting that getting outside advice will help St. Peter and Pohlad make this important baseball decision. That all depends on them selecting the right people or search firm to provide the help! I recall that Glen Taylor reached out to a respected NBA executive for help hiring a GM, and the recommendation was to hire a David Kahn. So is the question "Who should I ask for advice about hiring a GM?" any easier (or less critical) than "Who should I hire as GM?"? I'm not sure that it is.

I agree. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure if the legal community has well-defined definitions. But it seems to me that there should be a distinction between hacking and accessing a computer without authorization, much like there is a distinction between breaking-and-entering and trespassing.

This is a really good perspective.

Her name was brought up in a Keith Law podcast several years ago. If I recall correctly, he said that she was mostly focused on business development, contract negotiations, etc; and that hiring her for a GM spot would probably require a competent assistant to lead the player development, scouting, etc portions of the job. With that limited (and perhaps outdated) knowledge, I would have no problem with hiring her provided I was confident with her team of assistants.

That's possible. I just don't think that any of the straws are very long to begin with, regardless of who is in charge. Hopefully he doesn't do a ton of damage.

Well, this thread has been overcome by other events right now. But I really want to thank tlkriens and Teflon for sharing the research. Threads like this are one the main reasons I keep coming back to TD.

I disagree with you on a couple different levels. First, I really don't think there is anything Antony could do that would severely damage the franchise at this point. The Twins don't have anyone on this roster that will fetch a huge return in any reasonable scenario, so whether they decide to keep/trade Nunez, Abad, Plouffe, Santana or Nolasco isn't going to make huge swings one way or another. Second, I have to think that the vast majority of the leg work for the trade deadline has already been put in. I'm guessing numerous conversations have already taken place with opposing teams over these players. So I don't think that Antony and the rest of the staff are starting fresh.

It happens. As an example, AJ Preller was hired away from the Rangers on August 5, 2014.

Cameron at Fangraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/twins-fire-terry-ryan/

Then you are going to be left defending some weird results. Like that the 9 best teams at developing pitching all just happen to be in the NL. And that the Yankees and A's must be equally good because they have identical ERAs, even though their park effects are incredibly different. And that the Red Sox, White Sox and Indians (all top-7 in pitcher WAR) are actually all below-average. The actual number of runs given up are dependent on ballpark, league and defense, which is why you get results like that when you rank teams by ERA. I think we are mostly on the same side; it is just a question of degree. These my thoughts about the Twins and developing pitching: They are not good. They have done nothing to distinguish themselves as an elite team when it comes to pitching. However, they are in the muddled middle area with most of the league (by my metrics, they are closer to #7 than #30). And since they are in this middle area, it is very difficult for me to determine where the failing has occurred. Is it development issues? Draft issues? Free agent signing issues? Trade issues? Is it mainly due to resource restrictions during the Metrodome days? Preventable injuries? Unlucky injuries? Some combination of all of that? I don't think it has been a total system failure for 26 years. If forced to guess, during the 1995-2007 timeframe I think they were most significantly impacted by the payroll restrictions of the Metrodome era, which probably impacted a lot of draft decisions. And post-2008, I think (actually, I know!) they have fallen behind the player evaluation and valuation curve, which has impacted their player acquisition decisions with both trades and drafting. This is isolated only to pitching, but on the hitting/fielding side as well. I think that overall their pitcher development is okay - not elite by any means, but middle-of-the-road.

Again, I think ERA is a bad metric to use in this case. If you look at other pitching metrics (FIP-, WAR), then the Twins are still bad but not as bad. And further, the gap between them and the average team isn't as large. And I think if you look at the team as a whole, a different narrative can be drawn: Looking from 1991-2016, using Fangraphs data, here is where the Twins rank: Twins Pitching WAR: #19 Twins Starters WAR: #20 Twins Relievers WAR: #12 Twins Batters WAR: #24 Now lets look at the relative gaps between the Twins WAR value and the median team (using #13 to ignore the expansion teams...): Twins Pitching WAR: -25 WAR Twins Starters WAR: -33 WAR Twins Relievers WAR: +6 WAR Twins Batters WAR: -96 WAR So over the past 25+ seasons, the Twins have been basically been just 1 Win below the median on the pitching side, but 4 Wins below on the batting side each year. Even if you tighten the window to 2001-2016, batting is still the larger problem (though the gap is smaller). Yet there doesn't seem to be the same consternation about the Twins ability to develop hitters, even though that has historically been more of a problem.

I may be mis-remembering, but I feel like he did a decent job in the mid-2000s of buying out and extending the young players through their arbitration years. Santana, Hunter, Mauer, Cuddyer all accepted offers that bought out arbitration and some free agent years. Those all worked out pretty well, though Santana's no-trade clause certainly poisoned his trade market. Of course, the baseball market has changed a lot over the past decade.

I think you have Carrasco and Salazar switched. Carrasco came over in the Cliff Lee trade. And Kluber was drafted by the Padres, not the Indians.