PseudoSABR

He was probably too busy evaluating hotdog vendors (or some such) because god knows TR would have gone out to the mound himself to pull Meyer after his third walk.

Do other teams give more substantive reasons for their transactions? As an aside, I haven't seen mentioned. Beyond a few minor set backs, prospect pitchers A-ball and above have been remarkably healthy. As much as impending success (or lack there of) has to do with slow promotion, the fragility of young arms is probably an equal consideration.

As you illuminate, their philosophy is far less contingent on throw-back beliefs or steadfastly-held universal schedules; rather it seems case by case, except when injury is involved where they do slow down the promotion schedule. It would be an interesting exercise for some posters in this thread to finish the sentence "I believe the Twins philosophy is....".

What kind of player performance from May or Gibson (or whomever) would show (or would have shown) that the Twins acted deftly in their handling of these specific pitchers? What set of facts would have to emerge to demonstrate that these pitchers indeed needed more time to develop than the 'preferred' development schedule.

I wonder if there could exist a (hypothetical or not) set of facts that would prove the Twins handling of pitching prospects correct. It's just like with Gibson last year. Gibson's initial failure meant he should be have been called up sooner. If Gibson had been successful? Well, he should have been up sooner! And now: May's initial failure means he should have been called up sooner; and if he was successful initially? You guessed it: should have been called up sooner. Meyer's consistency struggles? Call him up sooner! I can't wait to fill in the blanks with Berrios next year! New refrain same old tune.

Thanks for the read. Add the minor league depth that Polanco, (and yes) Michaels and Goodrum (the latter two both rule-5 eligible) and the eventuality of first rounder Nick Gordon, the Twins' have options for short in the near and far future. Though troubling, none lead with their defense. Each prospects' warts seems to be in a similar place: defense (even if different aspects).

He's not good enough to fetch premium value, and not bad enough to be cost prohibitive. It makes little sense to trade him, when really the guys behind him are less proven and might establish themselves at other positions (say outfield or short).

Baseball doesn't happen without fielders, so FIP measures a subset of what really happened, which is why xFIP exists in the first place. xFIP, the stat I originally brought up, certainly does manipulate what really happened into something else that 'should have happened'. While WAR is derived from countable data, it is through its metrics and weights that it attempts measures what should have happened. The entire notion of 'above-replacement' is not derived from countable data, it's derived from subjective notions of a standard baseline. While every measure is statistical, the facts of those measures are in question, and aren't at all objective While the countable data isn't plucked from someone's imagination, how those different countable stats are weighted against one another certainly is. (How much is a stolen base worth of a win as opposed to slice of fielding range?) It's precisely why we have two different, widely popular measures for WAR. These aren't standardized, much less objective or factual.

Swing percentage as a statistic is far more palatable than a metric like WAR or fungible rates like xFIP, as it measures what happens and does not try to portend what should have happened. I think the 'Twins hate advanced statistics' narrative has always been pretty overblown, but it's always nice to hear that Gardy (or someone for him) is doing their homework.

Sell high during the offseason? I guess even if he's two-thirds of what he's been going forward there's still tons of value.

Good luck guys. I hope to take that loser's bracket!

He wore down last year, and he's already surpassed his season total. As Smurf suggests, rest is totally reasonable and probably in order at this point; let's not forget how young he is, and at double-A...

Great job, Brock. I'm sure you're proud. The site looks professional and distinct. It's clear the design is organic and not some pre-fab grab bag crap. I really like the static banner at the top, it's functional and frames the site nicely. The site's aesthetic is consistent and effective, not overbearing; the thought and effort that went into its design is clear. Congratulations. I do have some questions about tailoring the experience. How can I adjust things like posts-per-page? I guess that's one question. I know, you guys want me to click, but I want to limit my clicks...

Your point isn't lost on me. It seems to me the Twins are interested in sustainable fan entertainment, rather than the next prospect side show each season. I think the outcry for prospects mostly comes from a "prove he's not ready for MLB to me" refrain. Few will come to watch Meyer (or May) pitch (or Vargas or Polanco hit) the rest of the season honestly (this isn't Buxton or Sano knocking at the AAA door); it sure would entertain us uberfans, but I'm not sure if we actually spend enough cash to make early promotions worth more than those prospect's developmental needs. There's smart money on being conservative, if frustrating for those who have little else to spend our time on.

Meh. I could give a rat about generating fan interest; I care about the longterm development of our longterm prospects. Jerk Darnell around, but I want ovenmitt hands on Meyer. This is (yet another, ugggg) developmental season; let's see what we have in our marginal assets and let's be conservative in our development of the guys we expect to be part of our future. Meyer dominated his last start, but only for six innings--that doesn't spell longevity in a major league game. Really. If the team is concerned about pitch counts, especially at the per inning bases, are we really surprised that Meyer wasn't called up? Meyer and May are just on different schedules than the rest of the AAA in pitchers, as the Twins are regarding them as longterm assets. The Twins, seemingly, are seeing what they have in Pino, Johnson and now, Darnell, seeing if there's any thing worth holding onto or peddling into value elsewhere. It's frustrating way to run the organization for the fans, but at this point in the season with these results, I'd be using the major league team as an agar dish for fringe talent, too.

Just my take: I think the article suggest more about its author than its subject.

While it's nice to get the cash covered, I'm a bit surprised they didn't wait to see if Morales would start hitting, still two weeks until the deadline.

Suzuki won't fetch much, honestly, while he's had an All-star three months of play, his track record netted his current deal. St. Louis is a great fit and I'd target a guy like Grichuk and settle for a guy like Ramsey. If there isn't a great fit, and a glut of extra prospects at a position like St. Louis has in the outfield, it will be tough to get a team's top 10 prospect.

The reason Fielder or Mauer (etc.) is prohibitive is because of the cost of their contract, which can be handled w cash. The reason Nick Blackburn is prohibitive is because he's awful at baseball, this can't ever be fixed (the Twins tried). Teams who trade for players like Cameron's bottom 5 are taking on a similar burden as teams who signing such players to the deals in the first-place. I agree, Mauer would be hard to move, but not because he has bottom-5 trade value, but because we'd never get HOF catcher value. I'm sure the Yankees would trade any number of their guys straight up. I'd say Cameron's list is really a ranking of players in terms of dollars per WAR (probably with a bit of projection and pixie dust as well)--that's not the same thing as trade value.

My criticism is with Cameron's notion of trade-value. The distinction is meaningful in that, the Tigers could not have simply gave Texas cash (or cash and some other player) for Kinsler. Fielder is the reason the Tigers got Kinsler, not the cash. There are far many players with less trade value then the guys in Cameron's list.

In 2020, for these players, it's not and that's the distinction.

Of course a team believes a player they sign will continue to produce. That said, the exact terms of a contract are arrived through a bidding war, a bidding war that often is won through length of contract as opposed to per annum dollar amount. The value of Pujol's contract wasn't determined because of his value to his team in 2020. A lot what people are calling 'dead money' is really singing bonuses that are being paid out over a series of years. The Tigers netted Kinsler because they included significant cash (the bonus money needed to be paid out); if Texas included that money in a future potential trade, his trade-value wouldn't be so diminished in Cameron's exercise. Imagine how this exercise would be different if Mauer's contract in 2010 went: (in millions, each year) 32/29/26/23/23/20/17/13 for a total of 184mil -- this exercise would determine his trade value very differently. As long as teams are willing to include cash, the guys at the bottom of Cameron's list do have trade-value.

Contracts (oh yes, foolishly) are about what you have done, and not what you will do. I give you the season preceding Mauer's contract: .365/.444/.587/1.031 171 (OPS+) 7.8/6.2 (BR/FG WAR) Mauer's career wOBA (.373) would be good for 23rd in the entire league this season. So just by his bat, he'd be the 23rd best DH, even including this awful year. The whole trade-value series is silly in that it absolves itself of long-term commitment. Ask Dave Cameron how long he's willing to commit to any of his trade value contracts. Year to year analysis of player worth is easy and obvious; the commitment of years and dollars is tricky. Honestly, a teenager could sort player salaries by highest per annum and see players like Mauer, Prince, Verlander, Pujols, Rodriguez (Ha!) are bad value (in terms of very recent data, so recent we tend ignore sample size in such studies, well, for convenience). As much as Dave Cameron would like to pretend that these players don't (or rather shouldn't) have market value, he's not only picking his prey, he's wrong. Prince netted Kinsler and cash. Mauer and Verlander and Pujols were killer studs so recent that teams will absolutely risk value. Cameron seems to eschew the necessary (even personal) risk GMs take in acquiring talent. Suddenly, two years after Pujols signs his contract, the Angels contend; part of why they can't trade him is that they need him, and they count themselves as one less destination. The whole series favors players who have zero trade value beacause it'd be absolutely foolish to trade them OR players who zero value because their value is anchored so much to their current situation. It's silly.

Fracking fracking.

Morales is like Pelfrey? Morales is like 2011 Overbay (who was 34 that year)? Why not bring up Rondell White? Morales has more consistent track record than either Liriano, Martin, or Pelfrey. The argument has jumped the shark, we'll just have to disagree on the value Morales would add to the club in the next two years.