bird

The Twins don't regard Hunter as a "quality defender". They look at things on balance and have probably concluded that the things they value in him justify taking the chance that he can at least be close to average for a half-year or so. They don't regard Suzuki as a premier defender. And they never told us he was. They didn't think Plouffe was good at first. JJ Hardy? Rumors had it they wanted him gone for reasons other than his defense. So this notion that they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to defense is frankly absurd to me. Advanced statistical analysis has undoubtedly highlighted and measured the ramifications of good vs. bad defense, and the Twins were clearly and stubbornly late in understanding and adopting this, and probably still are. But that doesn't mean they don't know good and bad defensive play when they see it. Was Hunter a better defender in 2014 than the stats show? Would you as a GM say differently if you had decided you could put up with sub-par defense for a short timeframe? Back to Santana, I really believe they pretty much know what they have in him. He improved his play in CF rapidly, did he not?

OK, you guys win. You're absolutely right. Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about. He should have cited some defensive metrics in response to the question about Torii's defense and trashed him. But I missed the part about him say his 40 year old RF is GOOD on defense. :-)

Understandable. However, Dozier and Plouffe present some decent evidence that they can coach improvement. Fangraphs thinks that Plouffe was the 4th-best 3B in baseball last year. So if you'll forgive me, I'm skeptical of THEIR ability to judge defense.

The Twins have a better idea of what they have in Santana than we might think, IMO. If it's best for the team to plunk him in CF for as much as a year, big deal. He's hardly going to be ruined, and his value increases dramatically with proven flexibility. They already know, I think, that his SS play won't garner any Gold Gloves. They probably view him as a work in progress, similar to Plouffe, defensively. Add the fact that Polanco (and Rosario for that matter), are more highly-regarded prospects than Santana was. Both may be a half-year away. And the icing on the cake is that Escobar is a legit player at age 25. Why worry about how they use Santana at the start of 2015?

It's certainly possible that Hicks finally comes to camp with an improved frame of mind, responds to coaching, and immediately straightens himself out at the plate. But my bet is Jordan beats him out for the 4th OF spot and Santana starts the season in CF. This doesn't bother me at all. Santana continued to improve out there and at the end of the season looked fairly serviceable to me. But the real reason I'm fine with it is that I'm assuming Buxton is as special as the evaluators say he is and that he's on the field at mid-season or so, flanked by Hicks in one corner and a slightly better Arcia in the other, with Torii getting primers on the start of his coaching career in the dugout. This might be good. Escobar has a chance to be a valuable trade chip should Polanco show he's ready.

Another thing to point out is that having a lot of under-25 relief pitchers rushed on to your active roster in no way means you have your act together. The Detroit Tigers had a bullpen mess all last year, and no team in the division promoted more relievers under the age of 25 onto their active roster. So, it's not about age, it's about talent, MLB readiness, and health, and that's it. Of course Detroit is not a great example, given that they've now traded 6 of 10 prospects from their 2014 BA Top 10. The 2012 draft is promising, and the RP pipeline on the whole is too, but we haven't exactly cornered the market on this kind of talent. Having numbers is important because most of these guys will end up being underwhelming.

OK, Ash, I'll try not to run across my pal mike's comments on FanGraphs. In my defense his was the first of two comments there and mirrored the comment he made here and wasn't just some offhand thing. And mike is a big boy. I'm guessing his skin is thick enough to handle a little friendly challenge of a criticism he makes that repeatedly suggests rather clearly a view that it's a symptom of a larger problem. I didn't exactly have to do any heavy lifting to place it in its proper and larger context, and it wasn't a personal attack on my part in any way.

Once again, mike, which of the eleven names I listed do you think should have been moved up two wrungs but were not as you claim they should?

The answer to that question supports the commonly accepted fact that the pitching pipeline was weak for a few years. It does not support your premise that other teams are moving RP's at a fast rate or that the Twins are cluelessly delaying the advancement of talented pitchers, which is the premise you're promoting based on your comments here and on FanGraphs. You'd like us to believe there is some larger problem based on the incompetence of the organization, and this is not the case whatsoever. Based on the current abundance of pitching talent, the opposite is true, mike. I would guess that, by the beginning of 2016 and maybe sooner, you will find at least four pitchers on the active roster younger than 25. Compare that to your beloved Cards. Of the 17 pitchers that spent time on the active roster for any period of time in 2014, 4 were 25 or under IIRC. And this has absolutely nothing to do with more aggressive advancement. It has everything to do with how terrifically talented those 4 guys are.

You've made this claim repeatedly, but I'd really like to see some substantiation. I think your premise that other teams are moving their high-ceiling RP's fast and the Twins are not is false. It might be a false perception on your part related to the ridiculous number of injuries we've had to deal with regarding the high-profile RP draftees. We can identify a large group of Twins RP's who have been rated as Top 25 prospects by various listers. I'm identifying their level and inserting the highest ranking I can find for each in parentheses by their name: 1. Michael Tonkin, AAA, (10). Not rushed, and certainly not held back either, as his MLB performance record so far isn't exactly sterling. 2. A.J. Achter, AAA, (25). Saw MLB time late last year. Hardly a future All-Star. 3. Mason Melotakis, AA, (10). Season-ending injury. 4. Nick Burdi, A+, (10). Will experience his first full spring training as a pro in February. He pitched in the College WS, and calls for him to start his career with the Twins or at some higher level don't take into account the value of protecting him and watching over him at Fort Myers. 5. Zack Jones, A+, (18). Despite injury problems, he pitched in the AFL. Hardly delayed. 6. Jake Reed, A-, (16). Saw AFL action in his first year as a pro, will see his first spring training in five weeks. Hardly being held back. Blocked at A+ by Burdi, Jones, Brandon Peterson, Brian Gilbert, etc. 7. Yorman Landa, A-, (25). Had injuries, is very young. 8. Randy Rosario, A-, (25). Injured all year, very young prospect. 9. Michael Cedaroth, A-, (21). Converted to starter, first year pro. 10. Luke Bard, A- (11). Out all year. 11. JT Chargois, A- (13). Out all year. Do you have other examples?

It's indisputable that the Twins were a lower-revenue team throughout MacPhail's era. I think any review of interviews with Andy during his tenure would support the author's description of MacPhail's and the team's constant struggles to compete despite the financial challenges. I can recall any number of times Young Andrew described the cyclical nature of their environment. Jim Pohlad and Young Andrew were the same age, and their families were known to socialize occasionally, and it's quite conceivable that Jim played a role even back then on those occasions when Carl was convinced to pry the pocketbook open a little wider. The old man was a tough sell.

Simply. Not. True. For. Everyone.

One of the better things about this list is that at least a half-dozen of our NEXT 10 prospects would make it onto Detroit's Top 10.

Ash, that stuck with me too, and I was glad to hear him succinctly and matter-of-factly bring into focus a player's attitude. Comments on TD calling for players to hold themselves more accountable are rare compared to commonplace calls for the GM to do so. I often find it puzzling at best that when a player performs poorly, the focus is so often on the coaching and the GM rather than on the player.

Precisely this. Why is it so maddening to some that Pohlad sees Ryan's performance differently than they do? Why, when Ryan expresses his viewpoint that he wishes he had performed better, do the words ring hollow to some but to others resonate as a solid, sincere response, especially within the context of the conversation? Exactly how is he not manning up well enough to us fans?

And depending on who you talk to, James, you can find people who like Jorge Fernandez and Rainis Silva and even Brian Navarretto better than either Turner or Garver.

My methodology in constructing my list was OPL. Other People's Lists. I could watch every game these guys play and still have the credibility of well-done steak tartar when it comes to evaluating. But I love hearing first-hand reports from those of you who have taken in a game and seen these guys play.

Entertaining list, Counsellor. Skipping the same guys, here's my watch list, since you didn't ask: Starters: 1. Stewart 2. Berrios 3. Thorpe 4. Hu 5. Gonsalves 6. Huascar Ynoa 7. Taylor Rogers 8.Felix Jorge 9. Jason Wheeler 10. Fernando Romero (out with TJ, so I'll watch Alexis Tapia too) Relievers: 1. Burdi 2. Chargois 3. Cedaroth (starter for now?) 4. Reed 5. Tonkin 6. Melotakis 7. Oliveros 8. Z. Jones 9. Landa 10. Luke Bard Position players: 1. Nick Gordon 2. Jorge Polanco 3. Amaurys Minier 4. Kepler 5. Lewin Diaz 6. Vielma 7. Stuart Turner 8. Harrison 9. Jorge Fernandez 10. AB Walker

We can only guess as to what makes Hicks less responsive to instruction than most of his MLB peers, but I'd bet this trait has haunted him since his childhood and we're just being introduced to it. My guess is that he's overcome it through sheer talent throughout his athletic career. Now that he's at the most elite level and no longer exceptional, it's up to him to change, IMO. There's still hope. I keep thinking about a pampered kid in my son's class-smart, great eye-hand coordination, etc., but he just couldn't be coached and kept out of trouble otherwise. I guess it took a drill sergeant to get through to him, and now he's an elite sniper in our U.S. Marine Corps. Not really a fitting analogy, but still...

Our 7th best prospect is the second coming of Don Drysdale. Not too shabby.

It's possible he could get injured again, but he won't be subject to a pitch limit like he was last year.

Hands down, my favorite prospect of all time, and mind you, I've followed them all since 1961, is AB Walker. Hands down. My 2015 resolution is to keep lightfoot789 company in his lonely, lonely place.

Yes, when you include prospects knocking on the door in AAA who had nice years, you'd find that Wheeler, May, Meyer, Achter, Tonkin, Olivares, and Pressly all had very good numbers.

Even more important than Berrios' emergence, to me, is the number of prospects that performed exceptionally in their first taste of full-season play in the minors, along with a few standouts higher up. After so often cringing at the disappointments like Joe Benson, Angel Morales, Bromberg, Wimmers, Guttierez, etc., we had so few of those and so many encouraging performances. Gordon, Stewart, Minier, Thorpe, Diaz, Gonsalves, Garver, Reed, Hu, Duffey, Jones, Rogers, Burdi, Polanco, Michael....all on top of the guys who advanced to the big club. I'd rate this as a more important development than all the rest, because my own perception is that it is very unusual to have that high of a percentage of a team's high-ceiling prospects meet or exceed expectations.

The assumption being consistently made is that the Twins have been passing on quality, Sano excepted. This is based on Ben Badler's and maybe some other guy's rankings of a bunch of 16 year-olds, sight unseen for the most part. Teams, including the Twins, have scouts watching these same guys, and they probably disagree with Badler's assessments more often than not. That said, the Twins have apparently had similar high regard for a number of guys also rated quite highly by Badler, and have signed one or more of these top 10-25 types each and every year for a number of years. This group includes Sano of course, and also Minier, Silva, Diaz et al. Additionally, the Twins have signed a number of players that weren't even on the radar of some of the raters like Badler, and some are top 150-type prospects in baseball, such as Thorpe, Kepler, and Hu. So, to declare that being one of Badler's top 7 16-year-old prospects is an indicator of a quality signing while other signings suggest otherwise is bad thinking. Let's instead make a list of other international signings completing their rookie season at the same time as our guys, and ask how many of those are superior to, say Arcia in 2013 or Vargas and Santana in 2014. With 30 teams out there competing for international talent, I'd say if the Twins have a guy, each year, from the international market that is one of the best half-dozen or so entering the league that year, perhaps they're doing pretty well. How many foreign players who entered the league with Arcia in 2013 would you trade for him even-up? Not many. And how many of Badler's Top 10 international prospects from 2010 are ranked now as Top 100 prospects? Not many. BTW, did Badler have Arcia ranked at all? How about Polanco?