bird

You're right, my bad. We've only had three off-seasons of rebuilding so far, and the main visible benefits of those three years is a top 3 farm system and additions like Hughes, Vargas, Nolasco, Santana, Arcia, May, Pinto... I don't hear anyone calling us a "perennial legit contender", do you? You're absolutely right, though, that none of the five prospects we have ranked among the forty best in all of baseball have made an impact yet. I think even the most optimistic of us would be happy with a record of around .500 in 2015.

Good set of questions. Let's take your favorite organization, the Cards, to exemplify how an organization can, with luck and skill and mistake avoidance, keep themselves from the deepest depths. It starts with having a mentality of constant rebuilding. A team can "rebuild" from mid-cycle better than with a completely depleted farm system. Some semblance of excellence can be sustained for longer than ten years IF the organization EXECUTES with an acceptable volume of those inevitable mistakes and the very occasional but inevitable bad draft. And yes, it's tenfold easier to have a good draft if you have a top ten pick. SO, in my view of the Card's world, they always have talent rising at a decent clip, they avoid becoming financially encumbered for years beyond the useful life of a player contract, they avoid the Garza-Ramos-Hardy stuff that sets a franchise back two years, and they avoid FA moves almost at all "costs", because they can, frankly, having avoided scraping bottom like our Twins have done. To emulate the Card's model effectively, you have to first get back to roughly mid-cycle in terms of prospect depth, and you have to begin to accumulate a bit of surplus talent that can be traded to fill the remaining holes. Entering their fourth (not third, my bad earlier) off-season of the rebuild, I'd say the Twins are in a position to begin a sustainable run of success. In contrast, even spending $170M or more, Detroit's run of success, if you call a wild card one-and-done a success, is past its apex.

For perspective, the Tiger's best OVERALL prospect is Steven Moya, a lefty with massive power and a more massive hole in his swing versus LH pitching, and this guy would probably be the Twin's fifth-best OUTFIELD prospect, maybe on par with ABWIII and a lesser prospect than Max Kepler.

On pitching coach, I agree! And throw Guardado into that mix as far as I'm concerned. On commentary, I disagree. I watch Twins baseball with my trusty spaniel at my side, and she offers better insights about the game than Blyleven.

Yohan Pino was the better performer at the time?

Me too.....

Yes, I very much appreciate that you aren't one to unfairly disparage Anderson, and I agree that, although he was a solid pitching coach, it's time for a change and time to fully embrace the sources of all this valuable new information. We all know the Twins can't be accused of being early adapters, and it'll be interesting to see if there's some early evidence of a changed mentality in light of how the game is evolving.

Maybe we should send a link for this article to Steil and the five dozen pros who report to him.

This doesn't detract whatsoever from your point, but I was struck after reading the two linked articles containing all of Anderson's comments by the fact that the two things he's criticized for, throwing strikes and keeping the ball down, took a back seat to a half-dozen other things. In fact, throwing strikes was not mentioned once outside of the context of maintaining command. So in fairness, we shouldn't disparage the poor guy as single-mindedly calling for those things, but it's also likely that your analysis would contain new material for the man. All of these things were brought up by Anderson more often, even a lot more often, than keeping the ball down: using all pitches, changing speeds, not rushing, moving the ball around and changing locations, staying under control, and maintaining an arm slot.

What a great piece of analysis, Parker! Thank you. If I had a dollar for every time a hitter launched a low fastball into the bleachers, followed by a lazy "he left that pitch up" by Blyleven, I'd buy y'all a beer and a shot.

Ventura, by anyone's estimation, was a superior pitcher to Meyer in 2014. Part of this may be related to Meyer's return from injury. Duffy has had his struggles. Could this be in part because he was rushed? Jake Odorizzi has yet to establish himself as a rotation mainstay, although he's closer than May or Meyer at doing so. Like Meyer, he's likely to do so in 2015. Yohan Pino was the better pitcher at the time of that decision. Meyer was on a pitch limit and had some control issues. I think the Royals make the same decision.

I keep reading that Hughes, Gibson, and Nolasco are locks for the rotation. Then I painfully recall when Liriano, Baker, and Pavano were locks for the rotation. Yes, we now have some depth, unlike back then, but what's so risky about taking a shot with Anderson, for example? As I recall, in the Liriano, Baker, Pavano season, all five starters went down with injuries for extended periods. Stockpile the guys and sort through the congestion.

Let me clarify on the Tigers. It's not just the fact that maybe a couple players will be unproductive at the end of a contract. The main obstacle for them will be replacing those players, filling many holes at once, not one or two, at a time when their farm system is pretty barren and they still have a few huge contract obligations. To me, the major difference in approaches is that, when the Twins hit bottom in terms of the farm system, it was a close-to-average average talent pool, and three years later, it's now one of the best, and maybe as loaded with talent as any time in franchise history. By contrast, the Tiger's system has now hit bottom, and it IS truly horrid. The Twins refused to trade away prospects in an attempt to avoid its 4-year losing streak, even though they had assets to trade. And they refused to delve into the deep end of the FA pool, rightly in my opinion. In contrast, the Tigers used FA and their prospect pipeline in trades to go all in. The Tigers now find themselves caught between a rock and hard place. They don't have prospects to trade themselves out of a likely decline, or to bolster the roster. Buck Farmer and Robbie Ray are poor alternatives to Scherzer. They'll probably overpay for Melky and make a couple of additional moves like that out of desperation, and maybe, just maybe, buy themselves one more division title or wild card one-and-done in 2015, But if, as happens more often than not, two starters go down, they start to look like, God forbid, the Sox and the Twins, except old, out of "financial flexibility", and pathetically low on prospects, with many holes to fill, not one or two. Teams can, or at least used to be able to buy a championship when they were in mid-cycle talent-wise, like the Tigers did, using FA and prospects via trades. But the time comes when the bill has to be paid. To build a sustainable level of on-field excellence requires a vast majority of your talent to be home-grown, and even then teams have to get lucky and avoid mistakes that set it back. You know, like Capps for Ramos and Hardy for Hoey. Oh, and let's be clear about the fact that this current off-season is only the third off-season of the rebuild effort. People keep trying to throw out these five and six year numbers.

That's why I labeled the outfield as possibly a relative weakness when compared with the strength in the system regarding starters, relievers, and infielders in particular. But you're right, there are certainly a lot of exciting OF prospects too.

There are way too many variables here to draw valid conclusions about what one organization would do compared to another. Every pitching prospect needs to be regarded uniquely. For example, Meyer was injured, and Ventura was a more highly-rated prospect. Ventura was ready in 2014. Meyer would have had his head handed to him, if you ask me. Maybe the Twins are slightly more deliberate in advancing prospects, but it's hardly a pattern that allows one to conclude something about one organization's success compared to another, IMO.

The other element of luck was he stayed healthy. Therefore, good decision, good outcome. I would contend that Nolasco was a reasonable decision with a bad first-year outcome. I'm not sure what the odds are, but taking a shot every year on a bounce-back guy with a front-of-the-rotation upside appeals to me if you score big every third year. Now, if only one in ten of these guys pans out...

Had Hughes stunk up the joint, would it have been a product of BAD luck? Is it ALWAYS a matter of luck, and if not, then who are "the ones" skilled at removing luck from the equation and "hitting" on the next Hughes?

Thanks once again, Seth. You're right, looking at the stats for the Dominican and GCL prospects tells us very little, but I suspect the outfield might be an area of relative weakness in the system.

We'd hear few complaints if they chased one of the big three in FA, but it's not likely. I think the key thing is "years" rather than "dollars." Even the Yankees are saying they don't have the financial appetite for those guys after having made a half-billion in commitments last year despite previously being saddled with the bad contracts of ARod, Sabbathia, Texeira and others. I for one will excuse the Twins from committing to a five year contract with Lester, as long as they make a good faith effort to sign or trade for at least one guy who could potentially right himself and become a front line starter if the stars align like they did with Hughes.

I just cringed.

The futility of the last four years is not a product of a failed strategy. It's in part the price paid for some poor execution, some mistakes, and some bad luck, but it's also a by-product of a patient and reasonable rebuild strategy, in my opinion. We need to view the results from a decade ago in context, recognizing that the Twins have in fact adapted (maybe not well or quickly for sure) to changes in the financial picture, starting with revenue-sharing, TV contracts (yes, I know about the latest one) and stadium revenues. I just don't think one can lump the futility of the 90's in with these last four years. I'm of course an optimist and therefore expect to see some moves we may not have seen before. And I get the frustration, and the argument, for augmenting the pipeline to a greater extent than they've done. I was critical of Ryan's off-season moves the year before the first 90-loss season and also two years later. But I always seem to get back to the question of whether, with a $125M budget in each of the past three years since the rebuild began, any GM in baseball could've pieced together a division winner, and if so, what kind of mess would there be heading into 2015 in terms of bad contracts and serious financial constraints. I think the last part of it, the emotionally-charged topic of the perceived obligations of ownership, is one you and I are likely to continue to respectfully disagree about. I vote on that subject with my wallet and have an admittedly unorthodox take on the subject. Best for me not to go there, Chief.

MLB ranked Rainis Silva as our 23rd best prospect, Turner #16.

Glad you revised your statement to admit to last year's efforts which resulted in Hughes and Nolasco. I will just assume your view is that efforts in previous years were so unsatisfactory as to not count. For example, signing Willingham and Correia and Pelfrey and others doesn't count because it was not adequate in your view (shared by many of course). As for Cubans, they didn't sign any, unlike half the clubs, but they scouted them. So, unless you contend they didn't do so in earnest, you are wrong in saying they ignored that option, and could perhaps understand how one could take a charitable view that they simply weren't willing to pay those bidded-up prices, rightly or wrongly. Detroit's fans stand a chance at being frustrated for a long time. Because their strategy results in a depleted farm system and an intractable set of financial obligations extending for long after any success, it's an unsustainable strategy, which you say you prefer? No thanks, mike. It's a stupid strategy. Once their remaining aging vets spit the bit, they could easily go 6-8 years between division titles, because their prospect pipeline is the very worst in all of baseball. At least the Twins are making a smart bet. The fans will return. Granted, they have to execute, and they have been executing the strategy well lately. And no good strategy takes 29 years, even a poorly executed one, so I don't get your constant reference to that 29 years thing. You DO know that KC didn't follow their strategy for 29 years, right?

Of course it doesn't, mike. Which is why they HAVE signed good players and will continue to sign them, but just not in a way that will probably ever satisfy you. They'll never spend enough. For example, spending for Hughes and Nolasco last year wasn't good enough, right? The players will never be good enough. For example, Nolasco isn't good enough, right? If the Twins did it YOUR way, mike, they'd be in deep doo-doo already, because, in spite of fan protestations, and like almost EVERY club, they'll eventually be financially constrained. Read the Cleveland blogs. The fans are up in arms about their $75 payroll budget. Read Detroit's. They're discussing how the Tigers can possibly extract themselves from a massive mess. You see, they have commitments of over $140M WITHOUT Scherzer and Hunter and Martinez. They can't really afford an outside solution without continuing to pee away cash. Their farm system options? Robbie Ray and Buck Farmer. Look 'em up. The Twins have SEVERAL pitching prospects at AAA alone better than those guys! KC is losing Shields, and they have budget constraints that aggravate their fans too. Fortunately for them, unlike Detroit, they have a decent prospect pipeline. It's a balancing act for EVERY club. The ones going about it with an emphasis on home-grown talent are in better shape moving forward. Because it's the only sustainable and affordable strategy now. My gripe with you, mike, is your posts like this, where you suggest they might consider "signing good players now" as if this is a completely foreign concept to them.

It would be tough to argue that a lot of the injuries could have been predicted or prevented, although I suppose one could find anecdotal cases about pre-existing injury histories and make a rather flimsy case. I've wondered about this myself as it relates to the rigorous examination of medical records, which you have to assume are submitted to every club in a standardized way. And I have this vague recollection that the Twins went through a review process pertaining to this, but may be mistaken here.