bird

It's way too early, but someone recently mentioned 4 guys as frontrunners for #1/1, and 3 were pitchers. The bad news? Scouting reports on all 3 indicate they end up as #2 types and not aces. There may be more recent info, and there may be subsequent candidates who fit the ace description. The pitchers were college guys from Vandy, FL State, and another place (Faedo?). The 4th guy was a Vandy outfielder. The point is, we occasionally experience entire drafts which are void of a single guy who the pundits project as an ace. Wouldn't it just be the Twins luck to have this draft be one of them?

We can probably get better at drafting and at developing, but I wouldn't describe either of those two things as definitive issues by any means. Effective management of player assets involves buying and selling the right players, at the right time, and at the right price. It involves assessing needs competently, solving deficiencies competently, and constructing a roster with clear goals in mind and everyone being on the same page. It involves having certain disciplines in place, and a vision, and a well-vetted, big-picture strategy. It's all of these things that have been lacking. Talent evaluation and development have not been the issue, but it's understandable that this is the first conclusion most people reach.

Sano said he needs to lose weight two years in a row because his playing weight matters. His weight has an effect on his athletic abilities. Sano knows that, the trainers know it, his coaches know it. If Reusse's only observation (not attack) was that Sano could have dedicated himself to taking more balls in RF and not mentioned the weight thing, would you then concede that Reusse didn't assault Sano's character? Is your attack on Reusse the person as opposed to Reusse the columnist (see what I did there? ) based solely on his comments about Sano's failure to deliver on what he knew was the goal regarding his weight? Keep in mind that Reusse the person not the writer has taken plenty of shots about his weight over the past, oh, 45 years or so. And these pot shots had nothing to do with any promise Reusse made to lose weight, and I doubt his writing suffered prior to his eventual dedication to losing weight.

Three things: One, it happens all the time, all over the league, and it's mentioned, all the time, all over the league. Two, no one is "against" Sano. That's ridiculous. Let's stop with this nonsense that certain media members set out to cause harm to Miguel Sano. Three: It's about Sano instead of someone else who also could have been more dedicated because it's Sano. Would we be on comment #80 if it were Robbie Grossman?

But...but....wouldn't that be dehumanizing?

I'm agnostic myself, but my guess it's kitty-corner from the Church of You Can't Criticize a Player Because That's An Attack On His Character.

Accusations and assault? Wouldn't that require some of what was detailed to be untruthful? Those are words that, to me, hint at a hypersensitivity to a bit of truth that people don't want to hear about their hero. Reusse's characterization of the situation, from my observation of it, was not only credible and not particularly harsh, but ultimately, it was spot on, as Sano's own statements tend to support. I think people are seeing things that aren't there. Let's not contruct a false narrative that Sano has been subjected to scrutiny and held to standards from which other players are exempt, or that Sano is the only player to draw a little negative attention to himself in this way, or that anyone in the media or in the organization have attacked Sano's character. This kind of stuff happens all the time, with all teams, with lots of players, and I think trying to villify Reusse, or anyone else, on the basis of what's been said or done with Sano is irrational. I can recall dozens of such situations, with the Twins alone, dating back to the inception of the franchise. I'm guessing none of those involved- Sano, Molitor, the FO, Reusse- think it's as big a deal as some fans do.

I see what you did there. Just wondering, how much did the Twins pay Reusse for the article on Sano? How about the Molitor one?

I didn't see it this way at all. Reusse reported his observations of Sano's actual behavior. He was factual about the weight issue. He heard comments during spring training from field people. He reported on Sano's decision to pass up a good deal of time in Fort Myers in favor of an extension of a NYC card show trip. As it turns out, he rightly questioned Sano on his dedication, his work ethic, and on his priorities. He concluded that Sano needed to grow up a bit and get more serious about things. Obviously, all of this points to the potential for it to be a longer-term problem generally associated by all of us as a character issue. The distinction I'd make from how you describe it is that Reusse did not set out to assail Sano's character but to point out how Sano's choices were affecting things. He called him out, but he didn't really trash the man. Reusse has been very clear about his opinion that Sano is by far the most important variable in whether the Twins are ultimately competitive again or not. Had Sano shown the type of behavior and dedication that Reusse observed and praised from Oswaldo Arcia, he would have praised Sano too.

This stuff has been going on all season long. Smart enough players playing really dumb baseball, and almost everyone on the team playing far below their talent level. It's a combination of too many players with poor "make-up" and an incredulous failure in leadership from players, coaches, and the manager.

I'd guess historically the consensus would have generally agreed with this and capably supported their argument anecdotally. It's probably reasonable to question whether this premium is shrinking more recently, and whether a smaller number of trades involve a meaningful premium given the more sophisticated analysis going on in MLB's front offices.

Play the numbers game with what you got, I say. For 7 spots, we have over 25 players mentioned here (I'll mention Van Steensel and Peterson to avoid lying) who have thrown a baseball at AA and above. Granted, some of the lesser talents among them (O'Rourke, Dean?) have had their cups of coffee with (cough) mixed results. Only 1 out of 4 of these guys needs to step up and give us something. A couple already have. I'd have no reservation in taking the risk that we can field a MLB-quality bullpen from this group, but with one very important caveat: which of these guys has a chance to be a shutdown reliever? We can plug in the Kintzlers for now, but we need three better than him to become a contending team. I don't see a lot of options for that among this group, and even those guys are unproven. Burdi, Chargois, and who else?

I've been wondering about your first point, Mike. I suppose, with more FO people involved in these decisions in most organizations, we're less likely to witness some rogue GM with his objectivity in his back pocket and his ego on his sleeve pull the trigger out of desperation at the deadline. Darn that objective analysis and all that meddlesome arithmetic. Things could go from bleak to fairly rosy pretty quickly. We just can't count on it. If we recall, people were lambasting the club (Ryan) for starting 2016 without Duffey and Berrios in the rotation. It's not at all beyond the realm of possibility a few guys really step up and surprise us early on, just like it shouldn't have been a surprise to see Duffey and Berrios struggle this year. Personally, I'm all out of optimism, and don't foresee that changing with this manager and pitching coach.

Yeah, I was in favor of a Santana deadline trade too, IF it involved a clear overpay. You're right, they should listen to offers this winter, but in the absence of a lopsided offer, I'd be inclined to take the gamble that Santana retains value and that others step up so that they could then shop him in July and maybe score a desperation offer. Even a favorable winter trade won't turn the tide for this team, so maybe he becomes part of a rotation for us that is at least 2/5ths adequate to start the year. And let's face it, unless three of these promising pitching prospects pan out during the course of 2017 and very early 2018, this organization is in deep doo doo. There aren't enough high-ceiling position players in the high minors who could possibly burst onto the scene and create a surplus for trade purposes. Other than Polanco/Dozier, about the only other (very remote) possibility is with Park/Vargas/Palka. I think when the new regime does its asset evaluation of the organization, it will conclude that beyond Sano, Buxton, Kepler, and Dozier, its most mineable value is pitching prospects interspersed throughout the minors. The good news is this asset base is what they need above all else to correct the problem with the big club. I'm not suggesting they have a stunning treasure in pitching prospects, but it's probably better than 2/3rd of the clubs and might get better with the first pick in the draft. The bad news is that barring a streak of good karma, we're just not likely to see three out of Berrios, May, Gonsalves, Mejia, Jay, et al show up at spring training ready to give the team even mid-rotation production in 2017.

Precisely. And as Nick has pointed out maybe better than anyone, Dozier represents, by far, the best chance to bolster the rotation without seriously compromising the future. The trouble I run into with the idea of trading Santana is with the answer to the question "for what gain?" He's not going to get a return of Santana (the throw-in on the Boof Bonser trade Santana), or even of Santana(the one who cheated his organization, teammates, and fans out of his services for a half-season). Help me with how trading him and then inserting a lesser pitcher in his spot does anything other than to in all probability weaken the rotation at the start of 2017. Do people believe we'll get a big-time prospect for him over the winter? This seems unlikely to me. From what I see, Sano, Buxton, and Dozier are the only proven assets available who are very likely to bring back a front-line starter, and even then, it would likely be a prospect, not a proven guy.

The pitching talent is better than the pitching itself. What does that tell us? Taking a top-level view, I'd suggest it's unreasonable to think we have the tradable assets to net more than one starter that is equal to Santana in expected production or equal to Berrios in talent. My discipline regarding selling is to ALWAYS seek opportunities to sell from surplus. However, we lack a surplus of acceptable starting options, at least for now. My discipline is also to NEVER sell from an area of deficiency. So, I'm going to pencil in just one outsider. That means I need to "count on" perhaps two or three of the veterans to fill spots. I therefore retain Santana, Gibson, Santiago, and Hughes to start the season. None of them are part of my future. I don't care about their contract amounts. All will be traded or otherwise disposed of IF my system produces MLB-ready replacements, and not before. The final spot, and hopefully final spots, go to whomever my brand new field coaches tell me they want on the roster. If they tell me we have four guys more likely to produce wins over the four guys above, we're moving the veterans at first opportunity. I'm of the mindset that, if you're not good enough for my rotation, you're probably not good enough for my bullpen. I'm starting to think we're about to have some viable solutions in the pen. Like I said earlier, I suspect the talent surpasses the results, and part of that has to do with inexperience, part of it might be overuse, part is on the coaches and managers. What I like about the situation is we have numbers, lots of talent on the cusp for the bullpen. Guys like Hildenberger, Burdi, Reed to go with Chargois, Taylor, and Pressly. So, if Duffey, Mejia, Berrios, or any of the other youngsters don't cut it as starters, I'd strongly consider demoting them to AAA unless they clearly win a BP spot. So, since I'm not winning in 2017 anyway, I'm looking for this to be a year in which as many as three of May, Berrios, Mejia, Gonsalves, Jay, Rosario, Jorge, or others perform well enough to allow me to move veteran pitchers and maybe even surplus relievers at the trade deadline.

Pretty much, yes.

Looking at this team, I just don't see that much to work with, really. I guess maybe you can build around Puckett, Hrbek, and Gaetti, and who knows, maybe Bruno can cut back on his K's and be more consistent. [buxton, Sano, Vargas, Kepler]. Maybe Gagne is for real [Polanco], or someone like Lombardozzi emerges s an OK role player [Rosario]. You might want to keep a veteran presence like Smalley [Dozier]. They'll need to supplemnt this roster from outside for sure {Gladden, Baylor} Pitching's a bigger crapshoot, once you get past Viola [berrios]. Who knows what you're going to get from Allen Anderson or Mark Portugal, right? [Gonsalves, Jay] . Again, they'll need to keep a veteran presence and brilliant leader like Blyleven [Ervin the Cheater], but clearly, there are holes to fill from outside the organization, both within the rotation and bullpen {Reardon, Berenguer, Atherton}. Not sure there's much more help from the system. Too bad Laudner isn't a better hitter and receiver. [?]. Oops. Wrong decade.

Speak for yourself. Never mind, you did.

Larry Hisle?

Danny Santana's gonna be good.

For a minute there, I thought Kobe Beef was your nickname for Park.

And this is relevant because none of these guys would be Twins if Ryan had come back first, right?

Of course, 2009 was an incredible draft for the Cards. Even if one can show that it represents a pattern rather than one-off wild success for the Cards, how does that show that the Twins aren't at least as good as most other organizations? Which other teams besides the Cards would you point to as being so much better at drafting and developing than the Twins? How do you explain that, when the Cards drafted Rosenthal, they passed on Grichuk and Trout a handful of selections later? And you mention Miller, who was not available to the Twins. And Carpenter, who the Cards apparently were either willing to bet would be passed on 398 times because they assessed things and knew the other teams were so poor at scouting that they were safe to wait until pick #399, or they got lucky with their 13th round pick. I would guess there's luck involved along with good scouting. I'm guessing the Cards had the same kind of luck in the 21st round in selecting Rosenthal as the Twins had in the 21st round selecting Guardado. And maybe Matt Adams is as serendipitous as Mientkiewicz or Morneau were? And maybe Chargois and Rosario or even Vargas end up with similarly stellar careers as Adams and Rosenthal, even though they were blind luck picks by the Twins while Rosenthal and Adams are a product of extraordinary skill? So, I buy that the Cards are really good at drafting and developing, but I don't buy any relevance between this opinion and any opinion about how good or bad the Twins are at it. I'm not closed to the argument, just haven't seen enough evidence that points specifically and exclusively to the whole idea of talent evaluation and talent development as a weakness of the Twins.

And it's why I suggest studying what the Cards are doing to learn if they have a track record of distinction over many drafts, and if so, as we suspect, is there formula we can emulate. Or do those picks simply represent a string of luck? You know, like getting players like Dozier, Duffey, Rosario, Rogers, Tonkin, and others in middle and late rounds. Do you have any ideas? What we usually get is some fluff about how this proves the Twins are bad at drafting. Which teams have a clearer pattern of success, or less failure, when it comes to the draft?