Jham

I agree 100%. That is the question I was raising. If Dozier can't bring back a franchise changing pitching package, what are our options? Here's how I see them: 1. Take the best package we can get even if it's not a perfect exchange of value. 2. Accept a package that includes riskier prospects that are further away (not likely to help in the next 2 years) 3. Stand pat and hope the market for pitching and trading improves by next season. 4. Try to acquire pitching through trades of prospects or current players more coveted than Dozier. I think we cheer for Cubs and hope the Dodgers end up a right handed bat short of the Series. But I don't want to give away Dozier the way we gave away Span (even though that was probably a necessary risk). If we trade Dozier, I'd prefer there not be much risk involved.

I wouldn't be surprised if Dozier was shopped at the deadline without much interest. He's cheap, he's really really good, and he's worthy of a trade package involving an MLB ready blue chip pitching prospect. If that's not being offered, then what's the point in trading him. Keep in mind, the idea is that we're trying to make our team better not just younger. Also, Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Rosario and Berrios are already up. Arcia is gone, DanSan is practically gone. Gibson is a non-tender candidate. Exactly what stage of the rebuild are we in? Are we at the end of a failed rebuild, the beginning of a new rebuild, or the middle of a new new rebuild? I mean, if Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Berrios et al are our core, exactly how many seasons do we expect to be able to keep them all? Are we willing to waste half of them chasing some future alignment of planets? Try to win with these kids once or twice, then rebuild. And if this isn't a good enough core anyway, Sano would bring back better pitching than Dozier.

Yuck. Depressing.

Also, the problem with waiting for your team to all develop at the same time, say 2019 is that those magical teams only happen every 20 years or so in baseball. Smart and continuous acquisition of talent is a far faster and more sustainable model. If you try to bring up a core and 3 of your 7 big prospects turn out to be really good, and the other 4 are decent role guys (probably best case scenario) you still might not be good enough to win. Then you wasted 3 years developing players, probably trading the 4 average players you have for nothing since by that time they're blocking your next wave, likely trading the few good players you have since your rebuild is now put out another 3-5 years. That model can work BUT you have to be absolutely sure that your core is going to be successful. What have we seen in the last year that leads you to believe the current young core is good enough to warrant punting 2 more seasons in order to let them develop? Conversely, if our kids are so good that they warrant that level of patience, how are they not talented enough to compete now? Good enough to give up on 2 seasons to develop, but not talented enough to compete now... That's a very small window. My thought is that if they're not good enough to compete entering their primes, they won't be able to compete when they hit their primes. If the talent's there, supplement it and try to win. If not, and that's a hard truth to consider, our young guys are our most trade-able assets. If you don't know, and I'm going to suggest that none of us know, then simply trying to acquire as much talent as you can for as much value as you can probably covers both bases better than guessing.

Well is the inverse true then? You'd trade maybe any pitcher for a good up-the-middle-prospect? If not, we just need to find a GM that thinks like you. Offer Gordon, receive Bob Gibson. I think all trades are about value. No absolutes.

We're in kind of an awful spot regarding 3rd base. Sano probably can't play there. Escobar's bat probably doesn't play there, and Polanco seems to be the new shortstop. But it's tough justify spending more on Plouffe. I'd still consider doing a 2 year $12 or $13mil extension. But I'm leaning toward starting Sano and rolling with Esco if Sano can't stick or gets hurt. Mauer's lack of position flexibility is killing us. Just seems like we're putting a dangerous amount of stock in a 25 HR .230 hitter with questionable defensive value. Escobar is a solid role player who can hit a bit, but doesn't run well. If we retained Plouffe, I'd let Esco go, if not, I'd try to extend Escobar who we'll certainly find use for in one way or another over the next few seasons. Gibson gets a tender. So Santiago was pretty good when he did his own thing, picking and walking. He got lit up while trying to limit his walks. You wonder if Milone would have had a similar improvement if they didn't insist on him throwing his hittable pitches down the middle. I'd non-tender both Santiago and Milone at this point. Kintzler has closing experience and was pretty effective when not overused. I'd tender. Ditto Pressley. I've sort of seen enough of Tonkin. O'Rourke was great against lefties again. Tender.

Ok, he could just be relaying information from his sources. Might not be anything "personal" about it. You called the guy an "a-hole" and a "random column writer"... Why does Ruesse deserve ripping for doing his job, while Sano should be shielded from criticism for not doing his job... Seems backwards. Again, I think we just see the article very differently. I don't see it is anything other than relaying doubts about the kid's work ethic. Evidently you see it as an attempt to tear the kid down. Sano gets all the accolades for the team's successes, taking blame for its failures is part of being a leader. It appears he's going to start doing that. Good news for all involved.

I mean, Ruesse is a sportswriter, so perhaps it kind of is his job... such that perhaps he should be somewhat shielded from personal attacks for publishing sourced information that his readers probably want to know.... Irony aside, I'll continue to maintain that Ruesse's article was not a personal attack, at least not to me. It's cool if you read it another way. We clearly see personal attacks for work-related tasks very very differently...

These aren't personal attacks. No one's called him a liar, a jerk, or an idiot. Nothing being said is an attack or even an insult with the exception of the word "diva" which may or may not be warranted. IF Sano doesn't like the criticism, he can always prove his doubters wrong by performing on the field, or working harder off the field. Attacks are like saying Collin Kapernick is faking his donation of a $1 million to charity because he doesn't like the troops. Or saying John Rocker is a moron for calling out ethnic minorities on NYC subway cars. Or saying Torii Hunter is an A-hole bigot and homophobe for supporting his church's stance (basically all catholic's) on gay marriage. These criticisms are different because they don't effect performance. Weight, focus, and practice habits DO effect performance. See the difference?

I can't believe how badly we mis-cast Randy Johnson. He should have been pitching. I suppose, as the Alex Meyer threads all point out, he was a late bloomer, so maybe we shouldn't really be too harsh.

Wait, wait, wait.... First, is "criticizing" the same thing as "attacking?" Second, Sano has been a professional baseball player, voluntarily I believe, for seven years. Third, his chosen profession involves a great deal of scrutiny both on and off the field. I'd say he's compensated fairly even if the criticism is unwarranted. I'd be somewhat more inclined to agree with you if we were discussing a college kid who was representing his University for free-ish. (somewhat more inclined). But aside from the fact that I would not consider criticizing work habits and maturity a particularly scathing indictment, I actually think criticizing a young man's character is MUCH fairer than criticizing their performance since character is something one can control, while overall talent is not. If you said criticism of a guy like Nick Punto was unfair because he maxed out all his tools and was only average, I'd say, sure, that does seem rash. But the guy who leaves winter ball early, goes to the DR with friends when he could have been working in Florida, and comes in heavy and ill-prepared to play right OR 3rd OR hit the way he's capable of is off limits? Nah, if you ask me, he's been coddled too much... I mean, his failure in right didn't lose TR his job, but Ryan was criticized for it. You act like Ruesse and others want Sano to fail. We all want to see him put in the work and be the player we all think he can be!

Minnesota-nice way of getting himselft out of managing the team next year without having to quit.

I'ma pick righhht now. Grossman with 2 bad errors on 1 play to put the Twins down 8-0. Now if that doesn't sum up the season...

My only take from these discussions is that the debates highlight the need for obtaining more pitching. Kohl Stewart appears to be a slightly worse Kyle Gibson. Jay has some upside. Gonsalves looks like a spitting image of Andrew Miller. The remaining possibilities including May are likely rotational filler. Improvement of this year seems unlikely, save Berrios, but that would probably be offset by a return to norm for Erv. Duffey and May both learned on the job. Hadn't really helped either of them. I think it can make guys gun shy, and fail to refine auxillary pitches.

http://www.startribune.com/twins-kennys-vargas-puts-it-this-way-i-need-to-hit-home-runs/394220591/# “I’m sure he’d like to be more consistent in terms of elevating the ball and getting it over the fence, but it can be a double-edged sword,” Molitor said. “You [can] start to develop an undercut and have trouble catching the higher velocity and you pop up more than you hit home runs. There’s a lot of times when a line drive works better than elevating the ball.” Seriously Molly? GTFO.

And Zuke's throwing! And the Twins' recent issues with relievers holding runners...

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the biggest situational difference there is that an out ends the game. In almost every other situation, I suspect the right play is to limit advancement. Rosario sometimes makes selfish throws. Maybe he was actively taking a chance to win the game, or maybe he was just letting fly. I just didn't think it sent the right message as it would dissuade every attempt at the out in that situation. To me, it's similar to defensive indifference. If a team is down 2 with 1 on and 2 out, why give the free base of you've got a catcher who can throw? If the run really doesn't matter, take the shot at the out to end the game. Who cares? I don't even care if 1b is playing off. Like you said, make them earn it. I think not conceding a run and taking affable of over-aggressive baserunning is making them earn it. Imo.

Yeah, there are limitations. The results are the average for the exact situation as documented since like 1955 or something according to the projector I used. The sample size should take a lot of the variance out of the equation, so it should be a true average. However, even though it is a projection, it only takes into account the things that have already happened. There is absolutely no taking into account the players involved. So whether it's Tommy Milone facing Mike Trout or Andrew Miller facing Logan Schaefer, the odds of winning are the same. At least that's my understanding. Perhaps there's some projectors that aren't simply historically based... We're finding new ways to measure variables all the time. So... I think the Twins should be the first to hire a computer for a manager. I'd pay to see the motivational speeches.

Managers do have an impact. I won't get into the "Rosario throw home benching" scenario again, but basically, throwing home was a freebee in that situation, while playing it "the right way" would basically just give the opponent extra chances to beat you. The difference was +- 2-5%. These percentages accumulate. Let's say a manager has a similar situation once every 10 games. Let's say one manager bunts only when the odds encourage it, and the other bunts against the odds (Molitor). If a good manager makes 1 call that increases his team's odds of winning by 2.5% every 20 games, while another manager makes the wrong moves and hurts his team by 2.5% every 20 games, that's a 5% difference between the best and worst. That's a win difference a month. By the end of the year, that's a 7.5 game difference. That's a team going to the playoffs vs a team struggling to .500. I wonder if the the % gap between the best and worst might be even greater than 5%. If no one already does this, I think win projectors could be used to evaluate each move made by a manager. This would show which managers are consistently giving their teams the best chance. Additionally, you could view wins vs. win expectancy to see how often the manager's hunch or use of information not factored into win projection (playing against the odds) worked out. mWAR maybe? Do they already have mWAR?

I guess we view the Meyer's trade differently. I think the Royals saw him as expendable and overvalued outside the organization. The trade worked in their favor, and that's luck? They were 10 games over .500 and then made the World Series, then won the World Series. Did the years contending with Shields help that maturation process that ultimately lead them to a WS win? Would the Royals even be able to keep a whole team of solid players who matured at the same time in order to reap the rewards of their patience? And if we view moves in terms of calculated risks (you can make the right move and get the wrong result and vice versa), we can interpret the Royals use of patience under the same light. IE if you're patient for 25 years, eventually you'll hit a good class. IF Davis' success was so unpredictable (we agree), then can we say it was somewhat unlikely that the Royals would end up with maybe 3 of the top 5-7 relievers in all of baseball in the same pen? And if the success of the pen was not predictable, then perhaps the success of the team was unpredictable. So was patience really the right strategy? Would the team have been good enough without somewhat lucking into the best pen in the last 20 years of MLB (that I can remember)? I'm ok with being patient so long as it does not come at the expense of always always always trying to improve your overall talent level. In general, I think trying to win is a better strategy than hoping to win.

Do you think this is what happened with Sano this year? I've been a little disheartened thinking that this season may be close to who he is as a player. He never hit for average, he struck out a bunch, despite elite power, he didn't necessarily put up elite HR totals. Then when he arrived, he showed a fairly quiet swing, good command of the zone, but a bit of a loopy upper cut swing. The result is a lot of top spin, and less barrel-time in the hit zone. Dozier retooling his swing to generate an even swing plane gives me hope that Sano can do the same thing but with the raw power to hit 50+. But where Dozer was too choppy and quick to the ball, Sano is too loopy and slow to the ball. Logically, getting the bat on plane would be easier if your swing started too high rather than too low since gravity is on your side. Thoughts on Sano leveling his swing, getting to the ball, and generating back spin?

It also took them trading Will Meyers and Jake Odorizzi in order to get James Shields and more importantly, as it turned out, Wade Davis. That's not that far off of Buxton and Berrios....

Yeah, I mean, I think that's part of the angst we all feel over the rebuild. It hasn't been going as well as we hoped. Now committing the wrong way will set us back at least several seasons. If we trade the core and start over, we're saying we're aiming at least a couple years down the road for even relevance. If we wait with this group and we're wrong, we might be 5 years out. If we decide we're going to try to win with this core and we're wrong, we may set ourselves back even further. The answer isn't clear, and the choices are tough. The core has shown glimpses, but also the possibility of flame out. Most likely they're somewhere in the middle, but where? Good enough? Do we even have enough pieces to get pitching to try to win? Despite all the losses, it could be a lot worse. I like this 100 loss team better than a lot of those 90 loss teams that didn't have much hope of improvement.

I mean, I get that, and I appreciate it. They traded their Buxton (Will Meyers) to go after it... and I can't believe I'm saying this, but bullpen, defense, and contact hitting, while certainly moneyball in its effort to find undervalued players, is certainly very un-moneyball as it tends to fly in the face of analytics. Mr. Brooks, the reason I believe luck played a roll, is partly because they were projected to win 79 games last year. Beating their projection so badly likely involved some luck. Mostly, I'm saying the Royals were lucky because their strategy of patience and building a youthful core failed miserably for 20 years. I mean, eventually the right class will come through, but it might be a decade or more before stars align and the right prospects peak together. It wasn't until they started making "win now" moves that they actually won.. now. At the same time, I have doubts about the Royals ability to maintain their success because their roster lacks elite talent and thus requires 3 absolutely elite and untouchable arms at the back of the pen. If the Royals realized that Meyers was overvalued, Wade Davis was actually a relief pitcher, and that their roster needed an absolutely shut down pen to win, then they were extremely shrewd. I've already said I think this roster will be good enough to win if we have a dominant rotation or shutdown pen. But relievers aren't really undervalued anymore, we don't appear to have the arms that KC has/had. Basically, out of the Royals last say 7 rebuild efforts, only 1 worked, and it's when they started abandoning the "wait and see" approach. In my opinion. Maybe luck is the wrong term. Eventually the odds are that you'll hit on the right class of prospects. Maybe the Royals were unlucky that it took so long. They certainly have made some schrewd moves to take advantage of the good luck in either case.

Maybe there's an infinite number... Ever seen The Prestige (2006)?