Twins7

Who are these guys? Enlighten the uninformed; I don't really follow the FOs of other orgs enough, I'm curious.

Ha, fair enough. Perhaps TR isn't the guy. I don't know. Based purely on W/L he definitely isn't the guy. Maybe Ive wasted too much breath defending him. One could drive him or herself crazy scrutinizing the rationale for and against every move... So much nuance. I don't envy TR in the slightest. Hell, enough with this for me; my head hurts. I'm just excited to see what Sano and Buxton will do for us, TR or no TR.

Let me ask a hypothetical question, in good spirit, on how we should judge the front office. Just a fun thought experiment, I really don't intend to challenge anyone. The twins continue to lose this year, and finish below .500. Let's say that the twins don't make any major moves next year, and stick with the youngsters, who have varying levels of success. The twins go .500, and stick with TR for another year (again hypothetical scenario). In 2017, Sano breaks out for a 950-1000 ops with 45 HRs, buxton steals 40 bases and wins a batting title, and berrios pitches 200 innings at a 2.00 era. Guys like Rosario, hicks, dozier, Arcia, Kepler, Hughes, Gibson, and may have above average seasons in at least one or two facets of the game. Perhaps we hide turner on the bench, or sign a FA C. But we win the World Series in 2017. We all will undoubtedly have differing opinions as to the likelihood of this sort of scenario (which might play into our "positions" on the FO, if we have one). Just for the sake of argument, ignore the likelihood of this scenario playing out. Would you say that the FO has been successful in its rebuild, even if it took 7 years? I think that you could argue either way... I think it depends on your own opinion of what success is for a baseball franchise.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have put words in your mouth . You may be right, and TR might not have what it takes anymore to get it done. Based on his body of work, he seems to be risk-averse. I just wonder whether he would behave this way if given the resources that the Yankees have. I want to see if his stockpile of prospects coalesce into a great team; there is a real risk that some big names flounder, and we've wasted our shot this year. But when TR seems to be betting on the future (that's just my interpretation, it's likely that he could have added impact talent without mortgaging the future), we should wait to see how his plan unfolds before we call for his firing. Maybe he's a quack who withholds his "plan," just saying "give it one more year," after every losing season. Maybe, his plan requires multiple years to unfold, and we should judge him based on the performance of this young core with so much potential. Maybe too much worry over the future is making him make bad roster decisions week-to week this year. I think that people here make really valid judgements of TR's plan, but I think people are clouded by the teams miserable performance in the last 4 years. If you can't spend 200+mil a year to buy your way out of a horrific roster, it takes a few years to rebuild your core. Perhaps TR's plan won't work, but I think that we ought to give it a shot.

I agree, and I wish that TR would have signed Russell Martin and a higher caliber pitcher before this year. I think Santana was a decent signing, though; he had a sub 3 era season not long ago, and there was a chance we'd catch lightning in a bottle there. I also think that TR's tendency to avoid signing big name free agents - guys that make 100mil or more - is more a function of Pohlads frugality than an overall strategy by TR. If TR were the Yankees or dodgers GM, I'd bet he would have taken on a lot more big talents than he has now. I just think his strategy reflects his resources more than his intelligence.

Maybe, it's hard to say. I also get pretty frusterated with a lot of their moves, especially with the bullpen, Mauer and hunter's place in the lineup, and buxton/Arcia sitting in AAA with Robinson getting starts. I just hesitate to label any move good or bad, when each individual move is so nuanced and requires so much information. I haven't been seeing Arcia or Buxton hit, I don't know how Boyer and fiens stuff looks relative to tonkins and oliveros, and I don't understand all the reasoning behind May over pelfrey in the rotation (manage innings/bullpen crumbling/veteran seniority). I just don't think I know enough to make the claim that the management doesn't know what they are doing or that they should get the benefit of the doubt on every decision. Someone has to ultimately make that judgement (pohlad), and I think it's critical that that judgement is made correctly. Even in hindsight, it's not always obvious that a decision was bad or good, especially if I can only speculate at the reasoning behind it. I do enjoy speculating, though, and I hate seeing the twins give up their lead in the standings.

Fair enough, I can understand that sentiment. I also really hoped that they would make a big splash and try to win, and it's clear that TR is uncomfortable making those types of trades. It's frusterating. I tend to view the lack of moves this year more as part of an overall strategy than of pure ineptitude... I just can't see us winning a World Series this year without elite level performance from multiple players, and we don't have any truly elite players right now. I think that TR is betting on Sano, Buxton and Berrios being the guys to bring us a championship. When these guys are running the show, then it will be time to add anothe frontline starter and make a real run for a championship. I think there is a distinction between squeaking into the playoffs, and having a legitimate championship contending team. I don't think adding Tulo and price would have made us a legitimate contender for the series.

Serious question - do you think that the twins management are actively trying to lose, or are you just saying that they are inept? I've seen other posts from you or others that also seem to imply that the FO aren't trying to win or are trying to lose. Just want to clarify that, perhaps I'm misinterpreting.

Well, they're both center fielders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that hicks got the CF job when buxton went on the DL. If anything, I think it implies that they were unwilling to go with a hicks-buxton-Rosario outfield, leaving hunter on the bench, or go with a Rosario/hicks platoon (as much as that platoon would make sense). I don't think buxton being sent to Rochester was based solely on his ML readiness.

Thats a good point, I mostly agree with you there. The Rays run was pretty impressive given their competition. The AL central was pretty weak, but some of those twins teams were just a pitcher or two and a few lucky bounces away from a World Series IMO. The twins did decide to start over almost completely after 2010, though, dropping Moreau, cuddyer, Garza (? Or was he earlier), and eventually span and revere. Going almost exclusively with young, cheap arms (which hasn't paid any dividends). They did develop some real talent in dozier and plouffe, and maybe hicks and Gibson, during these painful years. They just had a totally different approach than the As, who were heavy participants in the trade and free agent markets. The patience of TR is tough to swallow, and borders on ineptitude, but I think it might pay dividends with a legitimate championship team this decade. It seems that TRs put all his money on a core of Sano, Buxton, Rosario, dozier, Gibson, May, and Berrios (and perhaps hicks, Arcia, d Santana, and Vargas) leading the twins to a championship. The patient, build through the draft approach takes more time than beane's approach, but I think it is the best way to build a strong, cheap core of players with strong emotional ties to the team and to each other. Time will tell if this core has what it takes.

Here's a good data set including payroll and win % for all teams from 2000-2011. I don't have time to sort it and divide it out now, but I'll do it later. It'll be interesting to see how the twins stack up. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1mUOLBQvCpod8I1q_gxd78ef5_lgsEzS9N-6R4mp9clA/htmlview#

Agreed. I think that it's fine to have threads breaking down the faults of the front office (we all know they have many) and commiserating in our agony over the recent futility of our team, but it gets old seeing every discussion of this team turn into an assault on the front office. We get it, the bullpen sucks, and Suzuki sucks, and nolasco and Santana suck, and it's all TR's fault. Not every thread has to turn into the blame game. Baseball is a zero-sum game, and some teams are going to be bad every year. The exceptions to that rule are the teams with massive fan bases that spend double the money on payroll than the twins, and win more often. In terms of performance relative to payroll, the twins front office hasn't done as poorly as it seems in the last decade and a half. Compared to the rays and As, two teams with well respected front offices, the twins have stacked up, and I think exceeded their performance. None of the teams have won a World Series in the last decade and a half, but I think the twins had the most opportunities. I'm also frusterated by the lack of big splashes in free agency and trades - not picking up elite players - and I think it is a big reason why the twins didn't win a World Series in the 2000's. But, I'm legitimately curious what you guys think: do you think that TR would have been more active in acquiring elite talent through free agents and trades if he had been the Yankees or Red Sox GM? I have to imagine he would have been... TR isn't close to being the best GM in baseball, but he's without question not the worst. If we had the Rockies front office, or the Mariners... That'd be miserable.

Bird's a good prospect... Kid can mash. Played with him in high school. Kevin Gausman of the orioles was on that team too.

Just cut the guy... Don't ask him to hurt himself. Not like we're hurting for outfield depth. Drop Robinson, go with hicks, Buxton, and Rosario, with hunter as the fourth OF. Don't need a defense first 4th OF if your starters are all plus defenders.

quote name="nicksaviking" post="387737" timestamp="1439699610"]I want May in the rotation, but nothing but good can come from Tyler Duffey pitching adaquetly at the MLB level. He would make a perfect trade piece this offseason, assuming there's no room for him in 2016. Well, he can provide depth next year without having an obligation to get him ML innings. If we don't have pelfrey and milone next year, that'll leave us with Hughes, Gibson, nolasco, Santana and May, with Berrios waiting in the wings. Duffy would probably be needed for at least a few starts, given the nature of the SP position.

Agreed, I think we'll have an elite defensive outfield in 2016 if we go with Hicks, Buxton, and Rosario. That leaves out Arcia and Kepler, who won't be as good defensively but will ostensibly bring big bats. I have to imagine that TR will be looking to capitalize on this position of strength... Perhaps we can move (Rosario or Kepler or hicks) + plouffe for a good catcher (the giants and mets have extra talent at C if I remember correctly). That would leave two talented outfielders for the corners (though Kepler may not be quite ready, which could be contextually important), allow Sano to move over to 3B, and Arcia/Vargas to fill the DH position. This post seems like it would bleed into the trade threads, but I think it would be interesting to discuss the arguments for/against OF trades in the context of outfield defense. Should we try to maximize outfield defense, while lowering the potential gain at the catcher position? Could we acquire a good talent at catcher without giving up Rosario or hicks? I'm not sure how these trades would work out, but I'm interested to hear what those who have ears closer to the grapevines think.

Why would you expect him to tell his team that they don't have a shot at contention right now when their contending? Not doing so isn't cowardly, it's just a counterproductive thing to say, even if he believes it to be true. No need to hurt the teams confidence; stuff happens, and the season isn't close to being over. I personally think that Ryan believes that our World Series year will require some elite level play from multiple positions. Right now we have some good-very good players in plouffe and dozier, and potentially hicks, Rosario and Santana. Arcia, Kepler, polanco waiting in the wings. Good-very good pitchers in Hughes, Santana, Gibson, and potentially may. In late 2016 when/if we have elite level play from Sano, Buxton, and Berrios we could be really serious World Series contenders, with an even better understanding of which players in the OF/1B/DH logjam will be keepers and which should be traded. Next season should be the year to make a big splash for a catcher/SS/frontline starter, if we don't sign one this offseason.

I played with Gausman in high school. Dude has a legendary arm (at least for our level), there was never really any question he'd be a pro. Long arms, long legs; just the perfect build for a pitcher. He could easily crank it up into the upper 80's lower 90's as an 18 year old. That said, his pitches were flat. Our rivals would go to the batting cages, hit against 90 mph pitching, and come in and mash Kevin. He really didn't perform very well in high school, partly because his pitches were so straight, and partly because we were in Colorado and using metal bats... Our field was 415 in center, but yeah, the thin air helps. He was supposed to go in the first round out of high school but dropped pretty far. He also had some spats with pitching coaches at our school, choosing th Jv coach over our varsity coach (the Jv coach ultimately got the varsity gig a year or two later... Partly due to Kevin I think). I think he could succeed in the pros, but I've always bet against him... Didn't want the twins to pick him in '12. He's just sort of aloof, and didn't always seem to have that edge that makes great players so great. He worked hard, don't get me wrong, but it always seemed that he knew he was destined to be good regardless of his performance. That can be a good mindset to deal with adversity or an impediment to success (such as when a player grows complacent), depending on the person. All I know is that he has the stuff and build to be a great pitcher, and I can't say that I'm sure he'll be able to harness it. Take this with a grain of salt; I haven't seen the kid in person since 2010, we weren't good friends on the team, nor have I watched him pitch since then.

I find this passage particularly funny: "However, he has to be subtle. Turn too many pitches into popups, and eventually a coach could catch on. Whether the coach suspected his underlying desire or merely mistook him for someone who was genuinely bad at baseball, a significant statistical decline would mean less playing time, and less playing time would mean fewer popups. Fortunately, Nunez has found a way to fly under the radar: Create a diversion. To the extent that Nunez is known for anything other than PopupGate, it’s for having his helmet fall off when he runs the bases. It’s the ultimate misdirection. Nunez has his whole team so fixated on what he’s doing with his helmet that no one has noticed what he’s doing with his bat — namely, using it to risk near-certain outs in in hopes of riding a rush he’s felt once before." It's not a totally serious article, obviously, but it does raise interesting questions about underlying player motivations that are tough to integrate into predictive advanced stats, but can be illuminated with such stats...

Ben Lindbergh of Grantland wrote a good article about Eduardo Nunez's penchant for pop-ups. There's been some discussion about whether he deserves a roster spot on this year's team, so I thought this would be relevant. It's hard to tell whether Ben is really serious about Nunez's approach (who the heck would actively try to hit pop-ups?), but the stats he presents are compelling. Nunez swings at a lot of high pitches, and hits infield flies at a way higher rate than league average... I would think that these tendencies are more sub-conscious than a conscious strategy; in his first game replacing Jeter, he had success hitting those high pitches and pop-ups. With the split second decisions required for hitting, maybe those neuronal networks involved in making those decisions were wired in a bad way that game. That's my take from the article, though, and I'm probably way off base. Definitely give it a read; it's a pretty unique idea, even if it's not totally based in reality (it kinda seems unnecessarily outlandish). Here's a link: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mlb-secret-scandal-eduardo-nunez-chasing-perfect-popup/

Jonah Keri of Grantland gives his take on the ten worst contracts in the mlb, plus some honorable mentions. http://grantland.com/features/worst-mlb-contracts-2015-alex-rodriguez-ryan-howard-prince-fielder/ I know that many see Joe Mauer's contract as a pretty bad contract at this point, with his lack of production last year, particularly the first half of the year. I know Parker wrote about his struggles recently, and there's been a lot of discussion on that thread about mauer; sorry if this is has already been discussed on that thread, I haven't read it through. I do think it's an interesting debate, though. Mauer isn't listed by Jonah, not even as a (dis)honorable mention. Here is the only mention of Mauer (in the reasoning for listing Pujols where he is): 'It’s worth debating whether there’s more value in a player like Howard, who has pretty much zero meaningful impact at this stage of his career but will only haunt Phillies accountants for two more seasons, or a player like Pujols, who still contributes but is nowhere near the talent he used to be and is on the books for seven more seasons. Let’s hear what a couple of high-ranking baseball ops folks think: “I think that the contracts where you’re essentially getting zero production or, even worse, you’re better off just dumping the guy rather than letting him hurt your team are the worst, regardless of money owed. Mauer and Votto and Cabrera are overpaid/well above their market value, but if you take the money out of the equation, at least you’re not making your team worse by having them. [b.J.] Upton, Ethier, and Howard, on the other hand, are complete sinkholes.”' I think that that's a pretty reasonable argument. I also wouldn't list Mauer among the leagues worst contracts. I also wouldn't say the twins got their money's worth, at this point. Although, the argument could be made that they received a surplus of value during Mauer's prime years, when he wasn't being payed 23mil a year, making it sort of a wash. Not that it was necessarily the Twin's obligation to pay Mauer for that production, though.

I am a fan of effective velocity; it's a really fascinating idea. I think the key thing that you aren't pointing out, though, is that effective velocity, in practice, doesn't occur in a vacuum: its all about what the hitter is keying in on. The cool thing about the theory is that it takes into account the plane of the bat, and where the bat must strike the ball to make solid contact when the ball is inside vs. outside. So, a 97mph fastball is more effective when it's thrown up and in because the hitter would have to key in on it, leaving them susceptible to offspeed stuff low and away. The idea is that a hitter can accidentally get a hit when pitchers work backwards - two identical swings, in terms of the plane of the bat and timing of the swing, can allow for good contact on an offspeed pitch up and in as well as good contact on a fastball down and away. What the guy behind effective velocity is saying is that a pitcher can maximize the difference in perceived velocity - the difference in the timing and plane of the swing required for good contact - by throwing fastballs up and in and offspeed stuff low and away. So, a pitcher can be effective throwing fastballs down and away - but the hitter better not be expecting it, and the pitcher had better not miss with a change-up up and in. When pitchers are throwing these pitches up and away, or down and in, it muddies the picture in terms of effective velocity. Plus, the pitcher has to consider what the hitter is up to - the hitter's tendencies/strengths, and what the hitter is expecting from the pitcher. It makes for a fascinating game of chess, and it makes it really tough to say that one pitch is more effective than another simply because the league performs better on average with that pitch - after all, every individual battle between the pitcher and the hitter is contingent upon the strategies of each player.

With Maddon going to the Cubs, that leaves Renteria without a job. What do people think about him as a potential manager for next year? He was hired by the cubs (presumably) to usher in the next wave of young players, so it only follows that at least one organization thinks that he was suited for that situation. And, the Twins find themselves in the same situation, with the next wave of (hopefully) core players debuting last year. Plus, he's Hispanic (Mexican-American, to be specific), which might be helpful with so many big prospects on the twins having Hispanic origins. I'm not sure if he speaks Spanish, though, but I would guess that he does. He may be at a disadvantage compared to other applicants, though, as he probably has less time to study up on the Twins. I wonder if Terry would delay the decision a bit to give Renteria a good interview. Thoughts?

I find this quote, especially the bolded part to be really interesting. I'm curious about the decisions he is talking about - but not so much in the conspiratorial sense that ownership is taking advantage of fan's love of the team by limiting payroll and maximizing profit. We all know that fans love exciting, winning teams - when a team starts winning, fans show up. Shoot, I'm sure most of the people on this site developed their love the twins with Kirby in 87 and 91, or Mauer and Santana in the 2000s. What interests me is that that sentence seems to be an insight into TR's, as well as ownership's, theories of how to put together seriously good teams. Like, contend for the world series every year for a five year stretch types of teams. Like the Giants, or the Cardinals, or the darned Yanks. It seems like TR believes that the net benefits of certain moves that hurt the current team are large enough that enough of such moves will lead to an excellent team. Sort of an economics game. For one, being bad gives you advantages - higher draft picks, larger amounts of money to invest in the draft and a higher position on the waiver wire. These avenues really do allow bad teams to accrue talent, and the twins have been reaping the benefits. Another angle that I find interesting is the flexibility of fandom: if you put together a team that is solid every now and then, but rarely great (Oakland, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Miami, San Diego), it's tough to build a rabid, thick-n-thin fanbase. This is all obvious stuff, but taken together it really speaks to TR and the Pohlad's strategy, which really can't involve anything else besides building a seriously contending team (imo). To consistently make decisions that will help future teams at the expense of the current team is ballsy as hell, and really can't be done without real job security. Trading away solid starting center fielders based on the work of minor league center fielders, and trading these cf's for minor league pitchers was pretty ballsy, with large risks and large rewards. But, TR knows his job is safe, and knows that these moves will result in a worse team temporarily. The upside of these moves is that Meyer and May become solid to good SP's, while young guys like Hicks or Bux develop to take roles vacated by Span and Revere - a net increase in production. The downside is basically what has happened so far - no real centerfielder, and doubts about the future of Meyer and Mays (although there is still a lot of time left). What I'm really trying to say with this post is that I believe that TR and ownership believe, and act on, the idea that a truly excellent team is built through the acquisition of high upside talent at all positions, by any means necessary. Even if it means die-hard fans have to endure what we've been through the last 4 years.

I think that Ryan and the twins are being so conservative with Meyer because of injury concerns. Yes, he could get hurt in AAA, but my interpretation of their handling of him this year is that they want him to be 100% confident with his stuff when he gets to the big leagues. If he's up, and he's looking for that extra juice to get guys out - that's the sort of thing that can get him hurt. Throwing a little bit harder, tweaking his delivery just to get a little bit extra on pitches, that possibility has to scare the front office. Do people really believe this is about anything other than protecting Meyer? He's been on a pitch count all year. Everyone knows he's the best pitcher in the organization, or at least the higher levels. Meyer can't develop his stuff and durability if he's hurt. If he doesn't have the strength to pitch 150+ innings in the big leagues under extra pressure to be the savior of the rotation, he might press when he gets tired, putting undue stress on his arm in a season that already appears lost.