Alex
-
Posts
1,032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Alex
-
I think Hicks and Arcia are in different places. Also, I've no looked at Hick's month by month splits to see how much of his overall numbers were buoyed by RH ABs. I think it's incredibly important that he is at least capable of hitting RHP before getting a long term callup. I think it's a bad idea to hand him the starting job again, but that's different than giving up on him, which I'm not doing.
-
Terry Ryan's Innovative formula for building a winner past and future
Alex replied to Brandon's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
It's also the least innovative strategy there is and and many teams have proven they don't need it for long term success. Good organizations limit their losing seasons and maximize their winning ones. -
If Perkins goes down, we'll need them to grab Capps.
-
I don't think the same argument can be made for Arcia last season or this upcoming one at all.. I agree Arcia should have been getting ABs instead of either one of those as he was clearly ready for the majors. I hated what they did with him in terms of up and down. Presley might only be starting for half a season depending on Buxton. And, as I mentioned in an ideal world, Mastro gets back to normal and becomes an effective bat against LHP to create a decent platoon. The question of Hicks really depends on whether getting MLB at bats for a player who isn't ready is helpful to their development. I don't think it is.
-
Terry Ryan's Innovative formula for building a winner past and future
Alex replied to Brandon's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
There is some variation between "losing season" and 90+ loss season. Well-run organizations don't bottom out, imo. The Giants, for example, had two 90 loss seasons in a row in that time but weren't ever as bad as the Twins have been (and look to be next year). The A's had 3 losing seasons, hit .500 and then lost, but they never lost 90 games in the span you are talking about. The Mets have been bad but not as bad as the Twins. I'd argue that any team with a decade of losing isn't worth considering in any rebuild discussion. They were just poorly run. Comparing us to the Brewers, Tigers, Orioles, Seattle, Wash/Mon during those long spells of futility is an incredibly frightening proposition. But, I think they're fair in that, IMO, the Twins have not been well run in recent years. -
I do hope that is the case, but there are also quotes that seem to go against the grain in terms of any measuring statistic or logical evaluation (like Ryan's quote about the starting pitching).
-
I get your point here, but I think it's really only the organization that is at least sounding like Presley is more of a stopgap. Your last paragraph, I completely agree with and I just can't believe some of the quotes we are getting. At some point, they are either transparent attempts to spread false optimism or they actually have a completely out-of-whack evaluation system. I think that until Hicks can hit RHP he has no business in the majors, at least for now. There's more value (to him and the team) in him playing everyday at his age than having him sit or be overwhelmed on the big club.
-
This is an interesting theory and maybe they do (not unlike Beane in the opening scene/chapter of Moneyball, but do you have evidence of that?) Considering the resulting aggregates recently, I'd say there's little evidence of it, or at least he's not been successful in the evaluation to do so.
-
I think Ryan recently indicated he believed that the starting staff was better than its ERA, but there aren't many statistics where they would be considered anything but horrible. I'm really not sure what they are looking at with their pitchers. Roenicke was probably a salary issue. Not that they need to worry about that terribly, but if a player is replaceable and has little upside, there's no reason to keep them around.
-
I'm really not clear why Hicks would be a better option. He was clearly outmatched and put in a position to have a historically awful rookie season. Putting him out there again seems like a further exercise in futility until he shows he's improved in AAA, not to mention sends a pretty terrible message to players and fans -- not that they seem to care about that lately. I don't think Alex Presley is the answer but he's the best option right now, barring a FA signing, to keep the spot warm. Whether he should bat lead off is another question, but the Twins have a whole host of terrible hitters and not one of them fits as an ideal lead off candidate, or if they could hit there they fit better somewhere else.
-
Not a need to waive Mastro yet. If Mastro can recover from injury and work enough rust off to hit big league pitching, he becomes an ideal 4th OF for the Twins as he's a RHB and can cross platoon with Pressley and Arcia. Errr....nevermind.
-
I think Pressley will be our opening day CF next season.
-
Terry Ryan's Innovative formula for building a winner past and future
Alex replied to Brandon's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I applaud the author of the post, but this reference to starters exemplifies what I consider to be an incredibly basic flaw in the argument: the opposing ideas in the "blueprint" are not mutually exclusive. The choice does not have to between one ace and 4 awful pitchers vs. 5 quality pitchers. You can actually build a rotation that includes and ace and four quality pitchers. In fact, good teams do. The same is true of the lineup. Just because you sign a guy that hits 35 HR or more doesn't mean you have to have 8 holes in the other spots. This is especially true now with the depth of the farm system AND the available money the Twins have, but it means you have to draft, sign, and develop the right players. -
Some examples would be nice, wouldn't they? At some point a bad team is a bad team. The more I look the more I struggle to find a team that has been as awful as the Twins for as long that hasn't been terrible for a very long time (Royals, Pittsburgh, etc...) This cycle narrative has no merit until someone produces some solid evidence to the contrary. I've already shown several teams that are in situations similar to the Twins and could add others (like the Giants) that avoid the rock bottom the Twins are in.
-
Did you read my post? Three teams I checked didn't have three 90+ in the last two decades. Sure, maybe somewhere in their history, but that's no evidence of a cycle, which should be repeatable. My hunch, based on teams I've looked at, is that only organizations deemed "terrible" would have multiple 90 loss seasons in a half decade --- those that have a history of losing. Please, share them if you have them. It's one thing to say winning/drafting talent is cyclical, but to say the three horrific seasons of the Twins is a common occurrence and pattern for any/all decent organizations just isn't true. I'm tempted to go team by team, but I might have more luck chasing down Bigfoot.
-
If you want to continue to a) say it is a five year plan and indicate this is normal for mid market teams in this situation, please feel free to give evidence so we can discuss it further. For example, the Twins have recently been compared to more mid-market teams like the Cardinals and Braves How many 90 loss seasons have the Cards had since 1990? 1, and they've only been below .500 a handful of times. How about Atlanta? 2 90 loss seasons. This cyclical idea just doesn't hold water, folks, at least to the point where you have to bottom out like the Twins have. There are teams (not named the Yankees or Red Sox) that have been good or competitive for a long time without bottoming out multiple years in a row. Sure there are teams that have been bad that whole time, but to say this isn't doable or is normal if just false. Look up some records, please. Edit: Oh, and the A's who are in a worse situation than the Twins financially without a doubt haven't had to bottom out either. They had two 90 loss seasons (1993 and 1997). Yes, they've had several losing seasons. but they've had a lot of successful ones, too and are typically winning 45% of their games or more. So, that makes three exceptions to the rule so far of teams in situations currently similar (and one worse) to the Twins that have not even had 3 90 loss seasons in 23 years, much less three in a row (and probably a fourth).
-
The irony, of course, is that while the Twins did have elements of their lineups on winning teams that were "small ball" and get a lot of credit for that they certainly weren't bereft of sluggers and OBP guys. The more small ball type teams, that were winning teams, had trouble getting anywhere in the playoffs. The teams that did do deep were some of the best hitting teams in the organizatio
-
Whie I understand your point, it's more than just analytics where the organization is stuck in traditional thought patterns (platoons being our latest example). The sabermetric piece is certainly a notable element, especially as it's now a pretty basic element of scouting, but hiring from within, rehiring the same coaching staff, etc...it all gives the appearance of a stagnant organization.
-
I get how our prospects can create some hope, but with such a reliance on them and only one (maybe two) really good pitchers in the system I just don't see how anyone can be so confident the Twins will be winning anytime soon if that is all they rely on. Right now the major league roster boasts one all-star, one promising player (Arcia), one who had a good September (Pinto) and a couple of decent relief pitchers. That's it. That leaves a ton of holes to fill before you get "winning" again.
-
I'm not convinced they were the first to capitalize on the value of defense, and would argue the other way, that they value(d) defense too much (consistently trotting out no-hit middle infielder, getting rid of Hardy, who btw is a good defender AND could hit). I also think they've over-valued the bullpen and especially the closer role (Ramos for Capps?). As for platoon situations, well, did you get the chance to read the article where neither the manager nor general manager really believe in them?
-
Article: Talking Pitching: Kevin Correia
Alex replied to Parker Hageman's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I disagree that that was the intent of the organization going into the last offseason unless you want to discount what they said as completely disingenuous (competing in September, pursuing pitching FA). -
There was a ton of talk in the article about a roster overhaul. I'll be fascinated to see if it happens and what it looks like, but I don't think there are all that many players that I care whether I see in a Twins uniform or not next season (even if I think it's unlikely). I think all but the following hitters are relatively replaceable: Mauer, Dozier, Arcia, and possibly Pinto. On the pitching side of things I don't think we ended the season with a single starter that isn't replaceable, though a couple of bullpen guys earned their keep.
-
Terry Ryan was recently quoted as saying he's "not a velocity guy" so I don't think he'd bother.
-
I'm glad that someone in the media has started to champion this opinion (though I'll say up until that article, he'd seemed far more supportive of the Twins approach). It's frustrating to me to continually hear the arrogance that comes from Ryan and others when asked about a change in philosophy (ie they aren't having it) when the team has had three straight losing seasons and looks headed to a fourth. To extend the discussion from Seth's article: If the employee I had had failed at three projects in a row, they better "get after" doing something different on the fourth.
-
Article: Twins Must Shake Loser Mentality This Offseason
Alex replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Everyone's free to use their own starting point. However, if you want to start it when Ryan arrived, or even last year, we should really only be talking then about what he's done since that time and not before. And frankly, he hasn't done as much, but he's getting a ton of the the credit for a farm system. 2012: (+)Drafted Buxton. No doubt this was a great pick, but almost any pick was going to greatly improve their farm system since they were picking 2nd. 2013: (+) Meyer, May, Cole Stewart (-) Span, Revere. Definitely a trade that should pay off, but both Span and Revere were young enough to be part of a rebuild and their departure looks to have left what may be at least a 1-2 year hole in CF and at a clear cost to the major league club. Frankly, I don't know how much hope we should have for May to be a significant piece. The rest of the bunch that looks to be a significant part of the rebuild had very little to do with Ryan. Sano, Rosario, Arcia, and Pinto, and only the latter two have tasted the big leagues at all. So, in total at best, he's drafted two promising players and acquired one other via trade at significant cost to the major league club while the rest of the rebuild were brought in under different leadership. If you take away the draft picks as completely his (because a high level of talent would have been added to the farm system regardless of who the GM was with two high picks), I think you're left with one promising young pitcher as the only current gain in the rebuild. Meanwhile, the big league club has gotten worse.