KirbyDome89

He is one of 25 players across all levels of the organization to report to ST early, but because he doesn't stay the entire time he isn't dedicated to the team. He doesn't lose 10 pounds before the start of the season, he is now overweight and that clearly is the reason he struggled in RF; playing out of position had nothing to do with it. Don't forget he also missed an early batting practice session before one game in Tampa so he's unprofessional too. All this can be strung together and apparently its obvious that Sano has character issues. When you lay out all the "evidence," to support Reusse's accusations, its hard to see the article as anything other than character assault.

I agree, using it as a stand alone argument doesn't work well which is why I said it does't hold much weight. I was just pointing out that because there is risk involved both ways, choosing one side over another isn't necessarily a bogus position.

I have zero doubt the Twins asked Sano to lose weight last offseason, and I don't remember many people questioning whether Reusse could support that claim although a few may have. The issue I, and many others had with the article is Reusse insinuated that had Sano lost the weight his time in RF would have gone differently, and consequently his failure at the position was on him, rather than the Twins for playing him out of position.

I wouldn't say its a bogus argument because there is risk involved in both dealing and keeping players. However, because the team doesn't look to be competitive next year and they enter 2018 with a 35 yo Santana who others are banking on repeating this year I would say the argument holds little weight.

Obviously this all hinges on how somebody views the rotation for next few years. In the same way you aren't advocating an all-in approach to 2017, I don't think anybody hopes the Twins call it quits on next year either. It isn't improbable to think this rotation could be decent, but like you mentioned above they're below average. That is their ceiling if everything breaks right for this team. I'm frustrated by the idea of wasting years of good young players as well, but isn't sending out this rotation next year doing just that? I'm not advocating a FA signing, I realize the market isn't exactly saturated. The best options for the staff, barring a massive haul for Dozier or some team becoming desperate at the winter meetings and giving up a plus AAA prospect, lie within house. Objectively this team isn't going to anywhere near the playoffs next year with the current rotation. Is it not placing faulty hope in the present to hold onto Santana, thinking there is a chance 2017 is anything other than a last place divisional finish or that 2018 is anything but a toss up whether or not the team is competitive (new regime coming in so we can't know a direction yet)? I'm not saying the Twins have to trade Santana, but if they can get a piece back for him I don't see his loss as catastrophic to the rotation. Like I said, next year will be rough, and we don't know what 2018 will be like because we don't have a POBO right now, so selling Santana at peak value doesn't seem too crazy to me.

Duffey, Mejia, Hughes (wildcard). No Pat Dean and other AAAA pitchers aren't the only options.

I believe most of the drum beating has been about players who are having unsustainable career stretches or aren't part of the future. Selling high on those players is a smart move for a rebuilding franchise.

Just these last 2 weeks (past 13 games counting today) Logan Schafer has played more games than Eddie Rosario, 7-6. Schafer was hitting 2 hole on Sunday. The guy has 2 hits in his last 15 ABs. This is a problem. I agree, critiquing one lineup for one game can seem silly especially when they play 162 games, but this doesn't seem to be a situation where a player is being used to give a guy a breather. James Beresford getting a start at 3B isn't a huge deal, but when he starts again the next day at 1B I have to shake my head. There is less than a month left to evaluate players who may have an impact on next years team. Those players need to be on the field essentially every game at this point.

I think if you turned it around and each AL central team or each AL team was drafting players for the next 10+ years you would see a lot of Twins go before other players. I think there is a lot of positional talent on this team, it just isn't seasoned. As for the pitching, well.....

Yep, nobody can say for certain that things will work out one way or another. Since the Twins finally accepted (did they ever really?) that the rebuild was on in late 2012 the push has been patience and wait for the talent to come through the farm system. We're seeing some of that now, finally. I feel like continuing down that road is the best approach. If they sell now they've wasted years watching those players develop and they're no closer to being relevant. I'm excited about the position players but like we said before pitching has me worried. Oh, for sure its more enjoyable to watch young players who have a future with the team as opposed to AAAA and journeymen.

You believed they would be relievers based on the scouting, or the report stated they would likely wind up as bullpen pieces? I can see relief work listed as their floor but I don't recall reading anything about either of them here on TD or elsewhere that didn't list them as starting rotation pieces. The Twins don't have a reputation for making savvy transactions but I really doubt they were so far in the dark as to the talent level of both prospects that they were the only group that saw either as potential starting pitchers. I wouldn't give up on May as a starter just yet. He wasn't anything to write home about in 14' but he was improving in 2015 and actually had a really good June before the Twins moved him to the pen.

We agree on the ebb and flow. I've said my bit on the MiLB comparison. I wasn't dumping on you for the question, its just that any number I would assign could be supported only by opinion. I realize all discussion on these boards are opinion based but there is usually some way to incorporate a statistical side into each argument. Honestly if you gave me 50/50 odds I would be ecstatic. I think with the entire class we need to be in "wait and see,"mode. I agree the pitching needs serious help. A prospect may go as part of a package to bring back real help, and I understand that is a reality. I don't agree with the notion of selling off a large chunk of the young core and starting over. You have to invest years just to have an idea how a player might turn out. Every time you trade off your prospects you deplete your minor league system and the big league team has nothing to draw from. A mid market team that isn't very active in free agency like the Twins can't operate like that. Add to this the fact that the draft is such a crap shoot and reshuffling until you have a "wait and see," class is a terrible idea. You mentioned the Astros, Royals and Pirates earlier. Houston went scorched earth, sold off veteran contracts, was horrible for a few years, hoarded prospects (except Appel) and now is reaping the rewards of their youth movement. KC and Pittsburgh couldn't build any success during their down years because they couldn't keep any talent on their rosters after it reached MLB. Starting around 04-05' both teams began drafting the core players we're watching today and actually kept them rather than trade and reshuffle. Its obvious not everybody shares the same opinion of Sano. We know he won't become faster but I couldn't disagree any more about physical maturation improving before ultimately declining as well as improvements to plate approach. I don't you need to tell me anything regarding human development. Sano isn't elite now, but that doesn't mean he can't become an elite talent. Trout is a generational player who very may well end up as one of the best CFs of all time. If he is the measuring stick to which you're comparing all upcoming players then yes 99.9% of the time you'll be underwhelmed, all players have flaws.

I meant he could have a year like Bryant, not exactly the same. I realize Bryant this year trumps Sano as a rookie and yes I saw he had a high babip. If you're of the opinion that the Sano we've seen this year is who we have moving forward then that .396 looks like an aberration. I would say this year is more of a floor than ceiling, in which case I think a babip somewhere roughly between the two seasons is reasonable. If his approach at the plate improves, as most players do with age, and he reaches peak physical maturity I can see years that are consistent with his rookie season. I wasn't arguing that babip had no part, but again, with time and development I don't think its a stretch to envision him putting up numbers like his rookie year, which again, are similar to what we're seeing Bryant do this season. The K% isn't a huge deal to me. It would be nice to see a reduction in the rate, but as long as hes drawing walks I can live with it.

I didn't miss any of the back and forth. You think Sano has peaked and you're using MiLB numbers as evidence. Mr. Brooks pointed out, and I agree with, what we see as a flaw in that argument. I disagree that a 23 year old male has reached his physical peak. I'm with you in that I expect his approach to continue to improve but I wouldn't attribute any of the subsequent statistical increases to luck. Those improvements are called player growth and development. As for your question, there is no way to quantify the % chance that Sano becomes the 2016 version of Kris Bryant. Rather than give an arbitrary number I can say that Sano's rookie season looked a lot like Bryant so far this season, so I don't think its a stretch at all to believe Sano can have an offensive year like Bryant.

I believe the point being made was that Sano started playing professionally as a teenager, so it makes sense that his minor league numbers aren't as gaudy as Bryant's stats. He faced a much steeper learning curve entering professional baseball.

Another one...

Again, I'm not arguing that prep players don't ever have flaws that require tweaking, but i do think those cases should be handled on an individual basis and it shouldn't be assumed that every player entering the organization needs a complete makeover. Like I said previously, there is a massive difference between minor tweaking to help timing or delivery and a complete overhaul of mechanics. I think you're right, I believe the Twins looked at Buxton, saw mechanics that they didn't like, and decided to make changes before he started rookie ball. I also believe thats a perfect example of the one size fits all approach I was talking about. If you assume the prospects you acquire need to be "fixed," before they even play a rookie league game, and then make changes in their mechanics based on that assumption, you're applying a one size fits all approach. Again, there is also a difference between molding a player, and forcing a player to fit a mold. Given the timing and lack of experience Buxton had before changes were implemented, I have a hard time viewing the situation as anything other than the Twins trying to push Buxton into a mold.The basis of the entire argument seems to be the presupposition that Buxton had flawed hitting mechanics. I reject the notion that his mechanics were flawed to the point that an overhaul was necessary, and I certainly am not on board with the line of thinking that led to the decision being made. I understand where you're coming from and totally agree that many prospects do need to make adjusts, multiple times, at many levels. However, I just don't see this as a defense for overhauling a prospect, especially one as talented as Buxton, before they've had a chance to even play rookie ball. I'm not against the idea of adjustments, its the approach with which they seem to be made that bothers me.

When you draft a player and your default position is to close off their batting stance and replace the leg kick with a toe tap before he has played a game I would say that is forcing a player into a mold rather than looking to mold a player, which is a one size fits all approach. Like I said, small tweaks occur all the time but this goes beyond that. IMO that is textbook "square peg, round hole."

Again, I'm not against alterations. I know they're often implemented and many are successful. I just don't see the initial elimination of the leg kick in favor of a toe tap and closing his stance as a tweak. IMO thats more of an overhaul, which I would be fine with if he had shown it wasn't going to work. Making preemptive changes to a talent like Buxton seems like the application of a one size fits all approach. I think its funny that we're seeing him at his best right now, and its because he has gone back to the leg kick and stance that he had when he was drafted.

Agreed, small adjustments happen frequently. My point was they drafted him for his natural talents, he was a consensus top player in all the minors, and before he even saw the field they're making significant changes to his batting style. Its one thing to tweak the level of hand placement for a 5th round C- prospect, its another to overhaul the hitting approach of a superstar prospect before you know it won't translate at that level. I realize there are no stats on this, but I have a hard time believing all organizations make those kind of changes to players of Buxton's talent before they have a chance to prove its necessary.

He must've decided to make all the adjustments to his hitting stance and weight transfer by himself. But, yes, kudos to the Twins for being "savvy," enough to allow him to return to what made him the #2 overall pick. I'm certain they don't want to self sabotage, but altering mechanics before a player of that talent sees the field in the minor leagues is troublesome.

Please end this game now...I can't bear to watch Schafer hit in Sano's spot

Those might be the two worst bunt attempts I've ever seen...

Not playing the field because he is hurt and not playing the field because the team has decided he is only a DH are two different things. My point was that when hes healthy he should be given the opportunity to play the field, or at least prove he can't. I agree if he isn't entrenched at DH then the lineup is much more flexible. Most likely Polanco would be at 3B. But if Escobar was assigned there it would be an awful option? The last two seasons the only offensive category that Plouffe has any real advantage in is HRs. Also over their careers Escobar has shown to be the better defensive player despite a bad year this year, so I fail to see how he is an awful option at 3B.

I don't understand why anybody is ok with poor decisions continually being made. I agree, the consensus is that change needs to be made, so why not start that now by making good/competent decisions. Why make a bad situation worse by repeating past offenses? I wouldn't say its the least bit hypocritical to wish for a new FO structure. Even if this group turned in a stellar performance over the last 1+ month does it really erase what we've witnessed since 2011?