twinstalker

Wow, thanks for the link. Sorry I didn't see this.

I couldn't find an easy resource for this. 18 yr olds and younger at time of signing need to be added after five seasons (including the signing year season), 19 yrs old and older after four seasons. Aaron Hicks and probably all high schoolers drafted in 2008 have to be added to the 40. This includes BJ Hermsen, Kolten Wong (oh, wait), and George Springer (oh, wait). Ok, I'm being unfair here. Lots of players don't sign with teams. So Hicks and Hermsen... And college players in 2009: Kyle Gibson, Chris Herrmann, and Dakota Watts (?). Matt Bashore and Billy Bullock and Ben Tootle will not have to be added, unfortunately. Anybody else who we'd be afraid to lose? Side note while perusing the drafts (and probably worth a separate post): here are the non-first picks by the Twins who were drafted in the top five rounds. 2006: Joe Benson, Tyler Robertson, Whit Robbins, Garrett Olson, Devin Shepherd 2007: Danny Rams, Angel Morales, Reggie Williams, Nate Striz (not signed) 2008: Carlos Gutierrez, Shooter Hunt, Tyler Ladendorf, Bobby Lanigan, Danny Ortiz, Nick Romero 2009: Matt Bashore, Billy Bullock (given away), Ben Tootle, Derek McCallum, Tobias Streich 2010: Niko Goodrum, Pat Dean, Eddie Rosario (heh, they hit), Nate Roberts The jury is out on the 2011 picks and actually some of the 2006 picks (Benson, Robertson). But it's looking very likely that the Twins are going to get exactly one decent player (Rosario) out of this group 2006-2010, a five year period with 24 players the Twins chose in the first five round after their first picks (Parmelee, Revere, Hicks, Gibson, Wimmers). My first thought is that this is pretty bad drafting, though Rosario can himself bring it into the mediocre range by being the strong player I think he'll be. It would be interesting to see how other teams did here. I'm going to look at one or two teams who are not top salary teams and see what they did. Cincinatti 2006: Sean Watson, Chris Valaika, Justin Reed, Josh Ravin 2007: Todd Frazier (slugging over .500), Kyle Lotzkar, Zack Cozart (starting shortstop), Scott Carroll, Neftali Soto 2008: Zach Stewart (AAA good, MLB bad), Tyler Cline, Clayton Shunick 2009: Brad Boxberger, Billy Hamilton (top 50 prospect), Donny Joseph (dominant AA-AAA reliever), Mark Fleury, Daniel Tuttle 2010: Ryan Lamarre, Devin Lohman, Brodie Greene, Wes Mugarian Hmmm...it would be interesting to look at all the teams, but I suspect the Twins have really underachieved in this somewhat crucial area of the draft.

Well, sure. But a September call-up, followed by what comes next year (over half the year at AAA) should allow for that, and if it doesn't, it won't make that huge of financial difference overall. The real kicker is making sure they end next year with under 1 year of major league time so push back the FA year and keep them under team control. i doubt there's going to be anything negative, accrual-wise, that occurs from a call-up this September.

Does calling up Hicks (and putting him on the 40) start his options one year earlier than if he's added in November? I'm not worried about playing time for these guys, as they don't need to play every day, and nor do any of the current Twin outfielders need to play every day in September.

They weren't willing to build a championship team when they had Mauer, Morneau, Santana, and Nathan as centerpieces, what makes you think they'd do the appropriate things when the really only have Mauer as someone who can be counted on to be well above average at his position?

I think the organization should be forced to admit and correct every other obvious (at the time) mistake they've made before they get to even take Nishi out of the lineup. Examples: 1. Bunting 2. Playing the infield back, then bunting 3. Treating saves as if they're meaningful 4. Acting as if hitting the ball to the right side is doing your job (if your job is making precious outs, i guess) 5. Batting left handed hitters in a row (a.k.a making the Tyler Robertsons or Tony Sipps out there 3x more valuable) 6. Celebrating making the playoffs twice 7. Setting the bar at competing in the AL Central 8. Failing to platoon where obvious and necessary 9. Putting players in the "doghouse" and getting rid of them, if possible 10. Selling at the lowest possible point 11. Never selling at the highest possible point 12. Not understand noise (variance is the basis for the field of statistics) 13. Not appreciating fielding range and arms. 14. Not understanding how to deal with players under your control, contract-wise. 15. Thinking a player''s performance against you (versus all other info) is the truth 16. Depending on scouts, especially those scouting Japan, in spite of statistics and measureables. 17. Not appreciating obp 18. Micro-managing in the playoffs, relative to the regular season 19. Not understand the importance of K/9 20. Not understanding game theory in the least 21. Giving out long contracts to bad or not-worth-it players. 22. Not appreciating BA against I have pretty much hated most moves made by the Twins since 2002, starting with retaining Gardenhire all these years (1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,13,17,18). You can fit most of the mistakes made by the team and organization into one of these, including: Restricting my criticism to guys who were on the Twins (at time of mistake) or brought in as free agents: not trading Jacque Jones after 2002 (8, 10, 11, 17) dumping Ortiz (17) Rick Reed (19,21) Carl Pavano (19,21) Shannon Stewart (13,19) Tony Batista (13, 16, 17) Craig Monroe (15) and you can fill in the rest... Delmon Young Matt Garza Jason Bartlett Kevin Slowey Matt Capps (definitely as a re-sign, but only one I mention also as trade return, because the bad thinking above caused you to happen) Wilson Ramos Francisco Liriano Matt Capps Tsuyoshi Nishioka Cory Koskie Johan Santana Hardy Blackburn Willingham (this is one for the future, since indication are the Twins will handle this wrong--his value will never be higher than it was in July) I'm sure I've missed a bunch. Meanwhile, here are the good things the Twins have done: Pierzynski (sold from a position of power, only case of ever selling high) Milton (to get similar back without salary) Guardado (back then we thought they understood "closers" were replaceable) Hawkins (good decision, too expensive and replaceable) Willingham (very good signing) Span (very good long-term contract) Doumit (good signing and re-signing) I'm sure I've missed some bad and good both, but most missing here are average (like the first Pavano signing after 2009 for one year). I also don't count "deals" where the Twins were basically just taking on someone else's salary, so Carlos Gomez (for Hardy) and the guy we "traded" for Rauch don't count. Except for the long-term signing of Stewart, post-2003 was the best period for the Twins decision-making, although it bugs me Terry Ryan didn't know who Liriano was when dealing (a scout recommended him after negotiations started), he got lucky there, though he already was going to get fair value in Nathan. If you would have asked my group of friends in 2003 who the Twins should go after from the Giants, they would have said Nathan and Liriano, among others...and Terry Ryan didn't know who Liriano was. That's scary. Further, the Guardado and Hawkins and Milton decisions were completely financially-based. They've made mistake after mistake after mistake. And they really only needed to make some good decisions in the middle of the last decade for us to have fond memories of another pennant. I've agonized each of these (bad) decisions when they occurred and somehow stayed a fan, to the point I still watch each game when they're out of it. I have season tix, though this might be it for me. So as far as I'm concerned, I think this organization should acknowledge each of these mistakes prior to being allowed to sit Nishioka. "We really don't understand statistics or game theory, especially as they pertain to baseball, the field I happen to work in. I want to apologize to the Twins Nation for our willingness to cap our efforts to improve our team (most of which would have more likely had the opposite effect, ironically) to a level of competitiveness beyond our own division, knowing we had four of the very best players in all of baseball. I, Terry Ryan, would like to personally apologize for Tony Batista in 2006, not understanding that I needed to deal Santana in 2007, and recommending maybe the most horrific of all replacements when I retired, though how in the world would I have understood that he was incompetent. He was my protege, after all. I didn't realize how overmatched I was. There are so many more specifics that I could apologize for or apologize for on behalf of Bill, but that would take far too much time. I would like to say to those people who think we had to pitch Liriano again after his 15 strikeout game that no, we didn't have to. We could have just rested him and let the bidders bid, given his next start was only a week before the deadline. Honestly it just didn't occur to us. Much like when we failed to offer a timely contract to Travis Lee. I hope you all remember the AJ trade, though." Okay, Terry, we accept your apology if you have actually decided to take your job seriously this time round, but your deadline decisions don't appear that you necessarily have. Still, I'm all for keeping Willingham if the best you were offered is a Daniel Corcini and nothing else of significance. Or Span if you weren't even offered that for him. Tell me that's the case, and I'll believe you. You may dump Nishioka now.

Smart ones don't. Smart ones who know they're in a rebuilding phase don't. We're talking Twins. What's your point? (hopefully obviously not a jab at you) And besides, why not trade cheap and young for cheap and younger if your needs are better addressed? In this case, I don't think Parmelee's worth very much, so it's probably impossible to make a good trade.

Trading Parmelee is interesting. I don't think it's a possibility for the Twins to consider keeping Morneau, but Mauer and Doumit could fill the 1B role with Willingham, if they're intent on keeping him. Arcia, Hicks, and Herrmann provide depth at the positions affected. But this would only make sense for a team that has excess pitching or middle infield and needs a 1B who's both second division and still better than their other options (because Parmelee is not a first-division 1B). That excludes almost everybody, because almost everybody has someone who projects as well as Parmelee. One team that does make some sense is Baltimore, who has Jonathan Schoop as a AA 2B. He's seemingly had a down year, but he basically skipped through loA and hiA in 2011 and is two levels ahead of Eddie Rosario at the same age. You keep Morneau for a year, trade Parmelee for Schoop, let Schoop start at AA next year and move to AAA midseason, and hope he finds his loA stroke of 2011. That's probably the best-case scenario with trading Parmelee. It probably makes more sense to get what you can for Morneau while he's still yours and let Parmelee, who's definitely better than he had projected to be (prior to September, 2011), take over at 1B. You might even get a guy like Schoop for Morneau and save $14 million while securing 1B and catcher both for 2014 and beyond.

Wow, if you had stopped after the first sentence, I would have contacted you to compliment your sense of humor and ask if you have a blog.

It would be interesting to know what the idea behind Nishioka is, or whether it's just a "we're out of it, and we feel bad for Nishi" type move. With Mastroeanni (sp) able to play 2nd, they don't really need an infielder.

Unless rules have changed, which is possible, you don't want to waste an option on a guy like Hicks, who stands very little chance of opening for the Twins next year. I believe the "new" year starts sometime in the fall, and Hicks can be added then to start his options in 2013.

I think your Hicks rating is right on. A first-division regular is pretty high praise. Hicks has the look of a 2nd-division regular with a chance to be a 1st if he learns to hit both lefties and righties. 55 is the perfect rating for him. Part of the problem is definition, because a 55 as defined incorporates risk. That is, a 55 medium is actually a 60 high.

Why would you even mention Bundy? We have absolutely nothing that could ever offer to get him. Or Machado for that matter.

A Liriano for Diamond trade sounds fair. Billy Bullock? Yes, I'm kidding, but it kind of makes you choke, doesn't it?

I've been totally against trading Span, but I'm starting to wonder what they could get. I'd much prefer they trade Revere, even with the salary difference, but Revere might be a good stop gap to a finally-ready Hicks in 2/3 years. If the Twins could get a true prospect for Span (something better than they can get for Liriano), I would be on board, perhaps. Maybe something like Span and Carroll for Lombardozzi and Alex Meyer. Perhaps it wouldn't be horrible. Or Span for Sands and Webster from the Dodgers.

You've got people who need a reason to feel like they're more important because they don't like themselves very much (similar to racism). And then you've got sheep.

I think Dozier has done a pretty good job of not being overwhelmed at the plate. He should be overwhelmed. He's shot through the system and basically skipped AAA. Parmelee needed to go back. Dozier's here to stay, and I'll wager confidently that his stats improve this year.

I'm not sure Parker considers it his duty to increase your optimism. Why is the article great when mentioning something I'll assume you consider positive...and "killed" when he mentions the flipside? I think it would be interesting to find out what the deal is with the guys who've struggled, but that's another story, and to Parker's credit, he didn't ignore their existence.

Sorry, I'm cranky. And the Twins have jaded me.

Good job going for relief. It's a known fact that starters can never become relievers, so it's better to find those guys who even colleges don't want to start or who don't have more than one good pitch. And they have late-inning experience. Just like Capps.

Baseball America ranked Lucas Giolito as the 9th best selection in the MLB draft due to uncertainties about his arm, and I believe he was taken 16th. There was a decent chance he would have gone first overall had he been healthy. The injury affected his ranking, and it affected his selection. BA's lower ranking was heavily dependent on the uncertainty. Baseball American ranked Luke Bard #93, stating that his current injury should be no issue. Still, he was likely hurt, though he could have been helped, by not playing any baseball since March. Given that the injury isn't future-pitching-serious, I would trust the #93 is a pretty good estimate for where BA would have ranked Bard the Younger had he pitched this year. With error, of course. The Minnesota Twins, apparently using optimal game theory strategies (heh), selected at pick #42 (with an associated $1.227M value) the #93 player on the board (#93 pick has a $0.516M value). Our Twins know one thing well, and that's that you can save money by drafting a player you've "overreached" for. I would imagine they expect to save a half a million dollars by giving Bard #70 money. So what do they do with that "saved" money? Chances are, even though Buxton will be far overpaid, the Twins will give him pick value. Or perhaps they anticipate issues with his signing and need extra money just in case. That actually makes the Bard pick somewhat sensical. We're not sure how it's going to go with Buxton, and so we need to have some money in reserve. Picking Bard should allow that. I honestly do not believe the Twins are smart enough to determine how to use that money optimally further down in the draft. And I fear they'll actually pay Bard the $1.2 mil. One thing we have to hope is that the Twins didn't have a scout at Bard's best game, because sample size has never been a concern with this organization. Nor have statistics when a scout has actually seen the player of interest. Top college starters who go in the first round or so generally have extremely high strikeout rates, with 11-14 k/9 common. Relievers, as also is common, tend to have better K rates than starters. Luke Bard has an 8.x k/9 ratio. As a reliever. In college. This translates to the same-old mediocre can't-miss-bats pitchers that are strewn across the Twins organization, seemingly half of whom are on the DL. But never fear...I'm pretty sure a scout with a name like Jesse Rodriguez with twenty years hitting the diamonds saw Bard strike out the side in the 9th against Hofstra or Iona in early March. Regardless of the reasons for the pick, it's somewhat clear the Twins saw an opportunity to save money by taking Bard at #42. Whether that's for their own pockets or to use elsewhere, we can only guess, but we can be virtually guaranteed it had nothing to do with either statistical analysis or game theoretical draft strategies. By the way, BA listed its top 100 draft prospects on Feb 12, well before Bard's injury. He wasn't in the top 100. His stats were mediocre. The only thing I can fathom is that his injury kept his rating steady while many rated ahead of him flopped...and he ended up ranked #93. Or maybe Jim Callis saw that Hofstra inning.

2, 14, and 112, respectively.

I'm betting on the last three lines being more correct.

Drafting is not just about picking the right guy, it's about picking the right guy in the right place. Bard may surprise, but the Twins almost certainly could have taken him later and had a much better chance at a quality player with their third pick. While that is a simple concept, I honestly don't believe Terry Ryan understands the absolute basics of game theory.

His arm is so bad it doesn't matter which field he's in? Wow. I can't really appropriately respond to that logic. Yes I can. Let's say he had no throwing arm attached at all. He'd had to run every ball in. He'd be much more valuable in left than right in that extreme situation. The situation you're looking for is the one where he throws every ball into the stands. I haven't seen him do that yet on a ball in play.