Vance Worley surprised Twins wanted him to lead the rotation in 2013

[bird]

Part of player acquisition is to get an idea of their personality make-up. One could argue the Twins disproportionately emphasize that area as well.

 

It's hard to put the Worley acquisition as anything but a total failure. The overall deal might be salvaged, but this part of the trade was a complete blunder on the part of Ryan and company. And that's ok. It happens.

 

 

 

When you almost lose 100 games three straight years...I don't think there are "far more" correct assessments going on. If that were the case I'm mystified how they turned that into cellar-dwelling for three years.

 

I think we can trace the problem to two factors. The first is a long-standing systemic problem with what's called the sell discipline in the asset management business. This management group has been guilty, for many many years, of not extracting equitable returns from the assets they dispose. No examples needed, as the list is obvious and long. Second, the series of incredibly destructive trades made in the Smith era. Again, we know which ones they are.

 

But the good assessments are still far, far more prevalent than the mis-assessments that get constantly raised.

[bird]

And it's still too early to call the Revere trade a bad decision, let alone a failed outcome, and those are two different issues. Also, it's unrealistic to expect any team to have the prescience to avoid a Worley situation.

[jokin]

What might be interesting to me is the K/9 rate. Hovered around 7-8 with Phillies, dipped to 4-5 with Twins, back up to 7-8 during stint with Pittsburgh's AAA team. I just sent him a valentine on match.com so let's see if he replies back.

 

Yeah, I saw that, and I didn't want to pile on with the "love notes" in my post....

Perhaps Vance was just living up to his nickname while with the Twins and just "bagging" it? (No doubt due to his "love" for the National League?)

[jokin]

And it's still too early to call the Revere trade a bad decision, let alone a failed outcome, and those are two different issues. Also, it's unrealistic to expect any team to have the prescience to avoid a Worley situation.

 

I don't think anyone is asking for prescience. Worley was clearly the proto-typical Ryan-type acquisition in a buy-low deal...both Worley and May were coming off of hugely disappointing seasons after showing great promise in the previous year. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that the Twins took a huge leap of faith into the bargain bin and made some wildly incorrect assumptions about Worley's make-up and overall commitment and health.

[TheLeviathan]

But the good assessments are still far, far more prevalent than the mis-assessments that get constantly raised.

 

And yet you fully admit this team can't get sell-high, buy-low right. There have been a good share of positive assessments. There are also a very healthy share of poor ones.

 

The very notion that this team could lose almost 300 games in 3 years and are doing things the right way the vast majority of the time strains my ability to take such a point seriously.

 

Also, it's unrealistic to expect any team to have the prescience to avoid a Worley situation.

 

So that makes them human like every other club? Worley was a mistake. They happen. To everyone. If we can't acknowledge that you're being every bit as bad as the people who hop in the Morales thread to troll what a mistake that was. It comes off as an agenda to defend the indefensible just as some attack the unassailable. Both sides of that factor into inane debates.

[Danchat]

What might be interesting to me is the K/9 rate. Hovered around 7-8 with Phillies, dipped to 4-5 with Twins, back up to 7-8 during stint with Pittsburgh's AAA team. I just sent him a valentine on match.com so let's see if he replies back.

 

Worley isn't very good. However, there's just one thing that bothers me. The K/9 rate. For nearly every pitcher we have, it goes down. I don't know what our staff is doing, but I'm led to believe they are teaching them how not to throw strikeouts while decreasing walks. That may sound stupid, but it comes from our K numbers being so incredibly low and not close to the 29th team (at least in 2013). I know, we had pitch-to-contact-pitchers, but we also had Deduno, who they taught how not to strike out people. His K/9 dropped too.

That's my one complaint. I just want our pitchers' K/9 to back to normal.

[DaveW]

Worley sucks

[bird]

I don't think anyone is asking for prescience. Worley was clearly the proto-typical Ryan-type acquisition in a buy-low deal...both Worley and May were coming off of hugely disappointing seasons after showing great promise in the previous year. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that the Twins took a huge leap of faith into the bargain bin and made some wildly incorrect assumptions about Worley's make-up and overall

 

 

commitment and health.

 

I don't agree with this at all, jokin. May is a top 10 prospect in our system and was a top 5 in Philly. And why wouldn't the Twins take a secondary asset like Worley? Why wouldn't they hope to occasionally get the type of performance from him like we saw yesterday? And who disagrees with the assessment that Revere ends up as a 4th outfielder, a defensive replacement, pinch-runner type suited best for the NL, whose career fizzles out as his speed diminishes? It's preposterous to suggest, right now, that the trade was a bad decision, or that the outcome of it is clear, at least for those of us that know the limits of our predictive capabilities.

[nicksaviking]

None of these 8 is relevant in a discussion about a complex, multi-year rebuilding effort. Rebuilding teams do precisely what the Twins are doing, even the Yankees these days. Which is to incrementally rebuild incrementally and live with the complaints from an impatient fan base regarding solutions that are a year away or haven't yet been a priority.

 

ONLY the Yankees "rebuild" the way the Twins do, going after aging vets. Except the Yankees do it with better quality aging vets. The other recent celler dwellers who are reversing their fortunes, Houston, Miami and Pittsburgh, gutted their teams of nearly every vet and went with young players.

 

Your assertion that the people who aren't in favor of the "Yankee" rebuild are impatient is flat out wrong, getting these vets will probably win a couple of extra games each year, but those of us who want the vets flipped or cut understand and are willing to accept the longer, more fruitful rebuild.

[bird]

And yet you fully admit this team can't get sell-high, buy-low right. There have been a good share of positive assessments. There are also a very healthy share of poor ones.

 

The very notion that this team could lose almost 300 games in 3 years and are doing things the right way the vast majority of the time strains my ability to take such a point seriously.

 

 

 

So that makes them human like every other club? Worley was a mistake. They happen. To everyone. If we can't acknowledge that you're being every bit as bad as the people who hop in the Morales thread to troll what a mistake that was. It comes off as an agenda to defend the indefensible just as some attack the unassailable. Both sides of that factor into inane debates.

 

No need to strain yourself, Levi. We agree on two things: the Twins have been crappy hen it comes to disposing of players for equitable value. This is an "assessment" problem that would be hard to dispute. We also agree that they've had a "healthy share" of poor assessments. I will submit that, if you exclude the barrage of Smith mis-assessments, their track record on everything else- trades, drafts, player development, international signings, scrap heap resurrections- has been better than most teams. I submit that, when you add up all the Arcia's, all the Mauers and Buxtons, all the Fiens and Thielbars, all the Willinghams and Hughes's, that my point may not stretch your ability to take it seriously.

 

My biggest gripe in these threads is that people resort to regurgitating stuff about the same handful of past sins without adding some balance. That people draw these harsh, hyperbolic, dramatic conclusions about what a mistake demonstrates about the FO or manager. That people constantly recite the W-L record as the only true indication of what's going on. That people come to these premature and extremely negative conclusions about things like the Worley situation. And that people look under every stone for an excuse to be critical and are so stingy with their praise.

 

The Worley trade is perfectly defensible, Levi. Worley may or may not end up being a "mistake", as you so vehemently conclude. I happen to think you're very premature, but concede you may be right eventually. What's NOT defensible is declaring you're taking an unassailable position, thereby rendering a different view as not to be taken seriously, right? I haven't defended the Worley trade outcome as successful because I don't know what it is, even if you do. I've defended the decision-making as reasonable, and your reaction feels extreme to me.

[bird]

ONLY the Yankees "rebuild" the way the Twins do, going after aging vets. Except the Yankees do it with better quality aging vets. The other recent celler dwellers who are reversing their fortunes, Houston, Miami and Pittsburgh, gutted their teams of nearly every vet and went with young players.

 

Your assertion that the people who aren't in favor of the "Yankee" rebuild are impatient is flat out wrong, getting these vets will probably win a couple of extra games each year, but those of us who want the vets flipped or cut understand and are willing to accept the longer, more fruitful rebuild.

 

The Twins are not rebuilding with vets. They're rebuilding with prospects. Name a vet that's been added in the past two years, besides Nolasco and Hughes, that you think the Twins view as someone who figures into the future.

 

You are mistaken about my assertion here.

[jokin]

I don't agree with this at all, jokin. May is a top 10 prospect in our system and was a top 5 in Philly. And why wouldn't the Twins take a secondary asset like Worley? Why wouldn't they hope to occasionally get the type of performance from him like we saw yesterday? And who disagrees with the assessment that Revere ends up as a 4th outfielder, a defensive replacement, pinch-runner type suited best for the NL, whose career fizzles out as his speed diminishes? It's preposterous to suggest, right now, that the trade was a bad decision, or that the outcome of it is clear, at least for those of us that know the limits of our predictive capabilities.

 

I don't need any "predictive capabilities" to categorically state:

 

The "outcome" of Vance Worley's time with the Twins is quite "clear."

[old nurse]

I don't need any "predictive capabilities" to categorically state:

 

The "outcome" of Vance Worley's time with the Twins is quite "clear."

 

You are correct on Worley's time. A throw in on a trade. He did not throw the ball low in the zone like the Twins wanted him to do and got the kind of results you would expect. He is not the first pitcher to come over from the NL and not succeed. Bought low as you said. It is not a egregious error as you make it out to be. They brought him in and thought they could improve him. The player did not improve. Little cost, no big deal.

[nicksaviking]

The Twins are not rebuilding with vets. They're rebuilding with prospects. Name a vet that's been added in the past two years, besides Nolasco and Hughes, that you think the Twins view as someone who figures into the future.

 

You are mistaken about my assertion here.

 

Your assertion was that teams incrementally rebuild and you included the Yankees as an example. I agree that the Yankees incrementally rebuild as they bring in a mulitple vets each year and suppliment them with younger talent when they are ready.

 

This is not what Houston, Miami and Pittsburgh do. They overhaul the whole operation and stock the 25 man mostly with players younger than 30-years-old, usually much younger. I'm not casting judgment on which method is best, I am arguing against the notion that the Twins are "rebuilding" the same way that every other club does it.

[TheLeviathan]

I will submit that, if you exclude the barrage of Smith mis-assessments.....

 

You then went on to change your point. The notion that all the Twins woes fall on Smith is preposterous. Ryan had a healthy share of mistakes, whiffed drafts, etc. that lead to a collapse in available talent.

 

Your point was never to compare them against other teams, you said their own good assessments are "far, far" more prevalent than their poor ones. Which is also utter rubbish. In order to achieve 300 losses in three years it would take bad luck unseen since the Donner Party to achieve that kind of futility while operating brilliantly as an organization.

 

Cmon.

 

And that people look under every stone for an excuse to be critical and are so stingy with their praise.

 

How are you not doing precisely the opposite and how is that any better?

 

The Worley trade is perfectly defensible, Levi. Worley may or may not end up being a "mistake",

 

There is no more story to write about Worley. He was acquired and made the opening day starter. He failed miserably and was released for nothing. IT was a failure. There really can't be any debate about that.

 

The Revere trade may still be great for the Twins but even if it wasn't I stand by the move at the time. It's possible to support the move and still criticize the results. So far the results are an absolute failure and some encouragement we hope to see soon, but May's success won't change the story on Worley. So yes, it is 100% unassailable that Worley was a failure for the Twins.

 

The very fact you're taking issue with that should be something you reflect on.

[jokin]

You are correct on Worley's time. A throw in on a trade. He did not throw the ball low in the zone like the Twins wanted him to do and got the kind of results you would expect. He is not the first pitcher to come over from the NL and not succeed. Bought low as you said. It is not a egregious error as you make it out to be. They brought him in and thought they could improve him. The player did not improve. Little cost, no big deal.

 

I never used the word "egregious'. The Twins tabbed him as their opening day pitcher in 2013 (and he would have been tabbed at worst, the #2 starter behind a healthy Diamond), not a throw-in. It is silly to pretend that his acquisition and the results don't represent a complete failure- his inability to be in any way effective last year was a big deal to the Twins fortunes in 2013. While Worley probably bears much of the blame, the Twins have to accept responsibility for not recognizing how little chance they had to improve him.

[ashbury]

Moderator's note: this is getting overly personal and is too much bickering and not enough constructive discussion.

[Kwak]

ONLY the Yankees "rebuild" the way the Twins do, going after aging vets. Except the Yankees do it with better quality aging vets. The other recent celler dwellers who are reversing their fortunes, Houston, Miami and Pittsburgh, gutted their teams of nearly every vet and went with young players.

 

Your assertion that the people who aren't in favor of the "Yankee" rebuild are impatient is flat out wrong, getting these vets will probably win a couple of extra games each year, but those of us who want the vets flipped or cut understand and are willing to accept the longer, more fruitful rebuild.

 

This doesn't match with most of the posts I've read on this thread. Many of those who I thought were of the "rebuilding mode" sure changed their tone the last week or so ago. Initially I thought 'they are on the payroll', but now I think they really believed the Twins were on their way to the playoffs and just needed a bit of luck, and for management to promote 2-3 guys from the the minors to the Twins. They are likely more representative of the public (than several TD posters) given the "welfare checks" written to billionaires for new sports stadiums. They are impatient and truly do want to "win now"--even if it results in being eliminated 1st round, or missing the playoffs entirely by 1 game.

[StormJH1]

Any comparison between the Yankees and Twins in terms of free agent strategy, especially before 2012, is borderline ridiculous. The Twins didn't even play the free agent game until recently. Willingham, Nolasco, Hughes, and now the rental on Morales really signal a sea change in management/ownership, even if we still aren't signing guys to $100+ million deals (which, let's face it, the majority of them end up being bad deals anyway).

 

But I don't see those moves as "rebuilding". You have so many guys in jobs they have had for so long, I just instantly assume that people like Gardy, Ryan, etc. don't want the the bottom to completely fall out, so they add a veteran piece here or there to appease the fanbase and to keep it from being a completely rebuilt roster.

 

And I have to catch myself because whereas in hockey or basketball that would be a terrible strategy that would get you stuck with draft picks in the teens, the MLB draft is so much more unpredictable (and until recently, was dictated as much by signability as it was by talent) that tanking doesn't really do anything for you. Sure, you can end up a Byron Buxton because your team was bad, but you could also just sign Miguel Sano or a Cuban player with no impact from the draft whatsoever. And that Buxton pick could just as easily have been Mark Appel, which isn't looking that great right now.

[Kwak]

I don't need any "predictive capabilities" to categorically state:

 

The "outcome" of Vance Worley's time with the Twins is quite "clear."

 

No, it isn't clear. Revere was a marginal OF. Worley's poor play permitted the Twins to select earlier in the draft (think Kohl Stewart and Gordon). Plus, the real kicker--Trevor May might become at useful starting pitcher.

[old nurse]

I never used the word "egregious'. The Twins tabbed him as their opening day pitcher in 2013 (and he would have been tabbed at worst, the #2 starter behind a healthy Diamond), not a throw-in. It is silly to pretend that his acquisition and the results don't represent a complete failure- his inability to be in any way effective last year was a big deal to the Twins fortunes in 2013. While Worley probably bears much of the blame, the Twins have to accept responsibility for not recognizing how little chance they had to improve him.

 

The Twins warm body approach to fill the pitching rotation (Correia, Pelfrey coming off surgery, Worley and the cast of AAA pitchers from the year before) was not a very good idea. Whatever order they were in the rotation was inconsequential, somebody had to pitch the game. The whole approach was the wrong idea. Why they had that idea was hashed ad nauseum last year. Worley was but a small part of the problem. You could insert Cole DeVries or Liam Hendricks, who were counted on to be on the opening day roster, or Diamond, Hernandez, Walters, or even Deduno in your rant in place of Worley. Was it a misguess of talent or lack of other options? The lack of quality starting pitching that off season (again more than well covered), the signability issues (argued last year), the steep price that would be asked for starting pitching all could have led to what I called the warm body approach. To count on 3 pitchers coming of surgery, 4 AAA pitchers and a prospect that had not had success at the big league level was a recipe for disaster. It does not warrant the tone you set forth to blame it all on the Worley decision. More than 8 pitchers could have stepped forward last year to show they were going to be big league pitchers for the Twins last year. Only Deduno and Diamond remain. Worley was but a small part of the problem. The seed for such a disaster were set years ago with bad trades and bad drafts. It was not going to be corrected overnight. To get higher upside pitching prospects Ryan made the trades he did. They did nothing for 2013. If they don't pan out, that would be the bad mis guess of talent.

[jokin]

No, it isn't clear. Revere was a marginal OF. Worley's poor play permitted the Twins to select earlier in the draft (think Kohl Stewart and Gordon). Plus, the real kicker--Trevor May might become at useful starting pitcher.

 

You're missing the context of my post....ie, the outcome of Vance Worley's time with the Twins, is inarguably, quite clearly an utter failure.

 

If you wish to allege that the Twins master plan was to put the most horrendous Starting Staff possible on the field to absolutely tank the Twins in 2013- for the third year in a row, causing a massive fall-off in attendance, which in turn, forced the owner for the first time to go public and call the current product an "embarrassment"- all in order to draft Nick Gordon at pick #5 (I don't see how Kohl Stewart comes into play here, whatsover), well then, I guess Terry Ryan must be considered to have engineered quite a trade. I wonder if Terry is scouting as we speak to see if there any other players we can trade for in order to insure future 96-loss-season tanking opportunities?

[jokin]

Worley was but a small part of the problem.........Worley was but a small part of the problem.

 

You can repeat this twice, as you did in your wall of type, and it still misses the point of the argument.

 

It does not warrant the tone you set forth to blame it all on the Worley decision.

 

Who said anything about "blaming it all" on Worley? What "tone" are referring to? We are judging the Worley situation specifically on its own merits (or in this case, the obvious lack thereof), nothing more is being judged here.

[Shane Wahl]

Vance probably can be a legitimate starting pitcher. It was not going to work here. It just wasn't.

 

Anyway, the rebuild certainly is in process and the results, so far, are surprising. Who could have imagined this team this close in the division given:

 

A: The Sano and Buxton injuries.

B: The Hicks struggles and the Pinto demotion

C: The fact that none of the pitching prospects have moved to the big leagues.

D: Joe Mauer batting like a below-average first baseman

E: The injury to Oswaldo Arcia, effectively delaying his contribution

 

?

 

The team is still on track for the arrival of Sano and Buxton in 2015, with a more mature Arcia, Pinto, and Hicks. Mauer's struggles still cannot be indefinite. Brian Dozier is the real deal. Eddie Rosario will be up in September. Danny Santana is somehow doing this well. Eduardo Escobar has emerged. Phil Hughes and Kyle Gibson appear to be real pitchers at the top of a rotation. This rotation will soon become better with an improved Nolasco, and the arrival of Alex Meyer and Trevor May. Meanwhile, the Twins *could* be trading partners with a number of teams with regard to Willingham, Morales, Fien, and Duensing.

[Dman]

Personally I would be surprised to see Worley work out well for the Pirates long term. This feels a bit like Deja Vu with Liriano. Worley was touted as at tops a number 3 pitcher when we got him and he performed like a AAA pitcher when we started him. The Twins gave him ample time to prove himself and we all hoped to see the best of Worley this year in spring training. After all the prep and hype in the off season he didn't look any better than the year before. Worley seems like a number 5 at best and we have plenty of those already. I would argue we have guys waiting with higher upside than VW.

 

The train-wreck story that is Vance Worley will live in infamy but the Twins will survive it.

[70charger]

And I have to catch myself because whereas in hockey or basketball that would be a terrible strategy that would get you stuck with draft picks in the teens, the MLB draft is so much more unpredictable (and until recently, was dictated as much by signability as it was by talent) that tanking doesn't really do anything for you. Sure, you can end up a Byron Buxton because your team was bad, but you could also just sign Miguel Sano or a Cuban player with no impact from the draft whatsoever. And that Buxton pick could just as easily have been Mark Appel, which isn't looking that great right now.

 

True. And Mike Trout was drafted 25th.

 

Baseball is an odd duck.

[Kwak]

You're missing the context of my post....ie, the outcome of Vance Worley's time with the Twins, is inarguably, quite clearly an utter failure.

 

If you wish to allege that the Twins master plan was to put the most horrendous Starting Staff possible on the field to absolutely tank the Twins in 2013- for the third year in a row, causing a massive fall-off in attendance, which in turn, forced the owner for the first time to go public and call the current product an "embarrassment"- all in order to draft Nick Gordon at pick #5 (I don't see how Kohl Stewart comes into play here, whatsover), well then, I guess Terry Ryan must be considered to have engineered quite a trade. I wonder if Terry is scouting as we speak to see if there any other players we can trade for in order to insure future 96-loss-season tanking opportunities?

 

Please respond to the statement I made when you respond: The outcome of the Revere trade is not clear. I never said it was the Twins' plan for Worley to stink (in fact I believe they thought he would be a bit of a success). A few more wins by Worley and it is likely that: the Twins hang-on to Worley; the fall a slot or two in the Rule 4 draft and Stewart and Gordon are selected before the Twins can select either of the; and the team still stinks--but the FO clings to the fantasy that things are on the right track.

 

My point: More time is required to complete the assessment of the Revere trade.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No, it isn't clear. Revere was a marginal OF. Worley's poor play permitted the Twins to select earlier in the draft (think Kohl Stewart and Gordon). Plus, the real kicker--Trevor May might become at useful starting pitcher.

 

The Twins finished a full 5 wins behind the next best team in 2013 (66 vs Seattle's 71), so I don't think Worley mattered much in getting us Gordon. (Although if we had let him start the whole year, and he posted the same negative rWAR rate all season, we could have drafted as high as #2.) And of course Stewart's draft position was determined before Worley arrived.

 

That's all the further I will wade into this debate.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Please respond to the statement I made when you respond: The outcome of the Revere trade is not clear. I never said it was the Twins' plan for Worley to stink (in fact I believe they thought he would be a bit of a success). A few more wins by Worley and it is likely that: the Twins hang-on to Worley; the fall a slot or two in the Rule 4 draft and Stewart and Gordon are selected before the Twins can select either of the; and the team still stinks--but the FO clings to the fantasy that things are on the right track.

 

My point: More time is required to complete the assessment of the Revere trade.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the other posts. The discussion appears to clearly be "the outcome of Vance Worley's time with the Twins", NOT the Revere trade as a whole.

 

The trade may have been worthwhile (I think so), and Worley, even if damaged goods to some extent, was a worthwhile gamble. But it's hard to dispute that the Twins erred in counting on him as much as they did (he should have been a 4-5 and not 1-2) and failed to get any kind of decent results/value out of him.

[jokin]

Vance probably can be a legitimate starting pitcher. It was not going to work here. It just wasn't.

 

Anyway, the rebuild certainly is in process and the results, so far, are surprising. Who could have imagined this team this close in the division given:

 

A: The Sano and Buxton injuries.

B: The Hicks struggles and the Pinto demotion

C: The fact that none of the pitching prospects have moved to the big leagues.

D: Joe Mauer batting like a below-average first baseman

E: The injury to Oswaldo Arcia, effectively delaying his contribution

 

?

 

The team is still on track for the arrival of Sano and Buxton in 2015, with a more mature Arcia, Pinto, and Hicks. Mauer's struggles still cannot be indefinite. Brian Dozier is the real deal. Eddie Rosario will be up in September. Danny Santana is somehow doing this well. Eduardo Escobar has emerged. Phil Hughes and Kyle Gibson appear to be real pitchers at the top of a rotation. This rotation will soon become better with an improved Nolasco, and the arrival of Alex Meyer and Trevor May. Meanwhile, the Twins *could* be trading partners with a number of teams with regard to Willingham, Morales, Fien, and Duensing.

 

I get that help is soon on the way, although probably delayed now at least another year, but what parts of actions taken during the rebuild, with the full intent to actually "rebuild", have been specifically responsible for the success this year? It seems the main success this year is attributable to choosing the "quick fix" option- the veteran Free Agent signings and waiver claims since 2012 (Hughes, Suzuki, Nolasco, Willingham, Morales, Fuld, Nunez) and to players already in the organization before 2010 (including Plouffe 2004, Pinto 2006, Santana 2007, Dozier 2009, Gibson 2009).

 

Escobar could be argued as the primary product of 2014 success from the rebuild, and the Twins were practically forced at gunpoint into making him a starter. Is the then-28 year old rookie, Chris Colabello, signed in 2012, considered a part of the rebuild?

 

The Twins average age for pitchers this year has gone up to 29.8. Put into perspective, this is the oldest the Twins team pitchers have been since 1988, the year after the World Series win- at age 30.0. And the average age has gone up, instead of down in each year in the rebuild:

 

2014: Average age of 29.8

2013: Average age of 28.3

2012: Average age of 27.8

 

This year's Twins team batters are actually older than in the veteran-laden year of 2011- 28.1 vs 27.6.

 

fWAR leaderboard for 2014

 

FA Veterans

 

Hughes 2.3

Willingham 1.4

Suzuki 0.9

Correia 0.7

Nolasco 0.4

Fuld 0.5

Nunez 0.3

Morales 0.2

Deduno 0.1

Pelfrey -0.6

WAR Total 5.6

 

How many of these FAs are intended to be part of the rebuild that leads to a perenially successful team? Nolasco, and maybe Hughes if the Twins are intent on winning in 2015-16.

 

Pre-rebuld prospects and veterans

 

Dozier 2.7

Plouffe 1.1

Santana 0.9

Pinto 0.2

Hicks -0.1

Bartlett -0.3

Parmelee -0.4

Hermann -0.7

Kubel -0.9

WAR total: 2.5

 

It's arguable that all of the prospects would have been called up, rebuild or not. Kubel and Bartlett's "contributions" to the rebuild speak for themselves.

 

Rebuild-specific trades for prospects

 

Escobar WAR total 1.7

 

Here's the one guy that has directly come about from the rebuild- and again his WAR result has happened outside of the Twins expectations for him.