Article: Should the Twins Emulate the Royals?

[HitInAPinch]

I'd float Dozier and Plouffe for trade.  Actually, anyone on the current roster with a few exceptions.  The Twins [and fans] need to see the true value of what we have.  Which ain't much.  When you tout a guy with .240 as your pick for next years advertising poster, there's obviously a problem with perception.  Adding a little here, a little there won't help this team.  Go all in with the kids.  I'd rather fail on hope than no hope.

 

Hicks is this poster child for trading when his value is considered high in the minor leagues. 

[nicksaviking]

Shields has been important to their uptick in wins, but it could be argued he's not even their best starter.  Ventura has a better ERA+ and Duffy has a better WAR.  Shields K numbers are continuing to drop while the number of hits he gives up is increasing.  There's a great chance KC got Shields at the very end of his peak seasons and the bottom falls out starting next year.

 

And we can't forget that Shields wasn't the only player the Royals got back.  Wade Davis has been fantastic.  Surely TB wishes he was closing games for them now.  If KC decides they don't need both Davis and Holland, they will have a pretty outstanding trade piece to recoup some more prospects.

[TheLeviathan]

No, hoarding prospects isn't the right move all the time.

 

But I believe trying to jump from 70 wins to 90 wins in a season through trades is the wrong move.

 

If the Royals finished 2013 with 82 wins and picked up two years of David Price for Wil Myers to put them into the 90 win range in 2014 and 2015, I'd be all for it.

 

Get to 80 wins through savvy pick-ups and internal development, then go for broke. Otherwise you're just trying to force the issue.

But what they did worked. They swapped Myers, Grienke, and others for Shields, Escobar, Cain, and Davis and the results worked.

 

I know this is a hard one for you to back down from because you all but had Dayton Moore tied to a stake, but his approach worked. If the best you can say is that his strategy isn't always going to work.....well then welcome to every other strategy ever.

 

The Twins have a very similar build happening and I think a degree of aggressiveness (it can look differently) is called for soon.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But what they did worked. They swapped Myers, Grienke, and others for Shields, Escobar, Cain, and Davis and the results worked.

 

I know this is a hard one for you to back down from because you all but had Dayton Moore tied to a stake, but his approach worked. If the best you can say is that his strategy isn't always going to work.....well then welcome to every other strategy ever.

 

The Twins have a very similar build happening and I think a degree of aggressiveness (it can look differently) is called for soon.

If the Royals lose tomorrow, did it really work though? They'll have spent two years of James Shields for a one-game playoff that ended in defeat. That's not the type of rebuild I want to see the Twins emulate. Trading away the #4 prospect in baseball for a near-miss and a WC berth in this era doesn't really feel like "mission accomplished" to me.

 

Sure, the Royals *should* be competitive next year but it's going to be really hard to replace Shields.

 

But hey, they could win tomorrow and that makes the trade look loads better instantly... Oakland is very beatable right now. On that topic, what the hell happened to Oakland? Man, they looked so good going into the deadline and just fell apart.

[jokin]

 

 

But hey, they could win tomorrow and that makes the trade look loads better instantly... Oakland is very beatable right now. On that topic, what the hell happened to Oakland? Man, they looked so good going into the deadline and just fell apart.

 

 

Any chance Billy Beane is looking for a new employer if they DO lose tomorrow?  There might be an opening...

[Brock Beauchamp]

Any chance Billy Beane is looking for a new employer if they DO lose tomorrow?  There might be an opening...

Too good to even consider at this point, and I quite like Ryan as General Manager.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

 what the hell happened to Oakland?

 

They just aren't the same without Tommy Milone.

[Mike Sixel]

Emulate KC? You mean by pushing your biggest chips "all in" before you actually have a good hand to play? KC may be playoff bound, but are they deep enough to actually make a run - to actually win a World Series? I have my doubts. Is that the goal? Just to make the playoffs? Or should we be focused on not just building a team that gets in, but a team that can make a run? I'd pick the latter.

 

 

KC went all in and grabbed a wildcard this year. If Shields walks in free agency, they'll be back to where they were before the trade - a solid core but not quite having the pieces to contend...except they won't have a young core of well regarded prospects, those went to Tampa Bay so they could make the playoffs...once.

 

 

There are sound elements to want to duplicate - building an offensive core around your young prospects as well as building a great bullpen with multiple flamethrowing power arms but the exact execution of their plan was botched. Dayton Moore was on the hot seat, panicked and made a splash to save his job. It worked, but the long term cost may have done more harm than good.

 

 

So no, I don't want to the Twins to emulate the Royals. I want the Twins to see the Royals hurt a long, patient rebuild by going big a bit too soon. Hopefully the Twins learn from the Royals and manage to pull off their rebuild a bit more efficiently.

 

Not entirely true, they've been drafting pitchers to take over when Shields is gone....they still have a decent farm system. People keep typing "they won't have any pitching when Shields leaves", and that just isn't true.

 

Also, Wil Meyers is not good on defense. He does not fit their strategy of run prevention at all. Maybe that is one reason they traded him. they also felt, wrongly, that their other hitters would progress (like everyone here seems to think young players in MN will do).

 

One thing that bothers me in this thread.....the statement, like it is a fact not an opinion, that trying to jump from 75 wins to the playoffs in less than 5 years is wrong.....that's an opinion, not a fact.

[Brock Beauchamp]

One thing that bothers me in this thread.....the statement, like it is a fact not an opinion, that trying to jump from 75 wins to the playoffs in less than 5 years is wrong.....that's an opinion, not a fact.

Five years? Teams are able to go from 70 wins to 90 wins in five years all the time.

 

But it's really hard to do it in one.

[jharaldson]

If the Royals lose tomorrow, did it really work though? They'll have spent two years of James Shields for a one-game playoff that ended in defeat. That's not the type of rebuild I want to see the Twins emulate. Trading away the #4 prospect in baseball for a near-miss and a WC berth in this era doesn't really feel like "mission accomplished" to me.

 

Let's say the Royals took your advice last year and kept Myers and Odorizzi.  They would have a prospect in Myers who is now in the process of failing.  He had a negative value for his team this year.  Odorizzi had a fine season and his K/9 numbers are nice but he graded out a 2.0 fWAR which translates to seviceable starter.  That doesn't sound like "mission accomplished" either and the futility of the Royals would still be in effect.

[bird]

 At some point you have to stop thinking long term and start thinking short term and take a team that is rebuilding to a team that is performing. If the team keeps building for the future, the future will never be more than a dream for next season.

I think this is a bit of a fallacy. An organization can make long-term decisions and still have success in the short term. Good teams always have an eye to the future with a goal of sustainable success, and it doesn't have to compromise the present. The Cards are the model for this.

[Mike Sixel]

Let's say the Royals took your advice last year and kept Myers and Odorizzi.  They would have a prospect in Myers who is now in the process of failing.  He had a negative value for his team this year.  Odorizzi had a fine season and his K/9 numbers are nice but he graded out a 2.0 fWAR which translates to seviceable starter.  That doesn't sound like "mission accomplished" either and the futility of the Royals would still be in effect.

 

But the Royals would not be in the playoffs, would still be under 80 wins probably, and would still be waiting another year to try to be good....oh, right, that was your point. Keeping Myers (who can't defend and doesn't fit their strategy) and Odorizzi was a bad idea. I agree.

[Mike Sixel]

Five years? Teams are able to go from 70 wins to 90 wins in five years all the time.

 

But it's really hard to do it in one.

 

Note very team, apparently.......how about 2, how do you feel about a 2 year rebuild? 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm betting like a lot of people, I would have rather seen KC-OAK playing a series for the pennant and not the play-in game.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Let's say the Royals took your advice last year and kept Myers and Odorizzi.  They would have a prospect in Myers who is now in the process of failing.  He had a negative value for his team this year.  Odorizzi had a fine season and his K/9 numbers are nice but he graded out a 2.0 fWAR which translates to seviceable starter.  That doesn't sound like "mission accomplished" either and the futility of the Royals would still be in effect.

That's assuming a lot of things. Going into this season, Myers was fresh off a RotY award. Sure, he stumbled this season - partially due to injury - but it's not as if his ability has suddenly fallen off a cliff.

 

Anyway, I'm tired of rehashing this argument. Everyone here knows my stance on the Shields/Myers trade, I see no reason to continue flogging that horse in another thread.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Note very team, apparently.......how about 2, how do you feel about a 2 year rebuild? 

It all depends on context. There are far too many variables to make a blanket statement about how long a rebuild should take.

[Boom Boom]

No, hoarding prospects isn't the right move all the time.

 

But I believe trying to jump from 70 wins to 90 wins in a season through trades is the wrong move.

 

If the Royals finished 2013 with 82 wins and picked up two years of David Price for Wil Myers to put them into the 90 win range in 2014 and 2015, I'd be all for it.

 

Get to 80 wins through savvy pick-ups and internal development, then go for broke. Otherwise you're just trying to force the issue.

 

I'm not so sure that the Royals' intention was to immediately jump from 70 to 90 wins.  I think they were just trying to get more competitive quickly.

 

The Royals had been mired in awfulness for almost 30 years... I get the feeling that the mood changed in KC, and "waiting for the kids" became more of a running gag than a long-term plan.

 

Maybe they'll regret trading Myers down the road, but in the meantime they turned themselves into a contender, and I can't really criticize them for that.

[bird]

Wil Myers had an OPS of .614 this year and a fWAR of -.1.  Even if you only count the pre-injury numbers and assume his wrist injury and layoff caused an end of year slump he had an OPS of .666.  The fact is that prospect often don't work out and that hoarding them isn't always the right tactic.  

Geez, these sound kinda like Torii Hunter's rookie numbers.

 

You can't predict player performance year to year, but a front office has no choice but to assume a projection with a given prospect. Using Hunter as an example, let's first agree that Will Meyer was much more highly thought of than Hunter was at the same stage. So, think of the James Shield comp from that time frame, and ask yourself whether trading Hunter for that pitcher would have been a good risk-reward scenario. Remember, Hunter wasn't projected to be a perennial All Star like Wil Meyers.

 

I thought Dayton Moore was taking a huge risk because projections on every-day players are so much more reliable, and Meyer may end up being a Hunter type guy. The reason I didn't see it as crazy was because I didn't see that the trade backfiring would set the Royals back another ten years. After all, they've been picking at the top of the heap each year for three decades (not 3 years like the Twins). KC still has a VERY formidable pipeline with fewer MLB spots to fill than the Twins. 

 

Bottom line for me is the Twins still aren't in a position to take that type of risk. 

[Winston Smith]

Maybe Arcia is the guy you trade. Homeruns still sell some places. He probably gives up as many runs as he creates but a team with a DH spot might like him. We have more DH types than anything right now.

[iTwins]

Not entirely true, they've been drafting pitchers to take over when Shields is gone....they still have a decent farm system. People keep typing "they won't have any pitching when Shields leaves", and that just isn't true.

 

Also, Wil Meyers is not good on defense. He does not fit their strategy of run prevention at all. Maybe that is one reason they traded him. they also felt, wrongly, that their other hitters would progress (like everyone here seems to think young players in MN will do).

 

One thing that bothers me in this thread.....the statement, like it is a fact not an opinion, that trying to jump from 75 wins to the playoffs in less than 5 years is wrong.....that's an opinion, not a fact.

 

 

I'm not saying the Royals wont' have good pitching when (if) Shields departs. What they will have is two less high level prospects (who would likely be two major league players at this point) and no Shields. They're likely to be down an ace, two top prospects and have nothing more than a playoff appearance to show for it.

 

I question if the move the Royals made was the right one. They had a good core, and I believe they cost themselves some long term success in an attempt to chase a playoff appearance. It's entirely possible that Wil Myers fails, Odorizzi never develops and the Royals come out looking OK when it's all said and done - heck, it's possible the Royals go on a run and win a World Series this year on the back of James Shields (If that's the case, then they obviously made the right move). As it stands now, I don't believe those things will happen. I feel like they made a mistake and jumped the gun.

 

I'm getting the impression that by taking the counterpoint to "trading for an ace" some are automatically thinking the only other position is: "anti trade, prospects only rebuild" - my point is only in relation to the original question. Do I want to the Twins to emulate the Royals approach? No. I want them to be smarter and stay patient when they're close, but not quite there.

Edited September 29, 2014 by iTwins

[Brock Beauchamp]

Maybe Arcia is the guy you trade. Homeruns still sell some places. He probably gives up as many runs as he creates but a team with a DH spot might like him. We have more DH types than anything right now.

I'd love to see Ryan pursue a Vargas or Arcia trade.

 

I like both those players - I like them a lot - but the reality of the situation is that the Twins are overflowing with no-defense players and those two have the most value.

[Mike Sixel]

Not to mention Sano might be your RF some day soonish.......

[tobi0040]

KC is a wildcard team and Shields is a free agent.

 

I don't want to copy that formula.

 

If you want a Ace, then sign Lester or Shields as a free agent.

 

Only trade a top prospect for a young cost controlled player.

 

Think long term (6-8 years) not short term (2 years).

 

I don't want to give up prospects that are top 5-10 for a rental either (even a two year rental). 

 

The Twins have money to spend right now.  So giving up Buxton or Sano and then having to pay a guy $150M is silly given you have three top level guys on the market this year.  Sign one of them without giving up anything.

 

I do like the Royals approach and acknowledgement that they needed more than prospects....just don't like exactly the way they went about this move.

[Mike Sixel]

Sure, in a better world, the Twins sign an elite FA......but we don't live in that world, do we? 

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not saying the Royals wont' have good pitching when (if) Shields departs. What they will have is two less high level prospects (who would likely be two major league players at this point) and no Shields. They're likely to be down an ace, two top prospects and have nothing more than a playoff appearance to show for it.

 

I question if the move the Royals made was the right one. They had a good core, and I believe they cost themselves some long term success in an attempt to chase a playoff appearance. It's entirely possible that Wil Myers fails, Odorizzi never develops and the Royals come out looking OK when it's all said and done - heck, it's possible the Royals go on a run and win a World Series this year on the back of James Shields (If that's the case, then they obviously made the right move). As it stands now, I don't believe those things will happen. I feel like they made a mistake and jumped the gun.

 

I'm getting the impression that by taking the counterpoint to "trading for an ace" some are automatically thinking the only other position is: "anti trade, prospects only rebuild" - my point is only in relation to the original question. Do I want to the Twins to emulate the Royals approach? No. I want them to be smarter and stay patient when they're close, but not quite there.

 

they'll also have gone from 70 some wins to a good season last year, and a very good season this year. People seem to forget that teams need to sell tickets and provide results. They Royals did that the last two years. I don't think they would have w/o the trade.

[TheLeviathan]

If the Royals lose tomorrow, did it really work though? .

Yes it did. It's that simple.

[Linus]

The problem with prospects is that it takes multiple legit prospects to end up with one bona fide big leaguer.  This makes is tempting to trade them as most never pan out but also is the reason that you have to hoard them if you are going to have a strong minor league system, consistently improving the big league club with better replacements.

 

To me the answer is this: you have to trade from an actual position of strength, where you have players waiting in the wings that have proven themselves or darn close to such.  To do otherwise just opens a different hole and weakens your farm system by creating another weakness where we are short on prospects for too long.

 

Had Rosario progressed, we maybe would be in a position to move Dozier but not now.

 

I really think that the next position of "strength" will be at DH.  We just cleared out one log jam and another is building already.

[Jham]

Everyone criticized the Royals and lauded the Rays at the beginning of the season.  The Rays were one of the worst teams in baseball, the Royals one of the best. You'd have thought the criticism and adulation would be reversed.  Sometimes we over think things.   Baseball does not have the same salary cap restrictions that other sports have.  Success is achieved by a continuously accumulating talent.  Different teams have done this in different ways.  The Yankees had a great run of accumulating talent based on buying veteran talent (ditto Detroit).  The A's have put together a good run through money ball and smart trades and acquisitions.  The Redsox combined those approaches and won a couple championships.  

The Twins have utterly failed by taking the conservative route of jealously guarding prospects AND refusing to bid on safer or smarter free agent options.  Top of the rotation guys like Price, Lester, Shields, etc will always be tradeable.  Guys like Nolasco and Pelfrey, not so much.  

Bottom line, there are a lot of different ways to do it, but you have to consistently add to your net talent.  Consistently losing 90+ games and waiting for the high draft picks to pan out has to be the worst.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes it did. It's that simple.

Eh, I disagree but that's another argument in itself. With the new wildcard rules, I don't consider playing 163 games a great success.

[Mike Sixel]

Eh, I disagree but that's another argument in itself. With the new wildcard rules, I don't consider playing 163 games a great success.

 

Better they had muddled along with 75-78 wins the last two years?