Article: Should the Twins Emulate the Royals?

[SwainZag]

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.

Shields in 2014: 34 starts. 227IP, 3.21 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 3.59 FIP, 7.1 K/9

Odorizzi in 2014: 31 starts. 168IP, 4.13 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 3.75 FIP, 9.3 K/9

 

Obviously Shelds is more of a workhorse, but how much of a downgrade are they really and consider that Odorizzi was a rookie and 24 years old.

 

It seems people want to write off Myers already, a year removed from winning the ROY.  He did have an injury plauged down year, but I certainly wouldn't write him off yet.  The kid is only 23 years old.

 

Mike Montgomery was also part of that trade, and at age 25, and a former Top 25 prospect, might have finally figured it out having a fine season in AAA.  

 

If the Royals lose in this 1-game playoff and lose Shields in the off-season, what mission was accomplished?  They still will have a fine 29 year old set-up man in Davis and a short lived playoff experience.

[tobi0040]

No arguments that I think the Twins should have started playing the youngsters earlier, I just think the idea that they'd be markedly better is a bit overblown around here.

 

The Twins won't be good until Buxton, Sano, Meyer, Berrios, et al are playing. Up until around June of this year, they simply didn't have the horses in the farm system to compete... Which, unsurprisingly, is when I started becoming more critical of the front office as May and Meyer stayed in the minors instead of logging MLB time.

 

But in 2012 and 2013, the Twins simply didn't have good options anywhere. Arcia got time when he was ready, Gibson was a bit slow but they did the right thing and promoted him in 2013 and gave him innings so it's mostly a moot point. Past that, the Twins basically had three options to play:

 

- Bad veterans

- Raw minor leaguers without much talent

- Awful AAAA players

 

No matter what you do in that situation, you're going to field a bad team that isn't going to meaningfully improve because the players have a ceiling of mediocrity. Sure, I wanted to see Parmelee play more in 2013 but ultimately, it doesn't really matter because Chris Parmelee is not a very good baseball player.

 

I agree that we won't be good until the big guys get up and that in 2011 and 2012 we did't have many options.  Although the fact that we let a bunch of ex-all stars go without much compensation probably at least played a role in not having anything coming up. 

 

But I think in addition to Meyer and May, Santana at SS, and Pinto at catcher could be useful pieces too.  You could also list a few bullpen guys as well.  But we simply don't know what we have

Edited September 30, 2014 by tobi0040

[TheLeviathan]

If the Royals lose in this 1-game playoff and lose Shields in the off-season, what mission was accomplished?  They still will have a fine 29 year old set-up man in Davis and a short lived playoff experience.

 

Relevancy, a very successful season, and all the assets they got in the Grienke deal plus whatever compensation they get if they release Shields.

 

My god, if people applied the same rigors of "success" to the Twins of the 2000s there would be riots on the forums.  But I guess playing 165 games before going home empty handed is WAY better than 163 games.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But I think in addition to Meyer and May, Santana at SS, and Pinto at catcher could be useful pieces too.  You could also list a few bullpen guys as well.  But we simply don't know what we have

I don't believe Meyer, Sano, and Buxton will be the only good Twins players, I just think the team will struggle until a few of the blue-chippers emerge.

 

There are several good role players on the Twins and in the high minors - May, Arcia, Tonkin, Vargas, Santana, etc... But they're more Michael Cuddyer than Miguel Cabrera. Guys you need to succeed long-term (2-4 WAR players, maybe) but not MVP-level talent.

[Brock Beauchamp]

My god, if people applied the same rigors of "success" to the Twins of the 2000s there would be riots on the forums.  But I guess playing 165 games before going home empty handed is WAY better than 163 games.

Baseball's rule changes completely altered the playoff landscape. In the 2000s, every playoff team had a legit chance of winning it all. The WC often faced the second-best team in the league, they didn't even have to face the best competition if it came from the same division. They had five games to advance and with a lone wildcard, that team could often align their rotation to compete to the best of their ability.

 

I don't dislike the rule changes but they've drastically changed the ability of the WC to compete. The WC team has to burn one of their best pitchers in a single game playoff. If they win, then they have to hit the road and face the best team in the league at a distinct disadvantage.

 

Seeing a WC team play in the World Series was pretty commonplace in the 2000s. I don't think we'll see it happen nearly as often with the new playoff schedule.

[SwainZag]

Relevancy, a very successful season, and all the assets they got in the Grienke deal plus whatever compensation they get if they release Shields.

 

My god, if people applied the same rigors of "success" to the Twins of the 2000s there would be riots on the forums.  But I guess playing 165 games before going home empty handed is WAY better than 163 games.

 

But the Twins had more than a 1 year run!  The Twins made the playoffs 6 times in 9 years!  While the Royals could very well go on a run like this, it still stands that they traded a very highly touted prospect for a 2 year rental, who is all but gone after this year. Comparing the Twins run in the 2000's with KC's one playoff appearance is not a very good comparison.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Yeah, I think the current format (rightfully) gives the division winners and especially the division winners with the best record a noticeable advantage in the playoffs. MLB was never going to go back to having just a World Series with the best two teams, or even LCS with the two best from each league playing for a chance at the WS, so adding teams while handicapping them makes competitive sense to me.

 

It gives more teams a chance to break through, but rewards the teams that had the best records.

[TheLeviathan]

Seeing a WC team play in the World Series was pretty commonplace in the 2000s. I don't think we'll see it happen nearly as often with the new playoff schedule.

 

You're talking about losing one game and being out versus losing three games and being out.  Given how the 2000s Twins played in the playoffs, the difference is moot.  

 

For example, I wouldn't call the 2008 Twins and unsuccessful team.  They had a successful season, they just got beat in a dramatic game.  Baseball is unique because of the lack of teams that make the playoffs (roughly half of what makes it in the NBA and NHL) and the grinding, grueling schedule.  Any time you survive 162 games - be it because of weak division opposition or not - and have a chance to win a pennant - then you've had a successful season.

 

Whether your first series is best of one or best of three seems like an odd line to draw between success and non-success.

[TheLeviathan]

But the Twins had more than a 1 year run!  The Twins made the playoffs 6 times in 9 years!  While the Royals could very well go on a run like this, it still stands that they traded a very highly touted prospect for a 2 year rental, who is all but gone after this year. Comparing the Twins run in the 2000's with KC's one playoff appearance is not a very good comparison.

 

Pick any single season from the 2000s.  2008?  Apparently a non-success.  2010?  Didn't win a game after in the postseason. 

 

I don't see the point in arguing that the Royals future is doomed past this one game.  That's way too bold a claim for anyone to make with any solid footing.  You can believe that to be true, but they could very well continue to compete.  It's far from a given that a run this year with no title means the end of their relevancy and it seems that you and others are making that rather large assumption a bit too confidently.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

They also would have saved at least $30 mil, which could have been put towards a FA then or now.

 

That said, the trade has become more interesting as Myers has scuffled this year.  While he was a very good young prospect, his record did not scream "can't miss" to me.  If the Royals had similar misgivings about his potential, their experiences with Moustakas and Hosmer may have inspired them to cash in on Myers.  (Although Gordon has worked out well as a late bloomer, maybe they didn't want to wait that long with Myers.)

[SwainZag]

Pick any single season from the 2000s.  2008?  Apparently a non-success.  2010?  Didn't win a game after in the postseason. 

 

I don't see the point in arguing that the Royals future is doomed past this one game.  That's way too bold a claim for anyone to make with any solid footing.  You can believe that to be true, but they could very well continue to compete.  It's far from a given that a run this year with no title means the end of their relevancy and it seems that you and others are making that rather large assumption a bit too confidently.

 

I really don't see the comparison though.  This is about what Shields added to the team and what they lost in the trade, not when the Twins were swept in a playoff series.  Sure you can compare the seasons in retrospect, but judging the overall franchises and what position they are in as a whole is completely different IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

I really don't see the comparison though.  This is about what Shields added to the team and what they lost in the trade, not when the Twins were swept in a playoff series.  Sure you can compare the seasons in retrospect, but judging the overall franchises and what position they are in as a whole is completely different IMO.

 

You're minimizing the success of their season this year on the assumption of what is to come.  The mission they accomplished was what I posted above - relevancy and still having a decent supply of assets on the team.  Trying to knock that accomplishment down based on the assumption of future failure seems like sour grapes and I don't get why.  The Royals can have had a successful season and it says nothing good or bad about the Twins.

 

My point is that if we judged any of the division winning Twins teams of the last decade in the same manner we'd probably call all of them non-successes.  I totally disagree with that.  The Twins got swept, A LOT, but it's still an accomplishment to be one of the few standing when the dust settles with a shot at a championship.  Every time the Twins accomplished that the last decade is a success in my book. I wouldn't judge the Royals more harshly than that and I think most of what we're hearing in this thread is pretty unfair.

Edited September 30, 2014 by TheLeviathan

[USAFChief]

I doubt very many KC fans consider that trade a mistake. They havent played past the regular season in 30years. They got to follow a team in contention, playing games that mattered, all season. Tbey might get more.

 

The trade worked, no matter what Myers does in the future.

[SwainZag]

You're minimizing the success of their season this year on the assumption of what is to come.  The mission they accomplished was what I posted above - relevancy and still having a decent supply of assets on the team.  Trying to knock that accomplishment down based on the assumption of future failure seems like sour grapes and I don't get why.  The Royals can have had a successful season and it says nothing good or bad about the Twins.

 

My point is that if we judged any of the division winning Twins teams of the last decade in the same manner we'd probably call all of them non-successes.  I totally disagree with that.  The Twins got swept, A LOT, but it's still an accomplishment to be one of the few standing when the dust settles with a shot at a championship.  Every time the Twins accomplished that the last decade is a success in my book. I wouldn't judge the Royals more harshly than that and I think most of what we're hearing in this thread is pretty unfair.

 

There's no sour grapes at all.  Predicting anything in the future isn't relevant I guess though.  For I all know the Royals could go on to win the next 5 World Series titles or they could go on to pick Top 5 for the next 5.

 

If their intention was to make the playoffs regardless of the result this year and in the future, they sure they succeeded in that nature.  Royals fans are happy.  

[TheLeviathan]

There's no sour grapes at all.  Predicting anything in the future isn't relevant I guess though.  For I all know the Royals could go on to win the next 5 World Series titles or they could go on to pick Top 5 for the next 5.

 

If their intention was to make the playoffs regardless of the result this year and in the future, they sure they succeeded in that nature.  Royals fans are happy.  

 

I think that was my big beef - the Royals could very well slide back to obscurity.  They might also take the revenues from sold out Kaufmann the last month and bring Shields back.  

 

I think the intention was pretty clear - the time to wait was over, it was time to be relevant again.  Their game tonight proves that a success no matter the outcome.

[SwainZag]

I think that was my big beef - the Royals could very well slide back to obscurity.  They might also take the revenues from sold out Kaufmann the last month and bring Shields back.  

 

I think the intention was pretty clear - the time to wait was over, it was time to be relevant again.  Their game tonight proves that a success no matter the outcome.

 

I will agree with that as long as you say....proves success in the short term.  It could turn into long term success or it could very well prove to be something that bit them in the ass in the long term.

[Mike Sixel]

Fear of making change because it might kill the long term is not a good approach to life, imo.

 

As pointed out many times, what if the Twins had traded all those highly ranked prospects that never panned out for proven MLB players? Like, I don't know, Hicks for Cliff Lee back in the day?

 

There is much more certainty about time that is closer to now. As you move further into the future, random variation becomes more pronounced in its effect (like injuries, for example). IMO, teams in all sports undervalue the present for a future that may never come. Would anyone have predicted Mauer and Morneau would suffer concussions, meaning the Twins might/probably would have been better off trying to close the deal when they were both healthy (because you know they are healthy).

 

As an example, the Patriots keep trading their first rounders for more picks in the future (and letting FA leave, and trading good veterans), but that means the return on Tom Brady is lower and lower than it could have been. Where would they be the last few years if they had drafted more of their first round picks, and not traded Mankins and let Welker leave? I'd guess much better.

Edited September 30, 2014 by mike wants wins

[tobi0040]

I doubt very many KC fans consider that trade a mistake. They havent played past the regular season in 30years. They got to follow a team in contention, playing games that mattered, all season. Tbey might get more.

 

The trade worked, no matter what Myers does in the future.

 

My guess is five years from now, they will want a mulligan.  Myers is going to be an above average player for years. Odorizzi will be a long term #3 starter.  And I don't see KC signing Shields, nor do I see them in the playoffs next year without him.

 

The biggest issue I see is Moore bet the farm in order to keep his job, not because it was a prudent transaction.

Edited September 30, 2014 by tobi0040

[Mike Sixel]

For those on the "what a mistake by KC side"......do you place no value on them being relevant last year, and in the playoffs next year? 

 

If they aren't relevant last year, and not in the playoffs this year, but then, say, make the playoffs for 4 years until they have to trade Myers because he was so valuable.....is that really better? Are you really sure they make the playoffs with Myers? His defense does NOT fit their strategy, for example.

 

Don't forget, they got a bullpen arm that has helped them too. Everyone talks about this like it was 4:1.

[tobi0040]

For those on the "what a mistake by KC side"......do you place no value on them being relevant last year, and in the playoffs next year? 

 

If they aren't relevant last year, and not in the playoffs this year, but then, say, make the playoffs for 4 years until they have to trade Myers because he was so valuable.....is that really better? Are you really sure they make the playoffs with Myers? His defense does NOT fit their strategy, for example.

 

Don't forget, they got a bullpen arm that has helped them too. Everyone talks about this like it was 4:1.

 

Here are my two cents.  There are times to bet the farm and times to not bet the farm.  Is James Shields going to take a .500 team to the world series?  We will soon find out.

 

The relevance argument seems short term to me. KC is a middle market team that could have really used Myers and Odorizzi for the next 7-9 years on the cheap. They are now going to be drafting 15th for years and not signing anyone of value in free agency, i.e. no mans land.  If this trade makes them better in year one, a playoff team that is not good enough to win it all like the Twins fom 2003-2010 for one year then worse for the next five or seven, is that a good trade?

 

I can go along with the deal if they were an 88-92 win team before the deal and/or resigned him.  But I truly believe this deal was made out of desperation by the GM and long term KC will regret it.

Edited September 30, 2014 by tobi0040

[Willihammer]

I'll concede this about the Myers-Shields trade: The Royals sure haven't gotten much of an attendance bump from it.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

If only the playoffs didn't happen during Football season in KC . . .  (I realize that there was no overlap this weekend with the Monday Night Chiefs game)

[Mike Sixel]

They would only have 4 years left of Myers at this point.....

 

Would the RF for the last two years play if Myers was there? Would the Royals pitchers have the same size delta in FIP and ERA with Myers out there? Are you sure the delta between Myers and the RF they will have the next 4 years is really big? Not having Myers means someone else plays RF, and unlike the Twins, the Royals put legit OF out there after making their trade, not Aaron Hicks.

 

IMO, people aren't looking at ALL the things that happened/happen when a trade is made.

 

They got relevant.

they made the playoffs.

they replaced Myers with legit MLB player(s)

they would likely only have Myers four more years after this, if he turns into a superstar, if not, then the trade looks even better

they also got a RP in the trade, not just Shields

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'll concede this about the Myers-Shields trade: The Royals sure haven't gotten much of an attendance bump from it.

Holy crap, I thought their attendance was better than this:

 

2014: 1,956,482

2013: 1,750,754

2012: 1,739,859

 

That's only 2,600 more people through the turnstiles per game since 2012.

[ashbury]

Holy crap, I thought their attendance was better than this:

Conventional wisdom is that a winning season shows up in attendance the next year.  That's what we see in their 2014 attendance.  When the market goes that dead for that long, it may take longer to ramp up again.  Maybe 2015 sees 2.5M?

 

Cautionary tale for our own 4x90 loss team.

[Mike Sixel]

2600x75*81=15,795,000---that is a goodly amount of revenue.

 

 

*I chose $75 as a guess for food, tickets, parking, hats, whatever.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

Conventional wisdom is that a winning season shows up in attendance the next year.  That's what we see in 2014 attendance.  When the market goes that dead for that long, it may take longer to ramp up again.  Maybe 2015 sees 2.5M?

Yeah, one would hope that Kansas City will continue to support the team in higher numbers the more they win, I was just surprised at the small bump they received this year... After all, they had an 86 win season in 2013.

[Mike Sixel]

Conventional wisdom is that a winning season shows up in attendance the next year.  That's what we see in 2014 attendance.  When the market goes that dead for that long, it may take longer to ramp up again.  Maybe 2015 sees 2.5M?

 

Correct, they will sell even more tickets even next year, probably.

 

so, in addition to all the other stuff I typed, they are making more money.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

2600x75*81=15,795,000---that is a goodly amount of revenue.

 

 

*I chose $75 as a guess for food, tickets, parking, hats, whatever.....

I don't spend anything close to $75 per person per game... And that's not including material costs of food and whether KC gets revenue from Kauffman parking (I literally have zero idea of the parking situation in Kauffman, having never been there).

[jharaldson]

Shields in 2014: 34 starts. 227IP, 3.21 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 3.59 FIP, 7.1 K/9

Odorizzi in 2014: 31 starts. 168IP, 4.13 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 3.75 FIP, 9.3 K/9

 

Obviously Shelds is more of a workhorse, but how much of a downgrade are they really and consider that Odorizzi was a rookie and 24 years old.

 

 

If you believe in WAR then the downgrade is 1.7 wins (3.7 WAR for Shields and 2.0 for Odorizzi).  If you take the 3.1 WAR for Davis vs. the .2 WAR for Myers then you are at 4.6 wins the Royals would be out.  

 

In regards to Myers, if you break his career into quarters this is what you find:

 

2013 June/July - .900 OPS

2013 Aug/Sept - .781 OPS

2014 April/May - .666 OPS

Injury

2014 Aug/Sept - .530 OPS

 

Myers still has a lot of baseball ahead of him and can turn this around but you can't look at that trend and be anything but troubled.  

 

We won't know the grade on this trade for many years but it is certainly more positive now for the Royal than it was last year at this time.