Article: Reflecting On Hard Truths About Prospects

[Nick Nelson]

Recently in Anaheim, a familiar figure took the mound to face the Twins. This particular player, like many others, serves to remind us of the fickleness of prospects in baseball.

 

It's a reality that is weighing heavily on this rebuilding Minnesota club.One week ago, Deolis Guerra tossed the seventh and eighth innings for the Angels in a blowout loss against the Twins at home. You may recall that Guerra was once a key piece in the package given up by the Mets to acquire Johan Santana, all the way back in 2007.

 

At the time, Guerra was only 18 years old. Coming off a solid season at Single-A, he was ranked by Baseball America as the 35th-best prospect in the game. With a big sturdy build, developing velocity and an already eye-catching changeup, Guerra oozed potential.

 

Having already reached High-A as a teenager, the young righty was on an accelerated path to the majors. The hope was that he would become an impact addition to Minnesota's rotation within a few years, helping justify the loss of an elite pitcher.

 

Of course, that's not how it played out. Guerra struggled, stalled, got hurt, switched roles, switched organizations multiple times. Nearly a decade after being sent to the Twins in the Santana blockbuster, Guerra is only now beginning to establish himself in the major leagues. He was knocked around last year during his first exposure to the big leagues as a member of Pittsburgh's bullpen, but is showing some very positive signs now as a reliever for the Angels, with a 3.00 ERA, 0.73 WHIP and 15-to-0 K/BB ratio in 15 innings.

 

If Guerra continues on this path, it obviously won't turn out as a best-case scenario for a hurler who was once considered to have top-of-the-rotation upside. But it won't be a worst-case scenario. At least he will end up being a useful major league player, which is more than many highly rated prospects can ever say.

 

Guerra is a case study in the volatility of prospects, and the length of time that it can sometimes take before they really figure it out at the highest level.

 

Carlos Gomez, who came over to Minnesota in the same package as Guerra, is another example worth looking at. He eventually did fulfill his promise, becoming a borderline MVP caliber player in 2013 and 2014 with the Brewers, but not until a few years after he left the Twins. By the time Gomez reached his peak, he had accumulated more than 1500 MLB plate appearances and was 27. That's the same age Guerra is now. It's the same age David Ortiz was when he transformed into a superstar with the Red Sox. It's the age Oswaldo Arcia will turn in May of 2018.

 

Plenty of top prospects catch on quickly and become instant big-league stars. Most do not. Development curves are varied and unpredictable. It really shouldn't be too surprising that Byron Buxton is overwhelmed by MLB pitching at age 22, nor that Jose Berrios got knocked around in his first taste at 21, nor that Eddie Rosario and Tyler Duffey have been stymied by the league's adjustments in their sophomore seasons.

 

But just because these outcomes aren't particularly surprising doesn't mean they aren't problematic. The Twins are fully dependent on this young core to turn around their fledgling franchise. The fact that so many of them look so far from even approaching their potential is indeed perturbing.

 

Click here to view the article

[tobi0040]

The fact that prospects take a long time to develop, often moving from org to org before finding themselves should in theory be nuetral to the Twins. We should see an equal number of our guys leave and find success as we should pick up and see guys succeed

 

The bigger problem is this has not been equal. We have a development and talent recognition issue and are losing more than we gain

[Seth Stohs]

Another tough thing, as evidenced by Guerra, Gomez, Arcia and others... players from Venezuela or the Dominican or other interenational signings that sign at age 16 have to be added to the 40-man roster when they are maybe 20 years old. They are out of options by 23-24 years old, and that is very young for prospects. It almost makes sense that several of these players become the player we thought they might be with their second organization.

[Nick Nelson]

Very true, Seth. The system is set up so that it's hard for teams to wait out late bloomers, unless you want to suffer through the extended growing pains. That's more palatable, though, when it's a stellar defensive center fielder like Gomez compared to a one-trick pony like Arcia or a fringy reliever like Guerra. 

[NoCal]

The step from AAA to the major leagues is the single biggest leap that a player has to make. Often too steep, requiring multiple efforts. And some times the Twins do benefit from this struggle - this year, Grossman and Nunez seem to be "late bloomers" who may have figured it out. We seem to remember the "misses" instead of the "hits". Every organization has their regrets, and their "keen judgements". 

[jay]

The fact that prospects take a long time to develop, often moving from org to org before finding themselves should in theory be nuetral to the Twins. We should see an equal number of our guys leave and find success as we should pick up and see guys succeed

 

The bigger problem is this has not been equal. We have a development and talent recognition issue and are losing more than we gain

That first paragraph is true. The second one is purely based on perception. It'd be great to see some comprehensive, long term math to back up such a claim.

[troyhobbs]

 

That first paragraph is true. The second one is purely based on perception. It'd be great to see some comprehensive, long term math to back up such a claim.

Wins and losses over the past 6 or 7 years would appear to support his claim as well as all the dead money the organization has stuck into FA's that haven't panned out and rendering them untradeable.

[markos]

 

Another tough thing, as evidenced by Guerra, Gomez, Arcia and others... players from Venezuela or the Dominican or other interenational signings that sign at age 16 have to be added to the 40-man roster when they are maybe 20 years old. They are out of options by 23-24 years old, and that is very young for prospects. It almost makes sense that several of these players become the player we thought they might be with their second organization.

I don't follow other organizations close enough to make a serious comparison about this, but it certainly feels like the Twins are overly aggressive with protecting players in the low minors. They protected Kepler and Polanco after the 2013 season when both were just 20 and neither had a single game above low-A. Given how reluctant they have been to play Polanco regularly in the majors, it would certainly be nice to have an additional option year in his back pocket for next season. And this year they protected both Yorman Landa and Randy Rosario when neither had pitched a single inning above low-A. Given their youth and inexperience, it doesn't seem likely that either would have been selected. And Landa in particular, as a full-time reliever at this point, hardly seams like huge loss if he would have be selected by another team.

 

Roster flexibility is so valuable to teams trying to sort out young talent. I know its not exactly this simple, but if I had to pick between Arcia and Landa, I have to think that Arcia has way more future value. Can anyone think of a 21 or younger position player with zero at bats above low A that has been successfully claimed during the Rule 5 draft? I can't come up with anyone. Or is that just because every other team is protecting them as well? 

[bird]

 

Wins and losses over the past 6 or 7 years would appear to support his claim as well as all the dead money the organization has stuck into FA's that haven't panned out and rendering them untradeable.

 

 

I believe jay is talking about real comparative analysis that might show differences in the success rates among teams when it comes to retaining and acquiring late blooming players. Your statement, while pointing to an obvious and frustrating recent string of poor results, doesn't do much to shed light on the subject.

[jorgenswest]

I don't follow other organizations close enough to make a serious comparison about this, but it certainly feels like the Twins are overly aggressive with protecting players in the low minors. They protected Kepler and Polanco after the 2013 season when both were just 20 and neither had a single game above low-A. Given how reluctant they have been to play Polanco regularly in the majors, it would certainly be nice to have an additional option year in his back pocket for next season. And this year they protected both Yorman Landa and Randy Rosario when neither had pitched a single inning above low-A. Given their youth and inexperience, it doesn't seem likely that either would have been selected. And Landa in particular, as a full-time reliever at this point, hardly seams like huge loss if he would have be selected by another team.

 

Roster flexibility is so valuable to teams trying to sort out young talent. I know its not exactly this simple, but if I had to pick between Arcia and Landa, I have to think that Arcia has way more future value. Can anyone think of a 21 or younger position player with zero at bats above low A that has been successfully claimed during the Rule 5 draft? I can't come up with anyone. Or is that just because every other team is protecting them as well?

 

Johan Santana

[FormerMinnasotan]

The issue for me in regards to Berrios is he is struggling in Rochester as well as with the Twins. It really seems like the Twins have been unable to get Berrios to the "next level". His control is still off and his command is still shaky as evidenced by the increase in his home runs given up this year. Hopefully this is only temporary for Berrios, but given the history of the Twins inability to develop players (especially starting pitchers) to their top potential it wouldn't surprise me at the same time if Berrios isn't quite as good as advertised. I'm not blaming Berrios, I put the blame on poor player development and a lack of solid coaching. If Berrios for example was in the St Louis Cardinal organization I'd bet he WOULD be a top of the rotation starter given his track record, his stuff, work ethic, and willingness to learn.

[markos]

 

Johan Santana

I was asking specifically about position players. 

 

[SweetOne69]

 

Johan Santana

First, he asked for position players.

Second, Santana was hidden in the BP during his age 21 season (much like Graham was last year).  He only appeared in 30 games and had a 6+ ERA.

Third, Santana spent most of his age 22 season in the minors (only appeared in 15 games).

It was his age 23 season where he came back as a dominant starter that we remember.

[jorgenswest]

I was asking specifically about position players.

 

Everth Cabrera Edited June 22, 2016 by jorgenswest

[jorgenswest]

 

I assume success means that the player was lost to the organization. Rule 5 guys often spend their second year with the acquiring club in the minors. They still have options.

 

For example Oscar Hernandez was taken by Arizona a year ago. He played as a 20 year old in A-Ball with Tampa Bay.. He spent last year at the end of the bench and is now in high A with Arizona doing well.

Edited June 22, 2016 by jorgenswest

[troyhobbs]

 

I believe jay is talking about real comparative analysis that might show differences in the success rates among teams when it comes to retaining and acquiring late blooming players. Your statement, while pointing to an obvious and frustrating recent string of poor results, doesn't do much to shed light on the subject.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/99/99da79a1396394321b7830d9a2e292b3e1e3264f4c166a7093b2844df0c7ec20.jpg

[HitInAPinch]

The lower levels of the MiLB are really a crap-shoot.  Fill up the rosters with as many as you can handle, then start weeding them out.  I'd like to see a chart of those that got "weeded" and see how many ended up successful.  Then again, I'm not the guy creating those charts  AND I'd question the real value of them.  Other than "oops, we missed on that one" or "OH you ****heads!!"

 

International signings are a crap-shoot, too.  Every now and then, you get really lucky and find a Sano-type.  I wonder what those odds are?

[Rosterman]

 

The issue for me in regards to Berrios is he is struggling in Rochester as well as with the Twins. It really seems like the Twins have been unable to get Berrios to the "next level". His control is still off and his command is still shaky as evidenced by the increase in his home runs given up this year. Hopefully this is only temporary for Berrios, but given the history of the Twins inability to develop players (especially starting pitchers) to their top potential it wouldn't surprise me at the same time if Berrios isn't quite as good as advertised. I'm not blaming Berrios, I put the blame on poor player development and a lack of solid coaching. If Berrios for example was in the St Louis Cardinal organization I'd bet he WOULD be a top of the rotation starter given his track record, his stuff, work ethic, and willingness to learn.

It is a struggle as a prospect. It is wonderful if you can have some of that back-and-forth between the majors and minors, especially during the first couple of years that a player is on the 40-man roster. But in developing that player, if you do it too soon, you will be faced with the issues the Twins had with Arcia, and will soon have with Polanco and Kepler. Have you givvn them enough of an opportunity to learn at the major league level before their options expire, and/or are you willing to carry them on the 25-man roster for 1-2 years fulltime as a back-up player on a learning curve as they slowly trend towards arbitration. But if you wait too long, you have have missed a glimmer of early glory, or you see the player pushed out of the organization by an upcoming talent that is showing greater strides at a younger age.

 

When you draft a player, you hope you can have a good idea of the direction they are going in their first 3-4 years, if they last that long in the system. But you are dealing with high school signees, and signees with 3+ years of higher education, often starting at the same level for a moment. Mix in the fading veterans still looking for a comebacker, all over the place at AAA and many still at AA, and it can be a problem.

 

No matter how bad Arcia failed at AAA last season, the Twins still needed to see more of him at the major league level, or make the commitment to find and keep a solid bench spot for him at the major league level this year. But that changed with the signing of Park, the emergence of the younger Sano last season, other roster possibilities. So the Twins will move on from Arcia. But, in the topic of this discussion, that needed more thought last summer to see if he could become a viable tradechip, or a hard-lined decision in the offseason to cut him loose if you really had no room in the inn for his bat.

 

In truth, there was no reason to bring up Berrios already this season. But good for him that he got a taste of major league life. If he struggles at AAA, maybe it IS because he is working on things to make himself a better major league pitcher down-the-road, in a league where you SHOULD be able to work on pitching placement (thus walking more batters who are in the minors being told to be more patient). Somehow, Buxton needs another trip down to continue to adapt to whatever he is missing in major league ball. And then you get people like Milone who totally dominate AAA...and hopefully keeps his act together, for a few starts at least.

 

I'm not sure how many charts and film and other things players worry about daily in the minors, compared to the majors where everything is analyzed, because you pay the people to do it and expect the players to sit and listen, work hard on it, and become better against people getting better each and every game themselves.

 

And some of it is just maturing. Remember what you were like at 18, at age 21. How you viewed life at 23 or even 25. When did you start worrying about career. When did you feel comfortable in maintaining your state of mind and body. At what point does play become work, and you do the work each and every day as demanded and strive to become the best you can with what you have.

 

There's 150 prospects in every team's system. As many drop out each year as are drafted, all at different levels. Names change from organization to organization...you can only have so many guys who play shortstop, or so many lefthanders, or so many starting pitchings, or so many outfielders. And few are superstars, celebrities, that will have long-lasting careers, television commercials, instant name recognition not only in the hometown but also across the country. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Everth Cabrera

Perhaps.  Although, at the time of his Rule 5 selection, Cabrera was 22 years old.  Kepler and Polanco would have been 20.  Arcia would have been 20 too.

 

It's somewhat moot though anyway, as Kepler does have an option left next year, and Polanco would too if not for ~3 days of roster weirdness in his first pro season of 2010.  And we were still able to option Arcia last year in his age 24 season.

[jorgenswest]

Perhaps.  Although, at the time of his Rule 5 selection, Cabrera was 22 years old.  Kepler and Polanco would have been 20.  Arcia would have been 20 too.

 

It's somewhat moot though anyway, as Kepler does have an option left next year, and Polanco would too if not for ~3 days of roster weirdness in his first pro season of 2010.  And we were still able to option Arcia last year in his age 24 season.

Oscar Hernandez might be a closer example then. Cabrera was 21 In low A. Young prospects at low levels need to be protected. Though they are years from being successful, teams can't risk losing the upside. Better to lose a Gilmartin.

[markos]

 

Oscar Hernandez might be a closer example then. Cabrera was 21 In low A. Young prospects at low levels need to be protected. Though they are years from being successful, teams can't risk losing the upside. Better to lose a Gilmartin.

Both of them are examples that I was looking for. I think I might have underestimated the chance that Polanco or Kepler would have been selected. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

They protected Kepler and Polanco after the 2013 season when both were just 20 and neither had a single game above low-A. Given how reluctant they have been to play Polanco regularly in the majors, it would certainly be nice to have an additional option year in his back pocket for next season.

As I mentioned above, the problem with Polanco's options ending this year is not due to when they protected him, but that they gave him 92 active days in rookie league ball in 2010, so it counted as a full season.  Other than that, he should be in the same boat as Kepler, with a fourth option year in 2017.

 

Polanco would have been an aggressive Rule 5 choice after 2013, certainly, but potentially a very good one.  Middle infielder, a 127 wRC+ and only a 11.3% K rate in full season ball.  Compared to Kepler, OF/1B, 105 wRC+, 16.3% K rate in the same league.  Or Arcia, corner OF with a 107 wRC+, 23.3% K rate in high-A in 2011.

 

I suspect the Twins aren't out of line by protecting these guys though -- from what I recall of checking Rule 5 previews, there generally aren't guys like Polanco circa 2013 being left unprotected.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Oscar Hernandez might be a closer example then. Cabrera was 21 In low A. Young prospects at low levels need to be protected. Though they are years from being successful, teams can't risk losing the upside. Better to lose a Gilmartin.

Generally agreed, although Hernandez is far from a serious loss yet either.  And even now, 8 years after his Rule 5 selection, Cabrera has only averaged 1-1.4 WAR per 500 PA in MLB, much of that coming in one season with what looks like an outlier K rate.

 

Although this is quibbling at the margins.  The Twins haven't lacked the 40-man space to protect these guys, and having options through age 24 for 16 year old international signees should offer plenty of time to develop them.

[old nurse]

There have been plenty of bench players taken by the Twins from the release scrap heap. Probably the last player to start a 100 games for a couple of years was Dustan Mohr.  It wasn't for a lack of trying on the Twins part. From giving Tom Quinlan a shot to Juan Centeno this year it seems like they are always trying to find the gem others missed on. The AAA roster always seems to have a few on it, management hoping.

The released pool is how Ryan builds bullpens. Buddy Bashers may go from being a punchline to a couple year stalwart

[bird]

 

The issue for me in regards to Berrios is he is struggling in Rochester as well as with the Twins. It really seems like the Twins have been unable to get Berrios to the "next level". His control is still off and his command is still shaky as evidenced by the increase in his home runs given up this year. Hopefully this is only temporary for Berrios, but given the history of the Twins inability to develop players (especially starting pitchers) to their top potential it wouldn't surprise me at the same time if Berrios isn't quite as good as advertised. I'm not blaming Berrios, I put the blame on poor player development and a lack of solid coaching. If Berrios for example was in the St Louis Cardinal organization I'd bet he WOULD be a top of the rotation starter given his track record, his stuff, work ethic, and willingness to learn.

 

No prospect who is projected to have a front rotation ceiling lasts until the 32nd pick. Berrios is still regarded by many experts as having a mid rotation ceiling. I think the lofty expectations are due at least in part to all this talk about how Berrios has apparently cornered the market regarding work ethic, character, etc.

 

I disagree with your assessment. Berrios would be at pretty much the same stage of development elsewhere. And if we're going to cite an example or two of players who haven't or aren't progressing at an acceptable pace (Berrios IS, IMO), then we need to explain away the many many opposite examples. Pat Dean was projected to be a non-prospect for all practical purposes. Do we maintain an awareness about how few 3rd-rounders ever see a major league pitching mound? Does a guy like that simply overcome what you think is an inept development program? Or is there a possibility that Pat Dean and Jose Berrios are actually living up to their real potential in part because of competent coaching?

[tobi0040]

That first paragraph is true. The second one is purely based on perception. It'd be great to see some comprehensive, long term math to back up such a claim.

Here are the Twins all stars from 2003 to 2015.

 

Cuddy, Mauer, Mays, Dozier, Liriano, Santana, Justin, Nathan, Perkins, Hunter, Eddie G, Johan, Suzuki, and Hunter.

 

With the exception of Johan and Suzuki, every one of these guys was either drafted by the Twins or acquired via trade when they were prospects or in their first year or two. They weren’t give up on by the other team as much as assets traded for. With Suzuki having a career 2 month stretch prior to his one appearance and overall being one of the worst catchers in the league. So that is what we have gained.

 

On the other side of the ledger and I am sure I am missing a few, off the top of my head:

 

Gomez, Papi, Hardy, Neshek, Balfour, and Crain

 

Career WAR of Johan and Kurt with Twins was 36 (33 + 3)

 

Career WAR of these six guys after leaving (Papi 50, Gomez 20, Hardy 15, Balfour 9, Crain 6, Neshek 4)

 

So I come up with 104 WAR to 36. A 68 WAR gap, or 5.6 wins per seasons over this period.

 

Now I get this analysis is not perfect. You could choose another metric other than all star games, I did because it was relatively easy to look up. I just don’t have four hours today. If someone else wants to look at this another way feel free to do the legwork. I am guessing the conclusion won’t materially change.

[Winston Smith]

370-510 over the last 6 years a .420 winning percentage, yep everything is great.

 

How bad does it need to get and for how long before people stop defending this inept organization?

[blindeke]

Nicely written!

[bird]

tobi, thanks for digging that stuff up, it's interesting to see. It doesn't tell us much about the question of any team's prowess or ineptitude in plucking late bloomers from another team's system, or retaining their own, since almost all of the players sent packing were dispatched via trades. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this, although it tends to support a belief I have about the Twin's most egregious deficiency as an organization, which is that they do not have a strategic buy/sell discipline concerning their player assets. It appears to me they have no strategy, and no discipline regarding player movement, but instead simply react to circumstances that confront them. The result of this has been unacceptably poor returns, player after player, year after year. I'd argue that this single deficiency is the cause of most of their issues. I'd go a step further and suggest they are quite competent at both talent evaluation and player development, but this isn't overcoming their poor decisions on when to trade an asset and for what value.

[tobi0040]

tobi, thanks for digging that stuff up, it's interesting to see. It doesn't tell us much about the question of any team's prowess or ineptitude in plucking late bloomers from another team's system, or retaining their own, since almost all of the players sent packing were dispatched via trades. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this, although it tends to support a belief I have about the Twin's most egregious deficiency as an organization, which is that they do not have a strategic buy/sell discipline concerning their player assets. It appears to me they have no strategy, and no discipline regarding player movement, but instead simply react to circumstances that confront them. The result of this has been unacceptably poor returns, player after player, year after year. I'd argue that this single deficiency is the cause of most of their issues. I'd go a step further and suggest they are quite competent at both talent evaluation and player development, but this isn't overcoming their poor decisions on when to trade an asset and for what value.

I think it is safe to say we did not see the potential in Ortiz, Gomez, or Hardy. I think we gave up to a certain extent. No? The Gomez for Hardy trade in my opinion was two org's who gave up on their guy. Milwaukee didn't think Hardy was going to be the guy he was and we flat out were down on the potential of Gomez. A few years later trading Hardy for Hoey tells me that we were writing off Hardy. In both cases as well as Ortiz, we would have been much better keeping them.

 

I think the big tally is 3 to 1. Papi, Gomez, and Hardy to Johan. If we throw in the others and do more research but guess is we find a few more guys that made an all star appearance. But by and large the number of misses and WAR of those guys has been a net negative to the Twins. Is it development, coaching, talent recognition, financial concerns? I don't know. But it is a miss in my opinion.