Article: Twins First Half Summary: Murphy's Law

[Seth Stohs]

 

  On 7/5/2016 at 2:09 PM, Mike Sixel said:

I agree with Seth that almost everything has gone wrong. I disagree with Seth* in that I feel some of this was self-inflicted, and it isn't bad luck. Murphy was a buy low, low risk low reward move. Once again, they went small. Park? They have admitted (Molitor) that they didn't expect to win the bid, and it is clear they didn't know what to do when they did. Sano had NEVER played the OF in the minors (though some here had suggested he do that, in case they wanted to keep Plouffe.....like, 2 years ago). Poor planning, imo. Relying on Perkins? After this many years of injuries? Bad idea. Saying the bullpen was the number 1 spot to address, then doing what they did? Uh, that wasn't bad luck, that was predicted to be bad by nearly everyone here.

 

*assuming that is what he is saying

 

I don't think I wrote or implied that in any way in the article. 

[Seth Stohs]

 

  On 7/5/2016 at 3:49 PM, Rick Niedermann said:

Everytime I think of the Jepson for Hu trade I cringe.  It could be as bad a trade as Ramos for Capps.  I think the game has passed Terry Ryan by.

 

And in both cases, the Twins got very good performances from the player they received during the year of the trade. Ramos was the Twins #3 prospect at the time of the trade, a catcher who had already done well in some time in MLB. Hu was a solid pitching prospect, a potential mid-rotation guy who was behind the five MLB starters, plus the current group of top pitching prospects in FM and Chat (Stewart, Gonsalves, Jorge) and also Romero and Thorpe (And now Jay). 

 

That's what happens when you trade for a veteran piece in July. There is a chance that the prospect becomes a good MLB player. The Twins have reversed that many times over the years too.

 

The problem was that the Twins do something they have done to a fault, and that's keep the guy they acquired for too long. They brought back Capps a couple of times.They brought back Jepsen for the second year too... Although it would have been crazy not to offer him arbitration after what he did last year.

[Seth Stohs]

 

  On 7/5/2016 at 4:56 PM, Mike Sixel said:

So, everything going wrong.......you actually believe, since the odds of that are so small that they are hard to calculate....you think bad luck had nothing to do with that? I'm struggling why this is even debatable, frankly. Even a terrible plan can have some good outcomes.....this has had almost none. 

 

Sure, bad luck is part of it, but as has been mentioned, my intent was just to say that things have gone bad. Some of it is bad luck maybe. Some of it is bad planning. Some of it is players just not developing. Some of it is poor front office decisions.

 

I always try to be fair. So, I would say that for every move, there has been a reasonable and logical reasoning for it. Some might take more time to consider and come up with that logical reasoning, but there is some. For instance, I think the Hicks/Murphy trade was quite justifiable. It may still prove to be a just-fine deal. To this point, not so good. 

 

There could be that same reasoning for all of them. For pretty much none of them to work out, that does have some bad luck - (however, when I wrote this, it wasn't my intent to involve luck).

 

And to continue being fair...

 

The Front office looks pretty good in deciding to offer arbitration to Eduardo Nunez, when many fans thought that made little sense. 

 

Signing Fernando Abad for his deal proved (at least so far) to be just as good if not much better than had they made people happy by signing Tony Sipp or Antonio Bastardo to 3 or 4 years and more than the $6 million they got. 

 

It's just much more difficult and more thought needs to be put into finding the positives.

[Mike Sixel]

It has been an amazingly bad series of outcomes. No one predicted this. It's kind of hard to believe how badly most of it has gone.

 

It's not just the number of things that have gone badly......it is (for me) that they've gone so far bad. We could expect Sano to regress, but not like he was. Or, we could expect Jepsen to be less than he was last year, but not that much less. Mind. Boggled.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Mike Sixel

[tobi0040]

  On 7/6/2016 at 9:47 PM, Seth Stohs said:

Sure, bad luck is part of it, but as has been mentioned, my intent was just to say that things have gone bad. Some of it is bad luck maybe. Some of it is bad planning. Some of it is players just not developing. Some of it is poor front office decisions.

 

I always try to be fair. So, I would say that for every move, there has been a reasonable and logical reasoning for it. Some might take more time to consider and come up with that logical reasoning, but there is some. For instance, I think the Hicks/Murphy trade was quite justifiable. It may still prove to be a just-fine deal. To this point, not so good.

 

There could be that same reasoning for all of them. For pretty much none of them to work out, that does have some bad luck - (however, when I wrote this, it wasn't my intent to involve luck).

 

And to continue being fair...

 

The Front office looks pretty good in deciding to offer arbitration to Eduardo Nunez, when many fans thought that made little sense.

 

Signing Fernando Abad for his deal proved (at least so far) to be just as good if not much better than had they made people happy by signing Tony Sipp or Antonio Bastardo to 3 or 4 years and more than the $6 million they got.

 

It's just much more difficult and more thought needs to be put into finding the positives.

Being fair is good. And the Nunez and Abad deals have been good one's.

 

But you lost me about every move being logical.

 

I can't find the logic in rolling out Nolasco every fifth game.

 

Or if they view May as a starter, it seems logical to move him about now

 

Or providing so many reps to Danny Santana

 

Or why guys like Berrios, May, and Chagois have such a short leash.

Edited July 7, 2016 by tobi0040