Article: Commitment Issues

[wsnydes]

 

I'm with Nick.....there are disconnects between what seems to be the plan, and how they act. I'm with chief, they dream small (Hicks for Murphy) when could dream big. Remember when they preached throwing strikes, because walks kill, and they didn't teach hitters to walk more? Just a series, imo, of a lack of a clear strategy and execution of said strategy. A disconnect between being unwilling to sign a FA RP for real money and multiple years, but wanting to trade for such a RP. This disconnect, to me, is THE issue for this team. And a lack of going all in or all out, which I view as a similar disconnect.

This.  This so much.  Pick a direction and run with it.  Not somewhere between two directions and waffling back and forth.  The engine is redlining, but the gears aren't engaged, thus you're not going anywhere.  If they wanted to make a playoff push last year, fine.  Commit and make a couple of moves to seriously improve the roster.  If that isn't in your comfort zone, sit tight and maybe unload a veteran or two to improve the roster.

[ThejacKmp]

 

I think it should have been obvious that Mauer, with the contract obligation going out to age 35/36 and past knee isssues was not going to be a full time catcher at 31/32. He should have been at best a 50% catcher. So any strategy that leaves Drew Butera catching 80 games deserves to be ridiculed.

We may not agree on the succession planning. But we never made a large free agent commitment or top draft pick on the position, post Mauer. With the hole the Ramos trade left, I don't think we have done enough.

 

(1) The Twins signed Mauer to that big contract with the idea he would catch for more than the first 3-4 years of it. They knew that he would likely not finish the contract as a catcher but they thought they'd be able to ease him out of it in the past few years, not lose him at age 30. I'd challenge you to find a single newspaper article at the time of the signing that said Joe would be done catching in 2013. Sometimes bad things happen to good people and saying "You should have known" isn't helpful or fair.

 

(2) Ramos was traded in 2010 and Joe was a full-time catcher until 2013. The Ramos trade didn't leave a hole, you would've had a backup who was overqualified for the job with no real end in sight. It was fine to trade him. The Twins options since haven't panned out which leaves you where half the league is most years - treading water with replacement level catchers and fishing the murky waters of catchers in their 30s on short term deals. You can't win them all.

 

(3) As far as a free agent contract goes, large free agent commitments to catchers are almost universally a poor idea. Since 2012, it's hard to find a marquee signing you wish the Twins had made. The big contracts that went bad are Russell Martin (ugh), Saltalamacchia (double ugh) and Carlos Ruiz (not worth it). Matt Weiters is too early to tell but that's not one with a ton of upside. The only one that looks maybe okay is Brian McCann and that's a huge maybe since he has two more years on the deal at age 35 and was paid $17 mill/year. Catchers generally aren't available by free agency.

 

(4) This leaves the draft, which is of course a crap shoot. If there isn't a catcher available where you pick, you can't reach and grab one. Maybe someone who is better versed in the draft can highlight a place where the Twins chose not to grab a catcher but didn't but I can't remember one.  A brief look at the first round doesn't show much hope. Of catchers taken in the first since Mauer, the only names of distinction are Posey and Weiters (both of whom were taken before the Twins picked that year). There are 10-15 other first round catchers taken who either never made the majors or never turned into even decent average catchers. By far the best of these is Jarrod Saltalamacchia of the career 0.4 WAR. The Twins have tried in the draft but again, you don't always win.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. What would you have done differently? Who would you have signed/traded for/drafted? Catching is thin - if you lose your franchise catcher at a surprisingly early age, you're likely going to struggle to replace him for awhile. It's the QB of baseball, not the punter.

[Vanimal46]

 

I think the Twins' biggest single problem is...the idea that a Tulo trade isn't (wasn't) very realistic.

 

Why?

 

Same for a Price or Hamels.  Competing for top level free agents.  etc etc etc

 

Why?  Why can Toronto or Texas pull that off, but it's unrealistic to think the Twins can swim in those waters?

 

I'm not picking on you here, Van, because you're absolutely right...it IS unrealistic.

 

That's the Twins biggest problem, and that's the biggest problem with Terry Ryan.

 

IMO, he dreams small, and worse, he's got most of us thinking that's ok.

Can't argue with you there, Chief. We've been beaten down by the "small market, woah is us" mentality that the Twins have been portraying the last 20+ years. Instead of challenging the status quo of a Hamels, Tulo, or Price acquisition being unrealistic, we've accepted it. I would love to witness a time where the Twins ARE in the thick of contract/trade negotiations with the Hamels, Tulos, and Prices of the world. 

[Darius]

Many would've still said it was a bad trade at the end of last September. A marginal reliever equates to a promising SO prospect in terms of value under no circumstances. We were never talking about Mariano Rivera, here.

 

A guy like Abad could've came in and filled in equally well in the most overrated position in the game, in terms of value.

 

The not way this can be defended is if the Twins thought the guy would never make it to the majors, which then brings into question their evaluation processes....again....

[Major League Ready]

 

I think the Twins' biggest single problem is...the idea that a Tulo trade isn't (wasn't) very realistic.

 

Why?

 

Same for a Price or Hamels.  Competing for top level free agents.  etc etc etc

 

Why?  Why can Toronto or Texas pull that off, but it's unrealistic to think the Twins can swim in those waters?

 

I'm not picking on you here, Van, because you're absolutely right...it IS unrealistic.

 

That's the Twins biggest problem, and that's the biggest problem with Terry Ryan.

 

IMO, he dreams small, and worse, he's got most of us thinking that's ok.

The question you have to answer before asking why they did not attempt such a trade is should they have been in the Price/Hamels market?  When you say “they   Thompson is a top 50 SP prospect.  Williams is #58 and Alfaro is a catcher ranked #86 prospect.  It would have taken Berrios, Kepler, and one other top 100 ranked plus a couple lower ranked guys like Chin-Wei Hu to equate to what the Rangers gave in trade. 

 

Are you really saying the team should have considered such a move when it is obvious they were not anywhere near the point of maintaining contention?  Should they have given up the very players that likely get them to contention to be a little better for 3 years if he does not regress as he will be 35 at the end of the contract.

 

I would prefer 6 years of Kepler + 6 years or Berrios + 6 years of Gordon or Jay or whoever else it would have taken for 6 years, plus the $67.5M over 3 years that could be spent on a very good FA SP.   I just don’t understand why so many posters here want us to give away our future for a player that makes us a little better than the terrible team we are now.  It’s a very good way to stay bad or mediocre.  I really don’t think there is not a GM in baseball that would consider this trade for 30 seconds given the Twins status.

[jimmer]

 

The question you have to answer before asking why they did not attempt such a trade is should they have been in the Price/Hamels market?  When you say “they   Thompson is a top 50 SP prospect.  Williams is #58 and Alfaro is a catcher ranked #86 prospect.  It would have taken Berrios, Kepler, and one other top 100 ranked plus a couple lower ranked guys like Chin-Wei Hu to equate to what the Rangers gave in trade. 

 

Are you really saying the team should have considered such a move when it is obvious they were not anywhere near the point of maintaining contention?  Should they have given up the very players that likely get them to contention to be a little better for 3 years if he does not regress as he will be 35 at the end of the contract.

 

I would prefer 6 years of Kepler + 6 years or Berrios + 6 years of Gordon or Jay or whoever else it would have taken for 6 years, plus the $67.5M over 3 years that could be spent on a very good FA SP.   I just don’t understand why so many posters here want us to give away our future for a player that makes us a little better than the terrible team we are now.  It’s a very good way to stay bad or mediocre.  I really don’t think there is not a GM in baseball that would consider this trade for 30 seconds given the Twins status.

But weren't you last year praising Ryan's efforts and saying we were true contenders, that we had reached the contender window, and would continue to be contenders this year and beyond?  If you were one of the people here saying that, then how can you now say it was obvious we were not anywhere near the point of maintaining contention so a big trade for a proven player would have been absurd?

 

Having said that, I am glad we didn't trade Kepler or Berrios for sure, never thought we should, but still.

Edited July 13, 2016 by jimmer

[ThejacKmp]

 

How many of those Catchers still catching at 31/32 are 6'5" with knee issues in their 20's?

 

That’s a fair point but I still think it’s off to say the Twins should have known Mauer would be done. Two thoughts:

 

First of all, Mauer was done in by concussions, his knees are fine. I don’t think taller guys are more likely to get concussions. That said, I take the point that Mauer had some overall health issues. If Ramos had been traded in 2012 when Mauer was 29 I’d understand the consternation more but he was traded when Mauer was 27. The Twins had a reasonable expectation Mauer could at least play half the season at catcher as he got to age 31 or 32 and keeping Ramos for 5 years as a back-up or at best platoon catcher is not an ideal use of resources.

 

Secondly, there are a lot of taller catchers who have had fine long careers. Gary Carter was 6’2”, Mike Scioscia was 6’2”, Javy Lopez was 6’3”, Matt Wieters is 6’5”, Sandy Alomar Jr. was 6’5” and Mike Piazza was 6’3” (according to baseball reference). If Salvador Perez became available, I think most TDers would be ecstatic and not worry he’s 6’3”. Height is likely not ideal for a catcher but it doesn’t mean a great player (like Joe) can’t succeed at an unusual size for his position (and trends change as well – big shortstops were frowned upon until A-Rod and co. showed you didn’t need to be 5’8” to be a SS).

 

P.S. The tallest catcher in MLB history was amazing. Loved corn whiskey, fought teammates and opponents all the time, was suspended for drinking repeatedly in the wild era of the early 1900s when it was harder to get suspended, ended his career suspended for brawling with his manager in a hotel lobby, and was killed a few years later when he was shot while trying to attack a bartender. I would bet that Joe Mauer has never even tried corn whiskey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McLean

[Jham]

 

I was meh on the trade when it happened. There was upside in Jepsen and he performed well in 2015.

 

With that said, Nick has a valid point. Why is Ryan willing to give up Hu AND Tapia for Jepsen but unwilling to sign a reliever to a three year deal in the offseason?

 

There's a cognitive dissonance in that approach and it really bothers me. As Nick pointed out, prospects are the most valuable currency in baseball, even more than cash.

 

Prospects are only currency if you are willing to trade them.  I'm trying to make sure my criticisms of the organization aren't actually just criticisms of the results.  I have been very frustrated by the teams hoarding of prospects and seeming inability to project them.  They have watched their currency lose value and done nothing.  Last season was probably a surprise contending year.  We may have looked at our current stock, saw that many of prospects weren't as close as we thought, and therefore the team wasn't as close as we thought.  So last year may have been our closest thing to a contender in the near future, certainly in the recent pass, but not quite worth going all-in over.  So make some non-splashy moves, and trade a prospect you're not convinced on while the stock is high at a position of depth for a position of immediate need.  I doubt we'll miss Hu.  And if we're not competing this year, and possibly not even next year, by the time we'd get around to trading  Hu, he might not be worth a Jepsen any more.  It seems as likely as not that he's a fringe 4-5 and I'm willing to bet on that.  If that's the case, he's probably not fitting in with our team in 2 years based on current roster projection, and his value may be less, and he may be coming up on options, and may be losing trade value.  Better to trade a AA guy with 2 upside then a major leaguer with 4.

 

[old nurse]

 

 

Bottom line:  the Twins need a better way of developing pitchers, so they have several ready to jump in from their pen.  I have still not seen a pitcher since Neshek and Crain, come in from the minors and be very successful in the pen, while others (Hendriks,  Manship etc) found success after changing organizations, which makes me think that the issue is not the talent, but the way they develop talent. (and one of course can make a similar argument about starters from the MLB level down.)

...

For the most part it is success after changing organizations several times and several years.  In 2020 with 20/20 hindsight  maybe Arcia will head your list

[USAFChief]

 

The question you have to answer before asking why they did not attempt such a trade is should they have been in the Price/Hamels market?  When you say “they   Thompson is a top 50 SP prospect.  Williams is #58 and Alfaro is a catcher ranked #86 prospect.  It would have taken Berrios, Kepler, and one other top 100 ranked plus a couple lower ranked guys like Chin-Wei Hu to equate to what the Rangers gave in trade. 

 

Are you really saying the team should have considered such a move when it is obvious they were not anywhere near the point of maintaining contention?  Should they have given up the very players that likely get them to contention to be a little better for 3 years if he does not regress as he will be 35 at the end of the contract.

 

I would prefer 6 years of Kepler + 6 years or Berrios + 6 years of Gordon or Jay or whoever else it would have taken for 6 years, plus the $67.5M over 3 years that could be spent on a very good FA SP.   I just don’t understand why so many posters here want us to give away our future for a player that makes us a little better than the terrible team we are now.  It’s a very good way to stay bad or mediocre.  I really don’t think there is not a GM in baseball that would consider this trade for 30 seconds given the Twins status.

The question I'm asking is why the Twins making such a trade--any such trade, not necessarily Hamels--can be accurately described as "unrealistic."

 

They've never done so, and under Ryan, I don't believe they ever will.

 

And that's a huge problem, IMO.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think some people are missing the core point here.

 

The problem, in my mind, is not that they traded a prospect for a midseason upgrade despite being a very borderline contender -- I commend that.

 

The problem also was not a lopsided transaction. Hu was a fair price for ~1.5 years of Jepsen.

 

The problem is in the flawed fundamental thinking. Should they have even been seeking ~1.5 years of any (non-elite) reliever, rather than seeking a straight-up two month rental? Teams that are out of the race don't need to be offered much for guys who are set to be free agents. Look at how much less it cost the Twins to acquire Brian Fuentes a few weeks after they got Capps in 2010.

Fair point. I thought I remembered the prospect price for Mark Lowe being higher, but looking back it wasn't.

 

A complicating factor was the Padres had a couple arms (Kelley and Benoit) but weren't selling.

 

Other teams seemed to hold on to some relief arms to include in package deals (Hawkins and Diekman).

 

I guess the rentals we could have gotten were Soria, Clippard, or Cishek?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think the Twins' biggest single problem is...the idea that a Tulo trade isn't (wasn't) very realistic.

 

Count me glad that, in that specific case, we didn't listen to Twins Daily. 

 

We need to remember, being a "big" move doesn't mean the same as being a "good" move.

 

Put me in the camp of wanting more smart moves, whatever those may be.  Jepsen?  Not smart.  Tulo?  Not smart.  "Insert stupid extension given here"? Not smart.  We've been way too far on the "not smart" side of things for too long.

[Thrylos]

 

To me, the trade reinforces that they should be looking to trade Fernando Abad and Brandon Kintzler this month and see what they can get back. Maybe someone else's mid-20s starting pitching prospect in return, and then maybe that guy can take off and become a Top 15 Twins prospect.

 

This assumes that the Twins' system can do that.  Huge leap of faith.  Development just sucks compared to other systems.  Here is an example:  Jeff Manship.  He failed to develop with the Twins. He went to another system and blossomed.  

 

If your system of developing prospects sucks, no matter what you throw at it, will not work...

[Major League Ready]

 

But weren't you last year praising Ryan's efforts and saying we were true contenders, that we had reached the contender window, and would continue to be contenders this year and beyond?  If you were one of the people here saying that, then how can you now say it was obvious we were not anywhere near the point of maintaining contention so a big trade for a proven player would have been absurd?

 

Having said that, I am glad we didn't trade Kepler or Berrios for sure, never thought we should, but still.

You need to look back.  I like a few others here thought they were overachieving.   I remember one thread in particular where I wrote something about them having a unsustainable average w/RISP.  You may also recall I listed the math associated with the risk they were taking.  Which was basically the odds that odds makers gave them and then multiply by .5 because a wild card is a one game playoff.  In other words, even if they got the wildcard they only had a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs.

 

  I opposed all of the maneuvers that were basically a product that were were about to contend.  I thought the Tulo idea was absolutely a horrible idea as well as the idea of trading away top prospects for Lucroy who would be gone after next year.  My support for the front office was that I was in the form of defending them not doing these things.

[Thrylos]

 

The problem is in the flawed fundamental thinking. Should they have even been seeking ~1.5 years of any (non-elite) reliever, rather than seeking a straight-up two month rental? Teams that are out of the race don't need to be offered much for guys who are set to be free agents. Look at how much less it cost the Twins to acquire Brian Fuentes a few weeks after they got Capps in 2010.

 

I think that this is a good start of defining the problem but got to take it one step beyond:

 

2016 should teach the Twins' brass that if you are close to competing, like they were in 2015, they should go all in.  They assumed that they can half rear end it in 2015 and wait for the Godot prospects to be better in 2016 to really compete.

 

See what the Mets did in 2015.  That's what the Twins should have done in 2015. 

 

Buxton.  The game's "consensus" number 1 prospect.  Bet they could have gotten a bit of help for 2015 and more future help for him before he was exposed for the second time...

 

And this is just an example. 
 

Catch-22:  This system cannot develop prospects, is unwilling to sell high on prospects (and major leaguers) because "they might get better somewhere else", and that is what is ending up happening.

 

Either gut your development system because it sucks and replace it with another, or forget about it and sell high on "prospects" to get major leaguers developed correctly by another system (i.e. the long standing Yankees' paradigm...)

[tobi0040]

I think some people are missing the core point here.

 

The problem, in my mind, is not that they traded a prospect for a midseason upgrade despite being a very borderline contender -- I commend that.

 

The problem also was not a lopsided transaction. Hu was a fair price for ~1.5 years of Jepsen.

 

The problem is in the flawed fundamental thinking. Should they have even been seeking ~1.5 years of any (non-elite) reliever, rather than seeking a straight-up two month rental? Teams that are out of the race don't need to be offered much for guys who are set to be free agents. Look at how much less it cost the Twins to acquire Brian Fuentes a few weeks after they got Capps in 2010.

Or, addressing the issue in the offseason and just using money. Instead of tendering Duensing and taking a really bizarre and expensive flier in Tim Stauffer we could have used that $5.5m on an actual good reliever.

[DocBauer]

I don't think trading Ramos, inofitself, was a mistake, even though it would have been nice to keep him. Mauer was in his prime, there were no concerns with Mauer NOT catching at the time, and they had a tradable asset. The problem was trading for too low of a player value wise.

 

The fact that Jepsen was controlled for a second year didn't bother me. In fact, I liked that we weren't renting a player for just a couple of months. The pen needed help, and the kids weren't ready yet. If Jepsen had performed as a solid, experienced setup man this season and not imploded, there would be so much discussion about him.

 

To the original point of the article, I feel anymore that Ryan just doesn't have a plan. Never directly, since he never announces plans of any sort publicly, he's pretty much intimated "wait until the kids get here and you'll see". But then they jerking Meyer and Polanco around, and Kepler his first time up. One could argue they did the same thing with Vargas last year.

 

Last season, they were going to "go for it" but brought in only Jepsen, and later than they should have, signed Cotts, and moved the wrong pitcher to the bullpen. I didn't want the Tulsa trade and I'm glad we didn't make it. This year, it was fix the bullpen. And we signed Abad and trusted in a full return of Perkins.

 

I've always argued one could dismiss the disappointing 2011 and 2012 seasons due to the fact 2010 was such a good year and the core of that team was back for 2011. 2012 was a return to health and some retooling. But 13 and 14 were a mess! Someone has to play, someone has to pitch, and you need a full roster. So we signed some mediocre SP to long term deals but did absolutely nothing for SS and CF!

 

Where is the plan? It just feels like half in and half out all of the time. NOW, we're starting to see some of the fruits of the milb system take root at the ML levdl...FINALLY...but TR still won't use the "R" word as if it's dirty somehow. There is definately a disconnect somewhere.

[Major League Ready]

 

Can't argue with you there, Chief. We've been beaten down by the "small market, woah is us" mentality that the Twins have been portraying the last 20+ years. Instead of challenging the status quo of a Hamels, Tulo, or Price acquisition being unrealistic, we've accepted it. I would love to witness a time where the Twins ARE in the thick of contract/trade negotiations with the Hamels, Tulos, and Prices of the world. 

OR ... It could be they did not do any of those deals because non contending team don't do this type of deal.   Teams like Philly and the Twins sell off these assets.  Giving up top prospects for aging players when you are as down as the Twins or Philly or Atlanta is absolutely incompetent.   It is true, the Twins acted like a small market team in the past.  Maybe because they were.  Now that they have a little more revenue ... we will see.  How many $180M contracts have teams of with equivalent revenue given out and they also broke out the check book in free agency.  Regardless, lack of desire did not prevent them for doing these deals.  The fact they would have been very ill-advised drove that decision before any desire or lack thereof to make a big deal had any chance to influence the decision.

[Major League Ready]

 

I think that this is a good start of defining the problem but got to take it one step beyond:

 

2016 should teach the Twins' brass that if you are close to competing, like they were in 2015, they should go all in.  They assumed that they can half rear end it in 2015 and wait for the Godot prospects to be better in 2016 to really compete.

 

See what the Mets did in 2015.  That's what the Twins should have done in 2015. 

 

Buxton.  The game's "consensus" number 1 prospect.  Bet they could have gotten a bit of help for 2015 and more future help for him before he was exposed for the second time...

 

And this is just an example. 
 

Catch-22:  This system cannot develop prospects, is unwilling to sell high on prospects (and major leaguers) because "they might get better somewhere else", and that is what is ending up happening.

 

Either gut your development system because it sucks and replace it with another, or forget about it and sell high on "prospects" to get major leaguers developed correctly by another system (i.e. the long standing Yankees' paradigm...)

Are you suggesting it would have been a good idea to go all-in last year.  Obviously, that would have required they give up several of their best prospects.  Berrios and Kepler would be history and so would have a couple others.  Keep in mind that there was no way they were winning the division.  The benefit of paying the all-in price, if successful, would have been a wild card.  In other words, a 50/50 shot at a series.  

 

BTW ... The 2015 Mets and 2015 Twins were not even remotely similar cases.  Please compare those two teams starting with starting pitching.  I would argue that following the 2015 Mets model would have been grossly incompetent.

[Riverbrian]

Nick's point in the article is very interesting and something I hadn't thought about before. 

 

If you won't sign a reliever to a multi-year deal. Why indeed would you trade for it instead? You end up paying the money and giving up the talent. I'm not going to be able to wrap my arms around it now that I'm aware of it. 

 

As for the trade itself... If I could go back in time... And I knew how Jepsen would perform this year... I would still go back and make that trade. 

 

I don't care if the Twins were not supposed to be in contention last year... They were in contention... and when a team is in contention... Don't question it or even doubt it... Support it... Go for it... For a GM to not try in that context... is like an infielder not moving his feet to pick up a grounder with a two run lead in the 8th.  

 

We needed at least two solid bullpen arms when July started... waiting until July was almost over to acquire just one is not moving your feet. 

 

The GM did not have the back of his players when they needed it most last year. The month of July was when I started to doubt my prior support of Terry Ryan. This off-season was when that doubt started to harden and what has happened this year was all I needed to feel strongly that we need someone else making these decisions. 

 

The infielder who doesn't move his feet can be benched... the GM... not so much apparently.  

 

 

[bird]

What an interesting thread. Nicely done, Nick, and thanks to everyone for the really thoughtful contributions.

Edited July 14, 2016 by birdwatcher

[Seth Stohs]

 

This assumes that the Twins' system can do that.  Huge leap of faith.  Development just sucks compared to other systems.  Here is an example:  Jeff Manship.  He failed to develop with the Twins. He went to another system and blossomed.  

 

If your system of developing prospects sucks, no matter what you throw at it, will not work...

 

This assumes that the Twins' system can do that.  Huge leap of faith.  Development just sucks compared to other systems.  Here is an example:  Jeff Manship.  He failed to develop with the Twins. He went to another system and blossomed.  

 

If your system of developing prospects sucks, no matter what you throw at it, will not work...

 

I don't like that particular example... Manship left the Twins and went to Colorado for a year and to the Phillies for a year. Cleveland was three years later, he was 30 and likely learned a ton in between. I'm not saying that the Twins were right in keeping him starting rather than moving him to the bullpen but there are too many other factors in this example. 

 

And, you can find examples in every organization or misses. 

 

I'm saying I would trade bullpen arms that they can and aren't part of the future for C prospects, if they can... and then hope one or two becomes something surprising, someone that other organization regrets giving up.

 

[Major League Ready]

 

I don't like that particular example... Manship left the Twins and went to Colorado for a year and to the Phillies for a year. Cleveland was three years later, he was 30 and likely learned a ton in between. I'm not saying that the Twins were right in keeping him starting rather than moving him to the bullpen but there are too many other factors in this example. 

 

And, you can find examples in every organization or misses. 

 

I'm saying I would trade bullpen arms that they can and aren't part of the future for C prospects, if they can... and then hope one or two becomes something surprising, someone that other organization regrets giving up.

No doubt that it happens to every team but it does seem like more than our fair share have done well elsewhere.  I don't think one can deny we have also not developed front of the rotation starters.  This is where I find fault with the organization.  To be fair, it does look like we have some guys in the system right now that could or even should be legit.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Major Leauge Ready

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

No doubt that it happens to every team but it does seem like more than our fair share have done well elsewhere.  I don't think one can deny we have also not developed front of the rotation starters.  This is where I find fault with the organization.  To be fair, it does look like we have some guys in the system right now that could or even should be legit.

 

Lots of these examples of guys who did better elsewhere didn't do so right away.  Individually, you look at that and simply note it.  Collectively though, at one point you start to wonder.  I don't think the Twins problems is drafting.  They seem to get some decent talent and the fact that guys can come here and then flourish elsewhere tells me the problem isn't talent.  There does however seem to be a much bigger issue with development, whether that be bringing hitters up too quick (Gomez, Buxton, Hicks, Vargas, Arcia), never really letting pitchers get comfortable (Meyer, Berrios, Chargois), or simply not preparing them or teaching them good fundamental baseball... who knows. 

[old nurse]

 

I think that this is a good start of defining the problem but got to take it one step beyond:

 

2016 should teach the Twins' brass that if you are close to competing, like they were in 2015, they should go all in.  They assumed that they can half rear end it in 2015 and wait for the Godot prospects to be better in 2016 to really compete.

 

See what the Mets did in 2015.  That's what the Twins should have done in 2015. 

 

Buxton.  The game's "consensus" number 1 prospect.  Bet they could have gotten a bit of help for 2015 and more future help for him before he was exposed for the second time...

 

And this is just an example. 
 

Catch-22:  This system cannot develop prospects, is unwilling to sell high on prospects (and major leaguers) because "they might get better somewhere else", and that is what is ending up happening.

 

Either gut your development system because it sucks and replace it with another, or forget about it and sell high on "prospects" to get major leaguers developed correctly by another system (i.e. the long standing Yankees' paradigm...)

Oakland is a good example what happens when you go all in and fail.  Going all in when starting with 2 cards not of the same color, low, and not near each other is a fool's bet.

 

[mikelink45]

In context I see the Jepsen trade as a push for the playoffs and something to enhance the TR reputation, but in the same year with the same playoff potential we shut down Berrios and didn't try to upgrade the pitching in the closing weeks of the season.  It is about having a vision and a plan.  Those who look at timelines in the post above are right.  That is how good teams move players around, but I keep looking for a Twins plan and it eludes me. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Oakland is a good example what happens when you go all in and fail.

What exactly did Oakland lose by going all-in?  They turned around and traded Samardzija right away themselves -- Addison Russell is a nice young player, but Marcus Semien has been just as valuable the past two years, plus they got a couple other spare parts in that deal.  Cespedes for Lester also didn't create any long term issues.

 

Oakland's current predicament is probably the result of selling Donaldson and maybe even Norris, with an assist from a later bad FA buy in Butler, and of course iffy player development and maybe trading Drew Pomeranz too early.  Has nothing to do with the aggressive midseason moves in 2014.

[jimmer]

 

In context I see the Jepsen trade as a push for the playoffs and something to enhance the TR reputation, but in the same year with the same playoff potential we shut down Berrios and didn't try to upgrade the pitching in the closing weeks of the season.  It is about having a vision and a plan.  Those who look at timelines in the post above are right.  That is how good teams move players around, but I keep looking for a Twins plan and it eludes me. 

I'm not sure getting an ok reliever in the middle of a playoff race, and nothing more, constitutes a push for the playoffs.  It beats selling in the middle of a playoff race, like 2007.

Edited July 14, 2016 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

As for the trade itself... If I could go back in time... And I knew how Jepsen would perform this year... I would still go back and make that trade. 

Actually, if you are going back in time anyway, wouldn't it be better to go back to before the 2015 season, and just sign someone like Neshek?  You could still have pursued Jepsen at the deadline, but maybe Tampa settles for something less than Hu knowing the Twins aren't quite so desperate.  (And once the 2015 season was over, I feel Tampa would have been the one more desperate to deal Jepsen, to avoid his 2016 salary obligation.)

 

Heck, knowing how quickly we were willing to bury Arcia, you could quite possibly have dealt Arcia to the Angels for Jepsen before the 2015 season, if you had your eye on Jepsen back then.

Edited July 14, 2016 by spycake

[tobi0040]

Actually, if you are going back in time anyway, wouldn't it be better to go back to before the 2015 season, and just sign someone like Neshek?  You could still have pursued Jepsen at the deadline, but maybe Tampa settles for something less than Hu knowing the Twins aren't quite so desperate.  (And once the 2015 season was over, I feel Tampa would have been the one more desperate to deal Jepsen, to avoid his 2016 salary obligation.)

 

Heck, knowing how quickly we were willing to bury Arcia, you could quite possibly have dealt Arcia to the Angels for Jepsen before the 2015 season, if you had your eye on Jepsen back then.

Yeah, going back in time usually amounts to not putting yourself in the position the Twins put themselves in.

 

The Kurt Suzuki signing, and extension is OK by many because of the lack of alternatives. Some are OK with the Jepsen trade because we needed BP help. The Pelfrey signing... Doesn't this kind of amount to a kid in high school who does not study for a test, then brags that he got a C minus without studying?

Edited July 14, 2016 by tobi0040