Article: Falvey's First Stand

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

Losing 90 games in three consecutive seasons should be a sign of what the reality is.  Another 90 loss season, one fluke season, and a 100 loss season later and things are just now starting to change.  That's at least three years too late and we're still having to wait.  I'm willing to give the new FO time to get organized, but a rebuild needs to start before a team can emerge from it.

Kind of off topic but what do you think should have been done at the end of the 2013 season that wasn't?  I get it, you'd fire Ryan after two years on the job and Gardy.  Fine, then what?  Trade Perkins, I imagine. Maybe capitalize on Dozier since he's not likely to be a 3.5 WAR player again. And you have the 5th pick in the draft.  You have about an 85m payroll.  Ownership might let you spend another 20.  But it was a weak FA class - http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014-mlb-free-agent-tracker Nolasco/Jiminez/Garza all signed the same 4/50 deal and were tied for second on the SP salary.

 

With the benefit of hindsight, what do you do?

[wsnydes]

 

Hicks, Arcia, Buxton, Rosario, Florimon, Sano, Berrios, Polanco, Dozier, Plouffe, etc were all allowed to play - arguably too soon.

 

I agree that Molitor isn't a great manager and his bungling of Meyer, Arcia and Polanco  (and a lesser extent Kepler and May) are the primary reasons.  But Correia and Pelfrey weren't blocking anyone.  We traded nearly everyone that wasn't nailed down with a handful of exceptions - Hammer being one, but again, he also didn't have much trade value. The only legit trade chip we held onto was Perkins and, unless he is traded, Dozier.  We didn't keep Plouffe for a rebuilding year.  

You're correct that they didn't keep Plouffe for a rebuilding year...they haven't started yet.  Plouffe could have been traded or let go, allowing Sano (the supposed future at 3B) to play 3B instead of RF.  Arcia was not allowed to play.  I'm no Arcia fan, but I don't feel that he got a fair shake either.  Polanco had his options nearly exhausted before he got real playing time.  All of his callups prior to last season were largely spent on the bench.  Kepler was up and down between AAA and sat when he was with the big club until June I believe.  Instead of continuing to allow May to develop as a starter (which he was excelling at) they moved him to the bullpen.  I understood the why, but still thought it was shortsighted.  

 

Correia and Pelfrey may not have been blocking anyone, but they were signings filling a role (back of rotation starter) that this team had a plethora of.  The second Pelfrey signing was blocking prospects if I recall correctly.

 

The fallout of continuing to sign worthless veterans is that you don't have any pieces of value in which to trade.  It's not necessarily that they are blocking someone, its that they have no value in order to acquire someone who may help down the road.  They doubled down on that by not trading the few that they did have.  

 

 

[gunnarthor]

 

You're correct that they didn't keep Plouffe for a rebuilding year...they haven't started yet.  Plouffe could have been traded or let go, allowing Sano (the supposed future at 3B) to play 3B instead of RF.  Arcia was not allowed to play.  I'm no Arcia fan, but I don't feel that he got a fair shake either.  Polanco had his options nearly exhausted before he got real playing time.  All of his callups prior to last season were largely spent on the bench.  Kepler was up and down between AAA and sat when he was with the big club until June I believe.  Instead of continuing to allow May to develop as a starter (which he was excelling at) they moved him to the bullpen.  I understood the why, but still thought it was shortsighted.  

 

Correia and Pelfrey may not have been blocking anyone, but they were signings filling a role (back of rotation starter) that this team had a plethora of.  The second Pelfrey signing was blocking prospects if I recall correctly.

 

The fallout of continuing to sign worthless veterans is that you don't have any pieces of value in which to trade.  It's not necessarily that they are blocking someone, its that they have no value in order to acquire someone who may help down the road.  They doubled down on that by not trading the few that they did have.  

OK.  So we haven't started the rebuild.  Got it.  What should we have done specifically?

[wsnydes]

 

Kind of off topic but what do you think should have been done at the end of the 2013 season that wasn't?  I get it, you'd fire Ryan after two years on the job and Gardy.  Fine, then what?  Trade Perkins, I imagine. Maybe capitalize on Dozier since he's not likely to be a 3.5 WAR player again. And you have the 5th pick in the draft.  You have about an 85m payroll.  Ownership might let you spend another 20.  But it was a weak FA class - http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014-mlb-free-agent-tracker Nolasco/Jiminez/Garza all signed the same 4/50 deal and were tied for second on the SP salary.

 

With the benefit of hindsight, what do you do?

Fair question.  Firing Ryan was on the top of the list.  Say what you will about Gardy, but the talent on that team was atrocious.  That being said, a manager change would be on the list.  I do trade Perkins and Willingham.  At that point, trading Dozier wouldn't have been high on the list but I certainly would have listened.  I go after younger players in their mid to late 20s that maybe have injury plagued careers thus far to try to find some gems that may provide either value or someone to try to build around.  I stay away from backside of peak type players that not only come very cheap but also provide no real production.  Other than that, I'm trying to build from within.  Given the lackluster farm system, I'm looking at how and who I'm drafting and where I'm going wrong.  Alter development programs.  My minor league coaches staff's hammer fundamentals into everyone because those require no real skill.  Playing smart baseball can win you games.  From there, you build on what you've started and begin filling holes in the organization.  Drafts and minor league signings have to be more fruitful.  

 

I freely admit that it is not a quick process and the timing has its impacts regarding FA classes, but it is a process that needs to actually start at some point.  In my opinion, even if you believe that it's started with the regime change, that is at least three years too late.  

 

Edit:  I also would definitely NOT hire a manager that had zero manager experience at any level and very little coaching experience in total.  

Edited January 25, 2017 by wsnydes

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

 

Well, his ranking as a prospect sort of is what it is.  It was there prior to talks ever firing up.  

 

He's a top ten pitching prospect in baseball, those don't move often.  And when they do it's pretty much always for other pitchers.  I highly encourage you to go back and look at the last decade or so of trades.  It doesn't support what you're arguing.

 

And someone may bite on a reduced Dozier performance as you say.  But I doubt they bite with nearly as big a return.  That's the crux of it.  We can't know for sure, but I know which side of it I'd bet on.

 

Leviathon: Who has De Leon ranked as a top 10 pitching prospect? The 2016 MLB ranking has him at 33rd. It was mentioned in an earlier post that ESPN has him ranked in the 70s. 

 

I'm not trying to disagree with you here. I just want to know who ranks him that high?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Top 10 pitching prospect means among the top 10 pitchers. Not top 10 overall. (Although Sickels had him there briefly too.)

[bluechipper]

 

I'm with you on almost all of this. It is disappointing that there's really nothing that should get us excited for the upcoming season beyond the hopeful next steps of Buxton and Sano. My question, though, is what things did you want the FO to make happen? We all want to see better pitchers take the mound for the Twins this season, but the FO can't just make them appear. There were a few options out there for the guys to look into, but I just don't see any moves that would have made significant improvements.

I've seen a few comments about a lack of excitement for the upcoming season, and I just don't get it. The opening day lineup will include Buxton, Sano, Kepler, and Polanco, plus Brian Dozier coming back shouldn't be looked at as a negative.

 

The rotation is a little less exciting, but having Berrios and Mejia, and possibly May in the rotation near the start of the year is intriguing to me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Leviathon: Who has De Leon ranked as a top 10 pitching prospect? The 2016 MLB ranking has him at 33rd. It was mentioned in an earlier post that ESPN has him ranked in the 70s. 

 

I'm not trying to disagree with you here. I just want to know who ranks him that high?

 

Among pitchers only, he's top 10ish depending upon where you look.  Most of the top 30-40 are hitters.

[wsnydes]

 

I've seen a few comments about a lack of excitement for the upcoming season, and I just don't get it. The opening day lineup will include Buxton, Sano, Kepler, and Polanco, plus Brian Dozier coming back shouldn't be looked at as a negative.

 

The rotation is a little less exciting, but having Berrios and Mejia, and possibly May in the rotation near the start of the year is intriguing to me.

Despite some of my negativity and disappointment with the offseason so far, I too am excited about the season.  I'm excited to see what the younger guys can do.  I find it interesting and exciting to see the growth.  I'm not as excited as I may have been with a Dozier trade and a little more activity this offseason, but I'm still excited.  I'm always excited for baseball.  

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

 

Top 10 pitching prospect means among the top 10 pitchers. Not top 10 overall. (Although Sickels had him there briefly too.)

 

Among pitchers only, he's top 10ish depending upon where you look.  Most of the top 30-40 are hitters.

 

OK. Thanks

[Doomtints]

 

 

Top 10 pitching prospect means among the top 10 pitchers. Not top 10 overall. (Although Sickels had him there briefly too.)

 

This makes the top pitching prospects even more valuable if there are fewer of them when comparied to position players. Teams should be grabbing them whenever possible. 

[USAFChief]

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect. I read that somewhere.

[Mr. Brooks]

I've noticed we talk quite a bit about how the Twins might evaluate various Dodgers prospects but one thing we haven't talked about much is the guy we know they've evaluated a lot, both from the Cleveland perspective and the Minnesota perspective: Brian Dozier.

 

We talk a lot about how the Twins need to make developmental changes up and down the organization but we're not really talking about how that might impact Brian Dozier, the best player on the team.

 

It's entirely possible Falvey and Levine refuse to budge on Dozier because they're confident he's a perennial 35 homer guy now. They've seen Dozier play, evaluated both his 2013-2015 and 2016 mechanics, and have internal evaluation tools that dig much deeper than we can as outsiders.

 

Combine that with a new hitting coach and it's possible they didn't move Dozier because the Dodgers were offering 3-4 WAR value for a player they believe is a 5+ WAR guy going forward.

 

It's a risk either way but I don't think we've really considered where Falvey and Levine place Dozier and how confident they are about his 2016.

And what if no other team agrees with the Twins evaluation? Just get nothing for him and let him walk in 2 years? Sign him to a massive extension and pay big for his post productive seasons?

 

A players value is what the free market dictates it is.

They aren't the electric company. They don't get to just set a price and force people to pay it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

And what if no other team agrees with the Twins evaluation? Just get nothing for him and let him walk in 2 years? Sign him to a massive extension and pay big for his post productive seasons?

 

A players value is what the free market dictates it is.

They aren't the electric company. They don't get to just set a price and force people to pay it.

Presumably if they were right and Dozier continued hitting at a high level, the market would adjust and value him accordingly. So we could trade him then if we wanted.

 

An extension would be another determination that would need to be made. Do they peg him to age like Kinsler, Zobrist, etc.?

 

I don't endorse it, but that's Brock's point. It is internally consistent.

[Mr. Brooks]

Presumably if they were right and Dozier continued hitting at a high level, the market would adjust and value him accordingly. So we could trade him then if we wanted.

 

An extension would be another determination that would need to be made. Do they peg him to age like Kinsler, Zobrist, etc.?

 

I don't endorse it, but that's Brock's point. It is internally consistent.

What if the market never catches up to their internal evaluation?

That is my question.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What if the market never catches up to their internal evaluation?
That is my question.

 

We lose by 10-7 a bunch of times until we either give a doomed extension or watch him sign with the World Series contending Atlanta Braves in three years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

What if the market never catches up to their internal evaluation?

That is my question.

If Dozier posts another 35+ homer season, the market will adjust. Right now, it can be argued 2016 was an outlier season. Two 2016 seasons and it's no longer an outlier.

 

And if no one will bite on Dozier after he smacks 75+ homers over two seasons, then you keep the guy and find a different way to improve the rotation.

 

The on-field product matters to every team. If Dozier is more valuable than the return, then you keep the guy.

[Mr. Brooks]

If Dozier posts another 35+ homer season, the market will adjust. Right now, it can be argued 2016 was an outlier season. Two 2016 seasons and it's no longer an outlier.

 

And if no one will bite on Dozier after he smacks 75+ homers over two seasons, then you keep the guy and find a different way to improve the rotation.

 

The on-field product matters to every team. If Dozier is more valuable than the return, then you keep the guy.

And what if Dozier says no thanks to an extension and hits FA?

You are going to let him walk for nothing?

 

If that is your answer, fine, that's what I wanted to know.

I'll be pretty upset if the FO takes that route though.

[jimmer]

 

And what if Dozier says no thanks to an extension and hits FA?
You are going to let him walk for nothing?

If that is your answer, fine, that's what I wanted to know.
I'll be pretty upset if the FO takes that route though.

If he has another really good season, I imagine he'll want AT LEAST a four year extension worth a good chunk of cash (if he wants one at all with as far away as we'll be) .  

 

Yeah, no thanks for me.  I love Dozier.  I've been a huge fan since before well before he hit the majors, but for me he's a chip we need to move him for young pitching.  I can't imagine his stock going up at all because even if he has a strong season, we'll only have one year of control to trade. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by jimmer

[drivlikejehu]

 

I can't imagine his stock going up at all because even if he has a strong season, we'll only have one year of control to trade. 

 

But if no one makes a serious offer, what can the Twins do?

[Brock Beauchamp]

And what if Dozier says no thanks to an extension and hits FA?

You are going to let him walk for nothing?

 

If that is your answer, fine, that's what I wanted to know.

I'll be pretty upset if the FO takes that route though.

I'd try like hell to trade the guy but I don't trade out of fear of a guy walking after his contract expires.

 

If a year of Dozier is more valuable to the team than what he nets in trade, then keep the guy.

 

I'm generally not a fan of letting a player walk without some kind of compensation but sometimes it's the most logical move to make.

[tobi0040]

That is the conundrum of Dozier. He needs another year to prove last year was not a fluke. But even if that happens, he is a one year rental looking for a 80-100 million dollar deal.

 

That is why we don't have an offer we deem fair. But as Billie Bean and the Rays have shown, you have to trade guys with 2 plus years left. And you don't pay a guy like that from 30-35.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'd try like hell to trade the guy but I don't trade out of fear of a guy walking after his contract expires.

 

If a year of Dozier is more valuable to the team than what he nets in trade, then keep the guy.

 

I'm generally not a fan of letting a player walk without some kind of compensation but sometimes it's the most logical move to make.

It's only a logical move if you think you can compete for a WS during his 2 years.

If not, then it's just stubborn and a waste of an asset.

 

It's a bummer if a fierce market never develops for Dozier. You could even call it bad luck. But I think it's silly to let an asset expire when you could have gotten 75 cents on the dollar.

[Jham]

 

 

I think "best offers" are withheld all the time, because there are risks to making them.  Once you offer a guy, it's incredibly bad form to pull him back or try to change it.  Maybe the Dodgers would have been ultimately willing to pull the trigger on De Leon plus Stewart, but making that offer when the Twins were steadfast in demanding 3 players (per Morosi) would have effectively ended any chance of settling on their preferred package of De Leon plus, say, Calhoun, and it still wouldn't have gotten the deal done.  Even offering "one of" Stewart or Calhoun as the second piece would have probably just emboldened the Twins to demand all 3. Not to mention the trickle down effects -- if the Rays know the Twins turned down De Leon plus Stewart or Calhoun, they are more likely to try to squeeze those players into their demand too.  Or if the Dodgers don't acquire Forsythe and they re-visit the Twins later, the Dodgers earlier offer might become the "starting point" regardless of how circumstances may have changed since then.

 

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not possible.  I just really think that would be poor negotiation on their part if they actually wanted Dozier.  If a lawyer negotiates a settlement, not showing all your cards can make sense because you can always use litigation to force or leverage opponents.  In this case, there is no forcing, so not giving your best offer and saying straight up, "this is my best offer, take it or leave it," makes no sense.  If it would embolden the Twins to ask for a 3rd prospect, the end result is the exact same: no Dozier.  To not take your best shot at your number 1 guy because you were afraid how team C would view the offer, if they ever even heard and confirmed what that offer was, then you shouldn't get in the trade game at all.  

Even if the trade were strictly viewed from a prospect ranking perspective, our scouts and FO may have had different grades.  I mean, the last thing we want is a DSpan - Meyer trade again, even though most of us would take that risk again even though it looks like the Nats knew exactly what they had.  It did not seem that the Twins were nearly as high on De Leon as many of our posters and that they were already settling by making him the centerpiece.  We've got a whole year to year and a half of prime trade time left.  I doubt the return at the break or next off season will be so dramatically different that it would't fall within the highly variable margin of error for prospect projection to begin with.  IMO.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Teams often don't throw that Hail Mary pass at the end of the first half. If your odds of success are low, and it doesn't mean the end of the game/season/pursuit of a second baseman, you don't need high odds of it backfiring to make it a bad idea.

 

If the Dodgers judge that the odds of the Twins accepting a particular offer is virtually zero, why should they ignore that judgement and just chuck up the offer anyway? That would seem like poor negotiating, ignoring information learned in the negotiating process, unless there was really no tomorrow -- i.e. they felt there was no way they could work with their backup option in Forsythe, which was clearly not the case here.

Edited January 26, 2017 by spycake

[laloesch]

 

We should trade them now for a group of prospects that will debut at the same time.

 

I'm not gonna step in that.  All I'm saying is that we need more higher level pitching prospects before these hitters gets further along or we could end up in the same scenario the Texas Rangers were in during the early 2000's. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by laloesch

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not gonna step in that.  All I'm saying is that we need more higher level pitching prospects before these hitters gets further along or we could end up in the same scenario the Texas Rangers were in during the early 2000's.

 

That is an interesting comp.

[Doomtints]

 

I'm not gonna step in that.  All I'm saying is that we need more higher level pitching prospects before these hitters gets further along or we could end up in the same scenario the Texas Rangers were in during the early 2000's. 

 

That's setting the bar high. Those Rangers had better pitching than the Twins currently do.

 

I can't think of a comp to the Twins current pitching situation, though if I looked it up I would imagine it would be the Senators teams from the 50s.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, they were in the playoffs at the time ...

 

Sorry....how many losing years should we expect in a rebuild? And, when did they start?

[gunnarthor]

 

I'm not gonna step in that.  All I'm saying is that we need more higher level pitching prospects before these hitters gets further along or we could end up in the same scenario the Texas Rangers were in during the early 2000's. 

Well, I agree that the Twins need pitching but what they need is ace pitching.  They just graduated Berrios who was a top pitching prospect who is probably a 2/3 at best.  And the Twins will have in AA or AAA four pitchers who have been top 100 prospects on some list (Gonsalves, Mejia, Stewart and Jay).  So they do have high level pitching prospects.  But all of those guy project as #3 or less and are on the list for high floors or solid command/control or 'know how to pitch.'  They don't have another Berrios in the system and they don't have a Bundy/Gioltio type at all.  If Dozier can get us one of those, great.  But De Leon wasn't one of those.  

 

And before someone says look at this ranking or that, most rankings that have him high have it because his proximity to the majors + a belief in a strong floor.  Almost no one puts his stuff on the level of a Gioltio or Harvey et al.