Article: Recency Bias

[Nick Nelson]

 

No one disagrees with this. That does not, however, mean that standing pat is the correct answer for the rest of the organization, does it? This is a classic logical fallacy....

This was not a defense of their offseason decision-making. The point was that regardless of what you think about their moves (or lack thereof) there is plenty of reason to expect significant W/L improvement. 100 losses is not a fair baseline expectation.

 

 

who here is arguing "completely turn the team around in one season"....anywhere on this entire board? Another straw man...

It's not a straw man. The comment I was responding to asked why the team would make a change in leadership if there wasn't a belief that a new regime could come in and immediately make personnel moves that would shift the needle. And the answer is that there's a lot more to this restructuring than making acquisitions aimed at winning five more games in 2017.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

For better or worse the new FO has hitched their wagon to this idea.  From their Twinsfest comments they think they have a pretty good team here that vastly underperformed.

 

That's a dicey belief to hitch your wagon to.  It may end up defining their stay here one way or the other.

 

I, for one, would've liked to see more done this offseason to add assets to the bullpen.  I think that could loom large.

Edited February 1, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[Nick Nelson]

 

I, for one, would've liked to see more done this offseason to add assets to the bullpen.  I think that could loom large.

I would bet good money that a move is still coming in this regard. 

[drivlikejehu]

 

They changed 1 player so far. 1 player. 2 if you count Plouffe, I guess, but he didn't play much last year.

 

If they can't change more than 1 player, while also working on the back office things if that is your argument, that's an issue.

 

Do you really think that's the case though? That even if they wanted to make some other minor moves, they are incapable of doing so?

 

I don't think that's very plausible . . . I suppose it's theoretically possible that Falvey & Levine could be the most inept management in baseball history, but it strikes me as not the most likely explanation.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Do you really think that's the case though? That even if they wanted to make some other minor moves, they are incapable of doing so?

 

I don't think that's very plausible . . . I suppose it's theoretically possible that Falvey & Levine could be the most inept management in baseball history, but it strikes me as not the most likely explanation.

 

I don't, but people keep typing "they are working on the back office first", as if they can't do both. I'm NOT the one saying that....

[Mike Sixel]

 

I would bet good money that a move is still coming in this regard. 

 

It's not like the vast majority of RPs were already signed. Which ones left have big upside?

[DaveW]

 

I would bet good money that a move is still coming in this regard. 

Yeah, but the problem is most of the better options are already off the market. This seems to be a yearly thing with the Twins, they manage to either overspend early, or under-spend far too late. Color me shocked if we bring in an above average RP this late in the game...

[Nick Nelson]

 

It's not like the vast majority of RPs were already signed. Which ones left have big upside?

Joe Blanton and Boone Logan are both available and both have been tied to the Twins. They are both very good. I'm not sure if you've looked at the remaining relief market but there are still a lot of quality names out there. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Joe Blanton and Boone Logan are both available and both have been tied to the Twins. They are both very good. I'm not sure if you've looked at the remaining relief market but there are still a lot of quality names out there. 

 

I'd endorse a Blanton signing at this point, under the assumption it was 1 year only. And yes, I have looked, and yes, there are some names left, but the best names? The best names are gone. 

[Dr. Evil]

I think I would like to see how the team responds to the new philosophy and teaching methods before I go calling a relatively inactive offseason a failure. Secondly, I would prefer that the new leadership get a preseason and even some regular season of evaluating what we have under their belt prior to making any radical moves.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think I would like to see how the team responds to the new philosophy and teaching methods before I go calling a relatively inactive offseason a failure. Secondly, I would prefer that the new leadership get a preseason and even some regular season of evaluating what we have under their belt prior to making any radical moves.  

 

did anyone ask for a radical move? Is trading Dozier radical? Is signing a RP radical? Help me understand, as I am curious what that means.

[Dr. Evil]

 

did anyone ask for a radical move? Is trading Dozier radical? Is signing a RP radical? Help me understand, as I am curious what that means.

I didn't quote anyone and I wasn't addressing anyone in particular. It was just a general statement about the team.

[killertwinfan]

 

Man. People are grumpy this morning!

 

 

Because they didn't hire these guys to completely turn the team around in one offseason?

 

 

 I appreciate the call for an optimistic chord, but the reality is that with the start of the spring training being a couple of weeks away, the stark reality is that the new management has not had a successful off-season.  There are very few high points on which to have hope.  Almost a hundred RBI between Plouffe and Suzuki probably won't be fully replaced.  Reduced run production and below average pitching is not the recipe on which I was hoping to start the season.  I am sure the new management is better than the old management but at this point nobody can tell if it is even a reasonable improvement.  At least the timberwolves have potential stars.  I can't wait until this fall! Go Vikes!

[Nick Nelson]

 

 At least the timberwolves have potential stars.

And the Twins don't? It's funny because if the Twins had simply held back the likes of Buxton, Sano and Berrios they'd all be top 20 prospects in the game and we'd be giddy about their ability to drive a turnaround this year. 

 

It's unfortunate that they've endured varying degrees of struggles in the majors, but the fact that they've gone through those learning experiences is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Failing to immediately break through at age 22/23 does not diminish your long-term outlook all that much.

 

 

I'd endorse a Blanton signing at this point, under the assumption it was 1 year only. And yes, I have looked, and yes, there are some names left, but the best names? The best names are gone. 

Sorry to break it to you, but the best names weren't going to sign with a 100-loss team. Twins weren't going to sign Chapman or Jansen. I would've liked someone like Feliz or Holland but there's no strong evidence those guys will be much better than someone like Blanton, Logan, Romo, Hernandez, or one of numerous other remaining free agents. And the Twins could score a big bargain due to their patience.

[wsnydes]

 

They changed 1 player so far. 1 player. 2 if you count Plouffe, I guess, but he didn't play much last year.

 

If they can't change more than 1 player, while also working on the back office things if that is your argument, that's an issue.

This.  The Cubs, winners of 103 games and a World Series have been far more active in improving their roster than the Twins, losers of 103 games and the #1 draft pick have.  I realize the Cubs have lost some players, but they've worked to replace them.  I'm not suggesting that this will be a quick turnaround, but that's about 180 degrees the opposite of what should be expected.  They have far less to do to maintain an elite winning team than what needs to be done to get the Twins just back to respectability let alone a winner.

[Nick Nelson]

Here's my take on this offseason. Going in, when I put together our blueprint for the Offseason Handbook, I suggested this series of moves:

 

1) Sign Castro

2) Trade Dozier for De Leon+

3) Sign Aybar

4) Sign Feliz

 

They did sign Castro. They tried to trade Dozier for De Leon but the "plus" wasn't enough to make it happen and that's OK. Keeping Dozier pretty much negates signing a veteran SS (though they still could). And while they didn't sign Feliz, I suspect they will still add someone similar. There are reports indicating such.

 

So yes, I personally am content with their approach. If others feel differently that's fine, but we all know that making moves for the sake of making moves is a bad strategy and that seems to be what some folks are suggesting. 

[bluechipper]

This.  The Cubs, winners of 103 games and a World Series have been far more active in improving their roster than the Twins, losers of 103 games and the #1 draft pick have.  I realize the Cubs have lost some players, but they've worked to replace them.  I'm not suggesting that this will be a quick turnaround, but that's about 180 degrees the opposite of what should be expected.  They have far less to do to maintain an elite winning team than what needs to be done to get the Twins just back to respectability let alone a winner.

The Cubs have lost Aroldis Chapman and traded for an injured Wade Davis. They're bringing back basically the same team. Not that this has anything to do with the Twins though.

[Brandon Warne]

Literally every projection I've seen sees this as a mid- to upper-70s win team. The industry believes in this talent. I believe in the talent. Time to unlock it. 

[bluechipper]

I appreciate the call for an optimistic chord, but the reality is that with the start of the spring training being a couple of weeks away, the stark reality is that the new management has not had a successful off-season.  There are very few high points on which to have hope.  Almost a hundred RBI between Plouffe and Suzuki probably won't be fully replaced.  Reduced run production and below average pitching is not the recipe on which I was hoping to start the season.  I am sure the new management is better than the old management but at this point nobody can tell if it is even a reasonable improvement.  At least the timberwolves have potential stars.  I can't wait until this fall! Go Vikes!

Few reasons for hope? The lineup will have 2 recent top 10 prospects, a top 50 prospect, and a top 100 prospect. The staff could have guys like May, Berrios, and Mejia in it.

 

Worrying about losing Suzuki and Plouffe is really weird.

[Loosey]

I seem to recall the new front office stating relatively bluntly that wholesale changes will not happen overnight.  Most people I think assumed they meant in regards to firing and hiring new people within the front office.  But I think the statement can be blanketed to cover the on-field staff and players as well.  They didn't come here to fix everything prior to spring training of this year, they have time.  A Dozier trade would have been nice, but they apparently didn't get what they thought was necessary.  Maybe a scorching 1st half for Dozier ups the price people are willing to pay for him.  Either way just because the team hasn't built the future for 2018-2019 yet doesn't mean they can't still or won't.  

[wsnydes]

 

The Cubs have lost Aroldis Chapman and traded for an injured Wade Davis. They're bringing back basically the same team. Not that this has anything to do with the Twins though.

They've also signed Koji Uehara and traded for Davis to bolster the bullpen.  They've signed Brett Anderson to compete for their rotation (if he can stay on the field).  They've added plenty of organizational depth as well.  That's more than the Twins have done.  

 

I'm not trying to compare the Cubs to the Twins, I'm simply trying to point out that the team that won the World Series isn't standing pat, so why is a team that finished on the complete opposite end of the spectrum doing so?  Its meant as a general statement, nothing else.  Even for those of us that have some patience, that's a pretty tough sell.

Edited February 1, 2017 by wsnydes

[Vanimal46]

They've also signed Koji Uehara and traded for Davis to bolster the bullpen. They've signed Brett Anderson to compete for their rotation (if he can stay on the field). They've added plenty of organizational depth as well. That's more than the Twins have done.

 

I'm not trying to compare the Cubs to the Twins, I'm simply trying to point out that the team that won the World Series isn't standing pat, so why is a team that finished on the complete opposite end of the spectrum doing so? Its meant as a general statement, nothing else. Even for those of us that have some patience, that's a pretty tough sell.

Yes. Concur. I also don't want to get into the discussion of what the Cubs can do compared to the Twins. In general, reverting to status quo after 103 losses (96 projected losses) shouldn't be a normal thing to do.

[DaveW]

 

Literally every projection I've seen sees this as a mid- to upper-70s win team. The industry believes in this talent. I believe in the talent. Time to unlock it. 

5+ years into the "rebuild" and we are happy that the team can win 75 games? 

Jeez.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And the Twins don't? It's funny because if the Twins had simply held back the likes of Buxton, Sano and Berrios they'd all be top 20 prospects in the game and we'd be giddy about their ability to drive a turnaround this year. 

 

It's unfortunate that they've endured varying degrees of struggles in the majors, but the fact that they've gone through those learning experiences is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Failing to immediately break through at age 22/23 does not diminish your long-term outlook all that much.

 

 

Sorry to break it to you, but the best names weren't going to sign with a 100-loss team. Twins weren't going to sign Chapman or Jansen. I would've liked someone like Feliz or Holland but there's no strong evidence those guys will be much better than someone like Blanton, Logan, Romo, Hernandez, or one of numerous other remaining free agents. And the Twins could score a big bargain due to their patience.

 

Three of the higher upside guys (Feliz, Storen, and Holland) signed with teams that lost 89, 91, and 87 games.  I don't buy that we had no chance to sign those guys.

 

Given them more money and a shot at the closer spot.

[DaveW]

 

Yes. Concur. I also don't want to get into the discussion of what the Cubs can do compared to the Twins. In general, reverting to status quo after 103 losses (96 projected losses) shouldn't be a normal thing to do.

Yeah and it's not like the Twins had 5 good seasons before one disastrous season. Overall the Twins have been the WORST team in baseball the last 6 seasons, and that is not hyperbole, they are coming off their worst season in franchise history.

I get the "let's wait and see what happens" "have patience" and "making moves just to make moves is a bad strategy", I get it. But after 6 years of the same excuses year in, year out and month in and month out? 

Let's maybe stop being so patient and thinking "the young kids will work out", and let's maybe start making a few meaningful moves once in a while?

 

6 years, worst team in baseball, the amount of "everything is fine, trust the process" that is going only is really surprising, any other real sporting market in America would not be OK with their team being the laughing stock of their sport for the last 6 years, and then continue to do the same old same old.

[DaveW]

 

Three of the higher upside guys (Feliz, Storen, and Holland) signed with teams that lost 89, 91, and 87 games.  I don't buy that we had no chance to sign those guys.

 

Given them more money and a shot at the closer spot.

Yeah, this excuse of "FA won't sign with losing teams" is a falsehood. Good players sign with bad teams all the time!
Padres and Mariners have been doing it for years
 

[USAFChief]

I very much want to like the new front office.  And I understand they are doing some reorganization, that hopefully will pay dividends down the road.  The offseason isn't over.

 

I also understand that as a fan...I'm left pretty underwhelmed with the visible effort to date.  

 

[bluechipper]

Yes. Concur. I also don't want to get into the discussion of what the Cubs can do compared to the Twins. In general, reverting to status quo after 103 losses (96 projected losses) shouldn't be a normal thing to do.

If the Twins had a bunch of veteran trade chips and were still bad, then yeah you should make some moves. The twins have basically 2 trade chips. No one needs a second baseman and Santana is their only reliable starter, so making a whole bunch of moves isn't all that realistic.

[bluechipper]

Three of the higher upside guys (Feliz, Storen, and Holland) signed with teams that lost 89, 91, and 87 games.  I don't buy that we had no chance to sign those guys.

 

Given them more money and a shot at the closer spot.

Are you sure those guys qualify as high upside?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Here's my take on this offseason. Going in, when I put together our blueprint for the Offseason Handbook, I suggested this series of moves:

 

1) Sign Castro

2) Trade Dozier for De Leon+

3) Sign Aybar

4) Sign Feliz

 

They did sign Castro. They tried to trade Dozier for De Leon but the "plus" wasn't enough to make it happen and that's OK. Keeping Dozier pretty much negates signing a veteran SS (though they still could). And while they didn't sign Feliz, I suspect they will still add someone similar. There are reports indicating such.

 

So yes, I personally am content with their approach. If others feel differently that's fine, but we all know that making moves for the sake of making moves is a bad strategy and that seems to be what some folks are suggesting. 

 

Nope, no one is suggesting making moves just to make moves. Not. One. Person.