Article: Twins Trade Kintzler To Nationals

[drivlikejehu]

There are a variety of moves we could have made to improve our chances for 2017 without sacrificing the future. 

 

 

Teams coming off 103-loss seasons aren't necessarily the biggest draw for free agents. The Twins probably could have overpaid for some mediocre pitchers and added a few wins - but the Twins would still not be anything close to a real contender.

 

They've needed a good bit of sequencing luck just to be near .500 (44-59 BaseRuns record). No amount of free agent pitching would have made the Twins into a contender. Even with a time machine to last off-season you can't get them there.

 

You'd think, from the comments of some posters on here, that rebuilding a pitching staff in a few months with minimal trade pieces and a horrible FA market is an entirely fair expectation, and that Falvey & Levine are clearly failures for not meeting this fanciful, laughable internet forum expectation.

Edited August 2, 2017 by drivlikejehu

[bird]

 

Here are the biggest SP FA contracts from last winter, everybody who got a $8 mil or better guarantee:

Rich Hill, 17 GS, 125 ERA+
Ivan Nova, 21 GS, 113 ERA+
Edinson Volquez, 17 GS, 97 ERA+
Jason Hammel, 21 GS, 96 ERA+
Charlie Morton, 15 GS, 105 ERA+
Bartolo Colon
Andrew Cashner, 17 GS, 133 ERA+
R.A. Dickey, 21 GS, 105 ERA+

I don't know how we are defining "legit" but the market seemed to correctly peg guys who could help in 2017.

 

This list is damning, no doubt. I have a theory about Falvine's mindset coming in to the job that explains but doesn't excuse either their assessment of the situation and their choices, and I believe both were flawed. I think they saw a 103 loss team and assumed things were a bigger mess across the board than they actually are. They've admitted they didn't anticipate this level of capability from the big club. Therefore, they aimed low with their roster choices for 2017. Vogelsong instead of Cashner for example. In retrospect, I'm sure at the end of the day when they put their feet up on the conference table and talk, they admit they should have signed Belisle and then aimed for someone higher than him instead of aiming lower and taking on Breslow. Some of us will judge them more harshly than others, of course, although we should probably keep in mind that our own majority assessment here at TD also was that things were a bigger mess than they actually are. Injuries in particular to May, Burdi, Chargois, Reed, and Jay simply magnified the problem created by their choices. So yes, they mis-assessed, and that led to regrettable choices. Proving they're fallible, which puts pressure on them to make up ground. I believe they're making up ground as we speak, with shrewd decisions regarding the three most important in-season events: the draft, IFA signings, and trade deadline moves. I'm personally very happy with the outcomes in all three areas. We'll see what happens this winter. For me, the icing on their redemption cake is that the pipeline wasn't compromised.

 

I always cut the GM more slack than a lot of you. In predictable form, I contend their assessment was erroneous but understandably so, and their choices, especially regarding the pen, were Ryanesque, and that's not good. I forgive them for Vogelsong and Tepesch. 

 

[bird]

 

I'd rather dunk my face in a vat of acid.

 

Can I have your binoculars?

[Mike Sixel]

 

 

 

Teams coming off 103-loss seasons aren't necessarily the biggest draw for free agents. The Twins probably could have overpaid for some mediocre pitchers and added a few wins - but the Twins would still not be anything close to a real contender.

 

They've needed a good bit of sequencing luck just to be near .500 (44-59 BaseRuns record). No amount of free agent pitching would have made the Twins into a contender. Even with a time machine to last off-season you can't get them there.

 

You'd think, from the comments of some posters on here, that rebuilding a pitching staff in a few months with minimal trade pieces and a horrible FA market is an entirely fair expectation, and that Falvey & Levine are clearly failures for not meeting this fanciful, laughable internet forum expectation.

 

 

You/d think at some point that people wouldn't keep putting up the strawman that anyone expected the pitching to be totally fixed, and instead talk about adding 1 SP and 1-2 legit RPs, like chief, me, and others keep typing. Is there anyone here arguing they could fix it all in 1 year?

 

Indeed, if you can't fix it in 1 year, you'd think you would then have to make incremental progress every year. What progress did the Twins make for 2018 this last off season?

[Craig Arko]

 

What progress did the Twins make for 2018 this last off season?

Getting Falvey and Levine, since they didn't fully come on board until the World Series was concluded. That's a non-trivial change.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Getting Falvey and Levine, since they didn't fully come on board until the World Series was concluded. That's a non-trivial change.

 

Let's hope they do something this off season to help the team long term, or even short term, more than sign Castro, Gimenez, Belisle and Breslow....

[USAFChief]

Getting Falvey and Levine, since they didn't fully come on board until the World Series was concluded. That's a non-trivial change.

That still left them an entire offseason and spring.

 

There's been a non-trivial change at the top, but we're still waiting for non-trivial change elsewhere. I realize Rome wasn't built in a day, and I still have hopes for the hires, but I'm also not going to give them credit for accomplishments that haven't been accomplished yet.

[jimmer]

I think if the new FO came in and determined the organization was a huge mess they were right on the money. This team is far from being true contenders, talent-wise, and having a decent record for quite some time this season didnt change that. In the AL we have arguably the worst pitching staff, we have a bottom 3rd offense, and while the defense has been above average, its mostly the outfield and 1B. The rest of the IF has been below average and in a couple spots bad. And our farm system is not impressive either. The excuse used to be we kept picking so low in the draft (as if that was the only way to stock a farm system) Well, in regards to the drafting low thing, that hasnt been the case for a bit now.

 

Thats not to say they shouldnt have worked on the roster more aggressively in the offseason, but an RP or two, wasnt going to fix the club. Would have been a step in the right direction though.

Edited August 2, 2017 by jimmer

[nicksaviking]

 

That still left them an entire offseason and spring.

There's been a non-trivial change at the top, but we're still waiting for non-trivial change elsewhere. I realize Rome wasn't built in a day, and I still have hopes for the hires, but I'm also not going to give them credit for accomplishments that haven't been accomplished yet.

 

I heard Rome's team stinks. I hope the goal is CLE/CHI/LAD.

[USAFChief]

Teams coming off 103-loss seasons aren't necessarily the biggest draw for free agents. The Twins probably could have overpaid for some mediocre pitchers and added a few wins - but the Twins would still not be anything close to a real contender.

 

 

They've needed a good bit of sequencing luck just to be near .500 (44-59 BaseRuns record). No amount of free agent pitching would have made the Twins into a contender. Even with a time machine to last off-season you can't get them there.

 

You'd think, from the comments of some posters on here, that rebuilding a pitching staff in a few months with minimal trade pieces and a horrible FA market is an entirely fair expectation, and that Falvey & Levine are clearly failures for not meeting this fanciful, laughable internet forum expectation.

What I think:

 

You might not build a staff in one offseason, but you don't build one by sitting the offseason out, either. Get started already, for Petesakes...or we'll be having this conversation every year.

 

The Twins WERE positioned to be in contention a couple weeks ago, "sequencing" or not. Adding some quality pitching last offseason would have possibly helped to lower that magic "baseruns" number, added a few wins, and helped avoid this disastrous road trip, where the bullpen is the reason they're not having a winning trip.

 

Side notes: using terms such as "fanciful, laughable" to describe other posters is out of bounds on this place. Please don't.

 

When TD owners pass away and leave me this place in their will (I'm going to outlive them all), I'm going to ban the word "sequencing."

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Tl;dr, the Twins should have signed better relievers. A very accurate and oft pointed out position.

tl;dr pitching matters

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Getting Falvey and Levine, since they didn't fully come on board until the World Series was concluded. That's a non-trivial change.

But it's not like Falvey and Levine were new to the sport, or even the league.  They were familiar with MLB free agents, and probably already had some in mind for their previous organizations.  And it didn't take a full offseason to see that the Twins pitching staff could benefit from some outside reinforcement, beyond warm bodies like Breslow and Tepesch.

 

I'm fine that they kept prospects, Molitor, coaches, scouts, front office staff, etc. for an evaluation period.  But it doesn't really excuse their almost complete inactivity on the FA pitching market last winter.  (A quick search on MLBTR suggests they weren't even in pursuit of anyone, aside from the warm bodies they signed -- the only other offseason pitching rumors that mention us were scouting reclamation projects Justin Masterson and Seth Maness.)

[kab21]

 

Let's hope they do something this off season to help the team long term, or even short term, more than sign Castro, Gimenez, Belisle and Breslow....

This board as a whole has been against trading ANY prospect or against keeping any veteran that wasn't going to be here in 2020. I can't imagine there would have been a lot of support for trading prospects last offseason or signing 30+ veterans to fill the rotation and bullpen.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This board as a whole has been against trading ANY prospect or against keeping any veteran that wasn't going to be here in 2020. I can't imagine there would have been a lot of support for trading prospects last offseason or signing 30+ veterans to fill the rotation and bullpen.

 

1 signing of 1 SP and 1 legit RP......that would have been good with a lot of us, on either side of hte fence.

 

And, that's the minimum I expect this year. 

 

"fill" is not something anyone asked for. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I can't imagine there would have been a lot of support for trading prospects last offseason or signing 30+ veterans to fill the rotation and bullpen.

Pretty sure a Greg Holland signing would have been regarded well.  A couple names from my FA SP list posted earlier would have too (Ivan Nova, plus Charlie Morton's increased velocity chief among them).

 

Not that "board support" is required or even indicates the best course of action (which I freely admit as I criticize their actual course of action ).

[kab21]

 

1 signing of 1 SP and 1 legit RP......that would have been good with a lot of us, on either side of hte fence.

 

And, that's the minimum I expect this year. 

 

"fill" is not something anyone asked for. 

Yet I have read 'trade Ervin for anything' posts going back for over a year and a year ago they wouldn't have received hardly anything. He was 33 with a 4.06 ERA (1st half) with 2.5 guaranteed years. This isn't consistent with agreeing to sign a similar aging veteran with similar issues. And Ervin's issues have been rehashed a million times on here. The problem is that he wasn't getting anything great prospect wise and it is questionable whether or not you could sign someone that would be as good as him. if you don't go big in FA then you mostly sign middling pitchers that have a chance to good. The Twins hit on Ervin. Most miss in that FA tier of pitcher.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yet I have read 'trade Ervin for anything' posts going back for over a year and a year ago they wouldn't have received hardly anything. He was 33 with a 4.06 ERA (1st half) with 2.5 guaranteed years. This isn't consistent with agreeing to sign a similar aging veteran with similar issues. And Ervin's issues have been rehashed a million times on here. The problem is that he wasn't getting anything great prospect wise and it is questionable whether or not you could sign someone that would be as good as him. if you don't go big in FA then you mostly sign middling pitchers that have a chance to good. The Twins hit on Ervin. Most miss in that FA tier of pitcher.

 

what does trading ESAN or not have to do with whether they should have signed a legit RP and/or SP?

[kab21]

 

Pretty sure a Greg Holland signing would have been regarded well.  A couple names from my FA SP list posted earlier would have too (Ivan Nova, plus Charlie Morton's increased velocity chief among them).

 

Not that "board support" is required or even indicates the best course of action (which I freely admit as I criticize their actual course of action ).

I have been for signing FA's (or trading) throughout. I mostly feel like the only though. All I read is 'that's too much (true for almost every FA)' or watch a FA get picked apart (NL pitcher, too old, injury prone, declining K or vel, ????).

[kab21]

 

what does trading ESAN or not have to do with whether they should have signed a legit RP and/or SP?

Not trading Ervin for a mediocre return is the same as signing a FA SP. And then you don't have years 3 and 4 hanging over the whole thing like a potential disaster (aka Ricky Nolaso).

[drjim]

 

Pretty sure a Greg Holland signing would have been regarded well.  A couple names from my FA SP list posted earlier would have too (Ivan Nova, plus Charlie Morton's increased velocity chief among them).

 

Not that "board support" is required or even indicates the best course of action (which I freely admit as I criticize their actual course of action ).

 

On the flip side, good thing they didn't sign Volquez.

[jorgenswest]

The new front office speared more focused on changes that were structural throughout the system.

 

Is there a better and more consistent approach towards developing players in the system? There seemed to be intentional effort to be consistent with the organizational meetings.

 

How is data being gathered and utilized throughout the system? The Twins probably ranked near the bottom in their use of data prior to this year.

 

I don't know how much impact those structural changes would have on the major league record. I would guess little, but it should help for 2018.

 

Should they have made those changes and brought in two better relievers? Yes. However signing aging relievers is a roll of the dice. You hope our new guys are more successful picking them than others but they were working from information collected during the previous administration. They really did not compete In this market by signing Belisle.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Should they have made those changes and brought in two better relievers? Yes. However signing aging relievers is a roll of the dice. You hope our new guys are more successful picking them than others but they were working from information collected during the previous administration. They really did not compete In this market by signing Belisle.

They didn't need any information from the previous administration to see the weaknesses in the pitching staff, both pen and rotation.  Or to see that depth options in the high minors were either sparse or had already demonstrated high volatility.  And for high-level MLB FA, they likely brought their own information.

 

It's enough to make one wonder if they weren't under some relatively steep financial constraints.  I would hope they would have been given enough wiggle room to add more than just Castro from the mid-level FA tier, but it's possible they were not.  But would they have accepted the job under those conditions?  From this vantage point, though, I see no reason to parse blame between the FO and ownership.

[USAFChief]

 

They didn't need any information from the previous administration to see the weaknesses in the pitching staff, both pen and rotation.  Or to see that depth options in the high minors were either sparse or had already demonstrated high volatility.  And for high-level MLB FA, they likely brought their own information.

 

It's enough to make one wonder if they weren't under some relatively steep financial constraints.  I would hope they would have been given enough wiggle room to add more than just Castro from the mid-level FA tier, but it's possible they were not.  But would they have accepted the job under those conditions?  From this vantage point, though, I see no reason to parse blame between the FO and ownership.

That seems to me the most plausible explanation.  

 

If so, discouraging.

[drjim]

 

That seems to me the most plausible explanation.  

 

If so, discouraging.

 

It's possible, but if they had such steep constraints I would have anticipated shedding more salary at the deadline rather than taking on money. At the least, the money taken on would have been relatively close to the difference between Belisle and some of the other free agent relievers talked about. This isn't to say they have unlimited resources, but that they weren't so constrained they couldn't have spent more on a one year reliever flyer.

 

I personally find the most plausible explanation to be that they didn't think they'd be even this good coming off a 59 win season and wanted to exhaust all internal options this season and avoid multi-year deals.

[USAFChief]

 

It's possible, but if they had such steep constraints I would have anticipated shedding more salary at the deadline rather than taking on money. At the least, the money taken on would have been relatively close to the difference between Belisle and some of the other free agent relievers talked about. This isn't to say they have unlimited resources, but that they weren't so constrained they couldn't have spent more on a one year reliever flyer.

 

I personally find the most plausible explanation to be that they didn't think they'd be even this good coming off a 59 win season and wanted to exhaust all internal options this season and avoid multi-year deals.

That's a fair read, too.  "They ****** up."

[drjim]

 

That's a fair read, too.  "They ****** up."

 

That's my position. I prefer incompetence to malevolence or conspiracy or other unprovable explanations.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's my position. I prefer incompetence to malevolence or conspiracy or other unprovable explanations.

 

interesting. Not sure if serious.

 

I'd rather the FO was great at their job, with constraints, than they are bad at their job.

 

Or did I misunderstand the post?

[drjim]

 

interesting. Not sure if serious.

 

I'd rather the FO was great at their job, with constraints, than they are bad at their job.

 

Or did I misunderstand the post?

 

As an explanation for a specific decision or set of decisions, not as an overall ethos. I think I forgot a couple of words.

[Mike Sixel]

 

As an explanation for a specific decision or set of decisions, not as an overall ethos. I think I forgot a couple of words.

 

that makes sense. thanks,

[Otto von Ballpark]

That's my position. I prefer incompetence to malevolence or conspiracy or other unprovable explanations.

I don't think anyone was suggesting malevolence or conspiracy. Just that ownership may have set a conservative budget. Happens all the time, even if we fans prefer different priorities.