Article: What Do The Twins See In Tyler Kinley?

[Bradley Swanson]

This move is surprising to say the least and I don't see a great chance that Kinley is going to be any kind of contributing factor in 2018.

[Deduno Abides]

Pohlad’s redoing his bathroom, so he wanted another Tyler?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You really believe this?

It was a bit of an exagerrated example, I admit.   But the principle holds true.

 

Can you show me one example of a team cutting their Rule 5 pick before they even get to spring training?  Otherwise it doesn't really seem appropriate to say that's a realistic option the Twins would consider.

 

Not that I think Kinley is holding them back from anything. Just that they wouldn't have selected him in Rule 5 if there was any real chance of cutting him before spring training. Someone else is the likelier first cut from the 40-man.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

In a vacuum I agree, but I don't think Graham and Haley are good examples. Graham's performance in 2015 was at least tolerable for the 25th guy on the roster (4.95 ERA, 4.69 FIP, 7.5 K/9, 3.0 BB/9). Haley threw 18 innings last year, most of them in mop up duty. The alternative was what? Jason Wheeler? A few more innings of Busenitz? I just don't think it's been an actual issue for the Twins.

They are very good examples. 25-man spots are very valuable.  If you are willing to promise one, you can sometimes get the most desired minor league free agents (Brandon Morrow).  If you have one available, you can easily claim an "out of options" guy on waivers (Blake Parker, Kirby Yates).  So it's a big opportunity cost to lock a spot onto a Rule 5 guy, as it means one less spot to invest otherwise.

 

It's complicated, but I think it's incorrect to say that rostering Graham and Haley didn't hurt the Twins.  They weren't the only decisions that hurt those years, of course, but they didn't help, and the Twins almost certainly would have been better off not selecting either one.

[Tom Froemming]

 

Not that I think Kinley is holding them back from anything.

I get what you're saying. It hasn't happened, and furthermore it'd be a bad look for a front office to axe a recent Rule 5 pick. All I'm saying is exactly what you said above, so I think you get what I'm saying too.

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

Back to the main story... a story with a question mark in the headline – and that the author really wants answered! How refreshing?

 

Regarding Kinley, I'm guessing some scout or maybe a pair of scouts saw him pitch and liked what they saw... they wrote up the report which got to Falvine's desk, and he (they) thought he might make a good addition. Who knows? 

[Danchat]

 

I'd only put about a five percent chance on him cracking the Opening Day roster -- but maybe they'll be able to swing a trade in order to keep him in the system and send him down to Rochester (like they did with Scott Diamond).

This is what I'm thinking will happen - they're going to trade an insignificant player away to keep Kinley in the minors. Keeping Kinley on the 25 man roster makes no sense and he's not close to ready to face MLB hitters. 

[caninatl04]

Pohlad’s redoing his bathroom, so he wanted another Tyler?

Ouch...

[Twodogs]

I guess if he were 23 instead of 26 I would be more ho hum about it. But I don't get grabbing a medocre minor league pitcher who is 26???

[rv78]

Is there a pattern here? Rodney throws hard and has erratic control. Kinley throws hard and has erratic control...... Pineda throws hard and probably won't pitch in 2018.   Okay, when were they going to improve the pitching staff? 

[thegambler]

Hindsight is 20/20. There were a lot of pitchers who went earlier. It's possible the Twins had their eyes on someone else, didn't get who they wanted, and ended up taking the best guy in the board. Letting Burdi go is a headscratcher though. They could have put him on the DL, and not needed to put him on the 25 man roster. Maybe they felt they using a 40 man roster spot on a DL player was too high risk, for a team ready to win now. Either way, they took the guy who they think can contribute now. Maybe not, but they must either know something about the guys we had, or the guy we are getting, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I get what you're saying. It hasn't happened, and furthermore it'd be a bad look for a front office to axe a recent Rule 5 pick. All I'm saying is exactly what you said above, so I think you get what I'm saying too.

True, but the same goes for Burdi or Bard -- had either of them been added in place of Kinley, it wouldn't have held the Twins back either. And it might have given them some more flexibility come March/April.

[sploorp]

 

If I was a wiseacre I'd point to their record last year.

 

They're only getting a pass from me through the offseason. The new personnel hires have me hopeful, but if they fail to get Darvish inked and/or make a huge trade to make the front of the rotation able to match the big boys of the AL, I'm not going to be happy.

I'm not that particular about the pitcher they pick up.  I just want somebody that slots in front of Santana.

[sploorp]

 

Why take him in the first place then? I dunno, maybe they just felt like playing the lottery. 

It's like playing the lottery ... you can't win if you don't enter.

[RaoulDuke]

I think they are betting on Kinley's AFL, trying to snatch a flame thrower who just turned a corner to mlb readiness whereas Burdi is years off and Bard may still need time.  If he flops send him back no big loss, if he sticks you look like a genius.

 

Burdi and Bard were probably not getting protected weather they selected someone or not, there must be something in the internal evaluation where they don't think either are ready to stick.

[ashbury]

I'm not that particular about the pitcher they pick up.  I just want somebody that slots in front of Santana.

Measured by WAR, ESan delivered the 13th highest value of any pitcher in the majors last year. So I'm with you, I'm not particular, so long as they nab one of the top dozen pitchers in all of baseball this off-season. I wonder if the Yankees are ready to shop that Severino fellow by now.

 

_{^{(No, I don't think Ervin is actually an ace, and I don't expect him to put up nearly as good of numbers this coming season...)}}

[old nurse]

 

Is it? There's a real opportunity cost to letting someone like J.R. Graham or Justin Haley occupy a 25-man roster spot that could've been used another way. 

As a season plays out it would become evident what player could have had that spot. In Graham's case they had to go out and later trade for other relievers. Thompson and Tonkin were also failures to develop in 2015. Tonkin in 17 as well as Breslow and many others showed the hole was bigger than Haley

[old nurse]

 

Another data point in my “I desperately WANT to like Falvine, but there’s precious little to actually base anything on so far” file.

Other than Castro, and some rearranging of peripheral off-field personnel, what is it someone can point out to me that I’m missing?

The prospect rankings last year did not have much in the way of Twins listed.  None that would have been near major league ready.  There was not much to trade to procure high level talent.  One would be impressed if they could have procured talent from that.  Scrap heap free agents that turn golden are few and far between. They got one in Castro. That is better than most teams did.

[nicksaviking]

 

True, but the same goes for Burdi or Bard -- had either of them been added in place of Kinley, it wouldn't have held the Twins back either. And it might have given them some more flexibility come March/April.

 

It wasn't really Kinley OR Bard and Burdi though, they had the roster spots for all of them. I think we're missing an entire thread of logic (or foolishness) that just hasn't been made available to us. Kinley didn't cost the team Burdi and Bard, those actions were not cause and effect, their only relation is that they all were transactions during the same event.

[mlhouse]

This is why the previous and current management's approach to moving prospects has been flawed.   

 

I get that Burdi has been injured and really has not had a chance to move up in the minor leagues because of those injuries, but the Twins could have had Luke Bard pitching in the major leagues last season.   He was already 26 years old with a career delayed by extensive arm injury. 

 

Why not bring him up and face ML hitters and see how effective he was?  I get we were in a "playoff" run and even got to play a single playoff game, but we had innings for Nik Turley (11.21 ERA), Adam Wilk (7.84), Drew Rucinski (10.38), Tim Melville (13.50), Nick Tepesch (5.40) and a host of others. 

 

We could have given him 15 appearances in long relief outings and see what he could do.  Most likely he would not have been successful and I fully think that he will be back in the organization, but now he is gone without ever getting a chance to demonstrate his abilities for the Twins.  If he is a MLB level pitcher some other team will benefit from our thrown away opportunity.

 

The other factor that bothers me about the Bard/Burdi situation is that the teams that took them could have selected Kinley, but did not.    Hopefully this guy is a diamond in the rough that will be a rare pitcher that is more effective in the majors than the minors.  

[ashbury]

The other factor that bothers me about the Bard/Burdi situation is that the teams that took them could have selected Kinley, but did not.    Hopefully this guy is a diamond in the rough that will be a rare pitcher that is more effective in the majors than the minors.  

Lacking any information on what the FO likes in the new guy, this is where the problem is for me. The Twins had a good 2017, so before the Rule-5 draft even starts your slot in the draft almost rules out any chance of someone really worth the investment of a 25-man spot. Better to just pick the one "bubble" guy of your own that you like best, and add him to the 40-man anyway.

 

It is technically legal for a team to pick their own guy in the rule-5 draft, and they were one pick away from potentially being able to do that with Bard. That would have been interesting either way - take their own guy and give us something to converse about, or pick Kinley and then have Bard get selected by the next team, giving us even more to converse about.

[Mr. Brooks]

Lacking any information on what the FO likes in the new guy, this is where the problem is for me. The Twins had a good 2017, so before the Rule-5 draft even starts your slot in the draft almost rules out any chance of someone really worth the investment of a 25-man spot. Better to just pick the one "bubble" guy of your own that you like best, and add him to the 40-man anyway.

 

It is technically legal for a team to pick their own guy in the rule-5 draft, and they were one pick away from potentially being able to do that with Bard. That would have been interesting either way - take their own guy and give us something to converse about, or pick Kinley and then have Bard get selected by the next team, giving us even more to converse about.

What am I missing here? What, even theoretically, would cause a team to choose their own guy? Why wouldn't they just protect him to begin with in that case?

[Doomtints]

What DON'T the Twins see in Tyler Kinley?

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

What am I missing here? What, even theoretically, would cause a team to choose their own guy? Why wouldn't they just protect him to begin with in that case?

If the Twins went into the draft and only had their eyes on a player or two and each happened to be selected before the Twins had a chance to pick it would make sense. Of course you're risking losing the player you leave unprotected in that scenario as well. 

 

That isn't a defense of the Rule V selection (Kinley) and it likely isn't what played out, but theoretically if the player they exposed was considered the best player left I can see the logic in selecting that individual. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

It wasn't really Kinley OR Bard and Burdi though, they had the roster spots for all of them. I think we're missing an entire thread of logic (or foolishness) that just hasn't been made available to us. Kinley didn't cost the team Burdi and Bard, those actions were not cause and effect, their only relation is that they all were transactions during the same event.

Agreed that Kinley didn't cost the Twins Burdi or Bard. The decision to leave them unprotected was made before Kinely was even an option. 

 

That said I do think the moves are more related than some are acknowledging. Burdi was the highest upside, and could've been a DL stash so it's clearly the most head scratching and really not a 40 man issue, at least to start the season. It really boils down to Bard and Kinley. Yes, they had, and still have room on the 40 man for each of them, but we're all banking on them using that space for another FA right? If they had protected Bard he likely was the first one off the 40 man. I'm guessing the FO thought they had a better shot of retaining him in the Rule V rather than expose him to waivers if they sign a FA and have to remove Bard from the 40 man. Personally I would've rather they kept both Bard and Burdi and left Kinley alone. Options are nice. 

 

I think the 40 man decisions prior to draft were made with FA and a draft selection in mind. It may not have been Kinley explicitly, but the FO was comfortable giving those 40 man spots to somebody other than Bard so to me the relation runs deeper than simply transactions during the same event. 

[savvyspy]

Not much this front office has done in 2 years has made much sense. Maybe they are counting on a 2 year honeymoon period of just being Not Terry Ryan? Their bullpen still sucks and they've had 2 off seasons to address it.

 

At least Pineda won't be a bust until next season. I guess that's something.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It wasn't really Kinley OR Bard and Burdi though, they had the roster spots for all of them. I think we're missing an entire thread of logic (or foolishness) that just hasn't been made available to us. Kinley didn't cost the team Burdi and Bard, those actions were not cause and effect, their only relation is that they all were transactions during the same event.

Sure. But the claim I was responding to was that Bard could be unprotected because he would have been 1st in line for DFA anyway, but a "feature" of the Kinley pick is that we could drop him this winter if needed. I just didn't think either of those was necessarily true.

[Mr. Brooks]

Sure. But the claim I was responding to was that Bard could be unprotected because he would have been 1st in line for DFA anyway, but a "feature" of the Kinley pick is that we could drop him this winter if needed. I just didn't think either of those was necessarily true.

I believe the argument is that he was unprotected so they wouldn't have to DFA him later. In other words, the FO thought they were less likely to lose him this way- since it's more restrictive to take a Rule V guy than a DFA.

The FO lost that gamble, but that was the theory, I think.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I believe the argument is that he was unprotected so they wouldn't have to DFA him later. In other words, the FO thought they were less likely to lose him this way- since it's more restrictive to take a Rule V guy than a DFA.

The FO lost that gamble, but that was the theory, I think.

Yeah, but there was no reason to expect you would need to DFA Bard, if you were willing to roster Kinley at least through March.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah, but there was no reason to expect you would need to DFA Bard, if you were willing to roster Kinley at least through March.

Actually, drafting Kinley would make it more likely that Bard would have needed to be DFA'd later, because that's one less available 40 man spot.

They are 2 different roster moves.

They obviously see something with Kinley. They may well be wrong, but that's not my point.