Article: What Do The Twins See In Tyler Kinley?

[BJames]

Santana sindrome.  It worked once so now it has to be retried every year.  I dislike the amount of time spent on the rule 5 players trying to make them something they aren't.  Use the talent we already have, try giving a guy like Reed an extended chance. 

[mlhouse]

 

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.

 

I think that is a minor point compared to my main one:  to lose Luke Bard without him every performing for the Twins is poor management.  The Twins could have brought him up sometime during the season instead of a lot of other pitchers that lets face it were replacement level.  Give the guy 15 appearances at teh MLB level and see if he was any good.  He was already 26 and had reached the spot were he would be vulnerable to the Rule V draft.   

 

Then you have the information you need whether Bard should have been put on the 40 man or not.  If he looks good in the 15 appearances (you give him more obviously) and you protect him on the 40 man roster going into 2018.  If he doesn't, then you leave him off the 40 man roster. 

 

I get it, most likely he is not going to be a MLB level pitcher and will be returned to the Twins.  I also get that the FO knows more than me (I live in Ft Myers so I see the Miracle team  and have seen most of the Twins prospects come through, but have never seen Bard pitch) but with many prospects the real proof is actually performing.  That is why there are September call ups and my point that the team gave all kinds of opportunities to waiver wire rejects at teh cost of sitting on their own prospects cannot be refuted.  

 

I called for the Twins to call up Trevor Hildenberger long before they did.  They might have been even better if they recalled him earlier, but they preferred the rejects over a prospect liek Trevor who only had success every level of the minor leagues.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think that is a minor point compared to my main one: to lose Luke Bard without him every performing for the Twins is poor management. The Twins could have brought him up sometime during the season instead of a lot of other pitchers that lets face it were replacement level. Give the guy 15 appearances at teh MLB level and see if he was any good. He was already 26 and had reached the spot were he would be vulnerable to the Rule V draft.

 

Then you have the information you need whether Bard should have been put on the 40 man or not. If he looks good in the 15 appearances (you give him more obviously) and you protect him on the 40 man roster going into 2018. If he doesn't, then you leave him off the 40 man roster.

 

I get it, most likely he is not going to be a MLB level pitcher and will be returned to the Twins. I also get that the FO knows more than me (I live in Ft Myers so I see the Miracle team and have seen most of the Twins prospects come through, but have never seen Bard pitch) but with many prospects the real proof is actually performing. That is why there are September call ups and my point that the team gave all kinds of opportunities to waiver wire rejects at teh cost of sitting on their own prospects cannot be refuted.

 

I called for the Twins to call up Trevor Hildenberger long before they did. They might have been even better if they recalled him earlier, but they preferred the rejects over a prospect liek Trevor who only had success every level of the minor leagues.

15 appearances by a relief pitcher is far too tiny of a sample size to gain any information whatsoever from.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think that is a minor point compared to my main one: to lose Luke Bard without him every performing for the Twins is poor management. The Twins could have brought him up sometime during the season instead of a lot of other pitchers that lets face it were replacement level. Give the guy 15 appearances at teh MLB level and see if he was any good. He was already 26 and had reached the spot were he would be vulnerable to the Rule V draft.

 

Then you have the information you need whether Bard should have been put on the 40 man or not. If he looks good in the 15 appearances (you give him more obviously) and you protect him on the 40 man roster going into 2018. If he doesn't, then you leave him off the 40 man roster.

 

I get it, most likely he is not going to be a MLB level pitcher and will be returned to the Twins. I also get that the FO knows more than me (I live in Ft Myers so I see the Miracle team and have seen most of the Twins prospects come through, but have never seen Bard pitch) but with many prospects the real proof is actually performing. That is why there are September call ups and my point that the team gave all kinds of opportunities to waiver wire rejects at teh cost of sitting on their own prospects cannot be refuted.

 

I called for the Twins to call up Trevor Hildenberger long before they did. They might have been even better if they recalled him earlier, but they preferred the rejects over a prospect liek Trevor who only had success every level of the minor leagues.

These are not their prospects. These are the previous regime's prospects. We need to keep that in mind.

I'm sure a few years from now, when guys they actually chose and groomed are coming up, the process will be different.

[ashbury]

I think that is a minor point compared to my main one:  to lose Luke Bard without him every performing for the Twins is poor management. 

We probably differ on how competent evaluators do their job. Years ago we kept asking for Anthony Slama to get a fair shot, and we would see snippets in the press that said the evaluators were pretty sure his strikeout stuff wouldn't play up in the majors - and that seems to be how it played out for him. I don't compare Bard to Slama; I compare the process, which says that you can look at a prospect's body of work through the years, and use direct observation, to gauge his chances. Very few guys show up out of nowhere and make a big contribution.

 

I think we're in agreement on the larger issue that losing a near-ready prospect should occur only if the FO felt they had a bead on someone who would be even better. I don't see that as very likely in this year's draft outcome. I would need to know more about their evaluations of these two players in particular, and also who they had on their radar who apparently got snatched away from them, before forming a firm opinion on whether this is a failure of evaluation or what.

[ashbury]

These are not their prospects. These are the previous regime's prospects. We need to keep that in mind.

I'm sure a few years from now, when guys they actually chose and groomed are coming up, the process will be different.

That's pretty cynical. Front offices view players and prospects as fungible assets. Being fungible means (in part) that where the asset came from doesn't matter, just its value in the marketplace. You don't just let an asset slip away willy-nilly - certainly not in an organization owned by someone named Pohlad.

 

I've stated ways I am skeptical of some of the front office's moves, but sheer ego wouldn't be among them, at least not manifested this way about prospects.

 

Off-field staff might be a different story - someone like Kinley or Bard won't pitch better or worse due to loyalty (or lack of same) to FalVine, but perhaps a mutual comfort level with scouts or player development staff or contract negotiators is necessary.

[Mr. Brooks]

That's pretty cynical. Front offices view players and prospects as fungible assets. Being fungible means (in part) that where the asset came from doesn't matter, just its value in the marketplace. You don't just let an asset slip away willy-nilly - certainly not in an organization owned by someone named Pohlad.

 

I've stated ways I am skeptical of some of the front office's moves, but sheer ego wouldn't be among them, at least not manifested this way about prospects.

 

Off-field staff might be a different story - someone like Kinley or Bard won't pitch better or worse due to loyalty (or lack of same) to FalVine, but perhaps a mutual comfort level with scouts or player development staff or contract negotiators is necessary.

I'm on the same side of the coin as you. It shouldn't matter where the prospect came from- I was responding to someone saying Bard should have gotten a shot over someone from outside the organization, because he's our prospect.

[mlhouse]

 

15 appearances by a relief pitcher is far too tiny of a sample size to gain any information whatsoever from.

 

 

Versus zero.  And, I disagree.  The 15 appearances is plenty to evaluate a guy who does not have a chance.  That is the first step in prospect evaluation.   

[bird]

 

These are not their prospects. These are the previous regime's prospects. We need to keep that in mind.
I'm sure a few years from now, when guys they actually chose and groomed are coming up, the process will be different.

 

I don't believe we should keep that in mind at all. I have this humorous picture in my mind of the baseball offices divided and on separate sides of the hall. The new guys pin the names of "their" prospects on their corkboard and Burdi and Bard were over on that stupid corkboard across the hall.

[mlhouse]

 

We probably differ on how competent evaluators do their job. Years ago we kept asking for Anthony Slama to get a fair shot, and we would see snippets in the press that said the evaluators were pretty sure his strikeout stuff wouldn't play up in the majors - and that seems to be how it played out for him. I don't compare Bard to Slama; I compare the process, which says that you can look at a prospect's body of work through the years, and use direct observation, to gauge his chances. Very few guys show up out of nowhere and make a big contribution.

 

I think we're in agreement on the larger issue that losing a near-ready prospect should occur only if the FO felt they had a bead on someone who would be even better. I don't see that as very likely in this year's draft outcome. I would need to know more about their evaluations of these two players in particular, and also who they had on their radar who apparently got snatched away from them, before forming a firm opinion on whether this is a failure of evaluation or what.

 

I get that the minor league evaluation process is part of the process.  I live in Ft Myers and get to a handful of Miracle games.  You can easily see the prospects that really do not have much of a chance of getting much further just by sitting in the stands.  

 

But there are other guys who are very successful at a level and you need to move them up continuously to find get to their level of success or failure.  A guy like Andrew Vasquez is one of those types.  If you watch him pitch and look at his measurables (fastball speed, etc) it doesn't match up with his statistics.  How does that guy have 158 strikeouts in 108 innings?   And the truth is some of those guys like Vasquez can carry their success up to the majors and others cannot.  

 

Regardless, the biggest issue I have had with the Twins organization, previous and current, is that they did not move their prospect up quickly enough given we were a rebuilding organization, preferring to give time to waiver wire level replacement players they bring in.  Like I said, why not give Luke Bard a chance instead of all of those waiver wire pitchers they brought in?  It would have been difficult for Bard to be any worse.  THen they could have had better information to make their roster decision this offseason.  

 

Again, I concede that the liklihood of Bard making an active roster this season is limited.  But I would rather the Twins give him the opportunity to fail than some other team, because on the other side of that coin is that he could have had some value to the team at the major league level.  Small chances like that often make a team because they do not come with much risk or financial committment.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't believe we should keep that in mind at all. I have this humorous picture in my mind of the baseball offices divided and on separate sides of the hall. The new guys pin the names of "their" prospects on their corkboard and Burdi and Bard were over on that stupid corkboard across the hall.

I only meant it in the sense of giving prospects a shot that they don't feel should get one, just because it's "their" guy.

I keep hearing people say stuff like, "you'd think they'd at least give them a shot before they lose them, since it's their prospect."

 

I didn't mean it in an us/ours vs. them/theirs adversarial sense.

[sampleSizeOfOne]

Ya know, it actually crazy sort of way, it would be a cool narrative to think of this a clever ploy.

 

Dark and shrouded room... nameless parodies of a Twins management...

 

"We just got ot have Kinley."

 

"But there are like, 20 whole teams ahead of us. Someone is bound to take him before us."

 

"But if we dangle some other pretty good prospects off of our 40 man roster into the rule V draft, he just may slip through to us..."

 

"You know, that's just crazy enough to work!"

 

"Now the only question remains is, who...?"

 

Anyway, don't mind me... i'll be in the other room with my over active imagination, try to figure out how angry the agent of a player drafted by and returned to their own team without being added to either the 25 or 40 man roster would be...

[Mr. Brooks]

Versus zero. And, I disagree. The 15 appearances is plenty to evaluate a guy who does not have a chance. That is the first step in prospect evaluation.

We'll agree to disagree.

15 starts would still be a very small sample size, perhaps enough to learn something, but probably not.

15 relief appearances is for all practical purposes the same as zero, as far as any evaluatorial information goes.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Ya know, it actually crazy sort of way, it would be a cool narrative to think of this a clever ploy.

 

Dark and shrouded room... nameless parodies of a Twins management...

 

"We just got ot have Kinley."

 

"But there are like, 20 whole teams ahead of us. Someone is bound to take him before us."

 

"But if we dangle some other pretty good prospects off of our 40 man roster into the rule V draft, he just may slip through to us..."

 

"You know, that's just crazy enough to work!"

 

"Now the only question remains is, who...?"

 

Anyway, don't mind me... i'll be in the other room with my over active imagination, try to figure out how angry the agent of a player drafted by and returned to their own team without being added to either the 25 or 40 man roster would be...

I know you are mostly joking, but note that the cost of trading up in the Rule 5 draft is fairly modest.

[mlhouse]

 

We'll agree to disagree.
15 starts would still be a very small sample size, perhaps enough to learn something, but probably not.
15 relief appearances is for all practical purposes the same as zero, as far as any evaluatorial information goes.

 

 

It isn't.  Again, the purpose isn't to make a FINAL determination.  You know with a high degree of certainty within 15 relief appearances if the kid CANNOT make it.  If that is the case, your answer is clear.  You send him back to the minors and that is that.  But, if you get him up early enough you can then take the next step and keep throwing him out there or perhaps increase his role i.e. from mop up relief to more critical situations.  

 

Here is the other aspects of Bard and getting an opportunity last season.  First, he was in a position taht the following offseason he would have to be exposed to the Rule V draft or put on the 40 man.  Second, he was already 26 years old with a career that had been delayed by arm problems right after we drafted him.   WHy not give a guy you drafted as a first round (supplemental) prospect a chance, particularly when he was performing well in AA?   Give him the 15 appearances you gave other players and see how well he does?

[Mr. Brooks]

It isn't. Again, the purpose isn't to make a FINAL determination. You know with a high degree of certainty within 15 relief appearances if the kid CANNOT make it. If that is the case, your answer is clear. You send him back to the minors and that is that. But, if you get him up early enough you can then take the next step and keep throwing him out there or perhaps increase his role i.e. from mop up relief to more critical situations.

 

Here is the other aspects of Bard and getting an opportunity last season. First, he was in a position taht the following offseason he would have to be exposed to the Rule V draft or put on the 40 man. Second, he was already 26 years old with a career that had been delayed by arm problems right after we drafted him. WHy not give a guy you drafted as a first round (supplemental) prospect a chance, particularly when he was performing well in AA? Give him the 15 appearances you gave other players and see how well he does?

Every pitcher who has ever played the game, including the all time greats, have had 15 inning stretches of awful performance.

It's too small to have any meaning whatsoever.

But again, we'll agree to disagree on that point.

 

To your second point, he is not a guy that they drafted. It's a new FO. They should evaluate him exactly the same as they would a random prospect on a random team.

If they think he has a good chance, they should give him a shot, if they don't, they shouldn't. The fact that he was drafted by the Twins should not play a role in the decision.

Clearly they don't think he had much chance of helping.

[sampleSizeOfOne]

I know you are mostly joking, but note that the cost of trading up in the Rule 5 draft is fairly modest.

True. If i'd paid attention last year, i woulda noticed.

 

Thanks for reminding me!

 

Though knowing something you don't think others do could be an advantage, and could make one extra cautious about showing your hand.

 

Yeah, in reality, i think managing these things is potentially exceedingly complex, and that makes it more fun to try and suss out the whys and wherefores of strange events.

[kellyvance]

 

To be fair to Kinley, his worst numbers at AA were to open the 2017 season -- 10 runs in 8 IP, .987 OPS, only 21.7% K rate. Then he got sent back to high-A and dominated, and returned later to AA and was better -- 9 runs in 18 IP, .664 OPS, 30% K rate. And not to get too selective, but most of that was one game where he was charged with 4 runs without retiring a batter.  He finished the regular season with the following 8 game stretch: 10 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 3 BB, 15 K, .280 OPS. (He did serve up 2 solo HR in a playoff appearance, though.)  Still, that's only AA, and while it might hint at talent, it doesn't suggest consistency.

 

Kinley's Dominican Winter League stats are also a bit suspect. The league as a whole has a 3.34 ERA, which is even less run scoring than the notoriously pitcher-friendly Florida State League (where Kinley also excelled in 2017).  In addition to Justin Haley doing well there, Sam Deduno is still pitching there. Alexi Casilla and Danny Santana are both hitting over .300 there right now too. Very hard to project from those stats!

Bring back Sammy!!!  

[Kirbek]

He had a rough start last year, but if you look at the last several outings in AA, they were good.  Big heater and lots of swing and miss.  Probably just a new face.

[mlhouse]

 

Every pitcher who has ever played the game, including the all time greats, have had 15 inning stretches of awful performance.
It's too small to have any meaning whatsoever.
But again, we'll agree to disagree on that point.

To your second point, he is not a guy that they drafted. It's a new FO. They should evaluate him exactly the same as they would a random prospect on a random team.
If they think he has a good chance, they should give him a shot, if they don't, they shouldn't. The fact that he was drafted by the Twins should not play a role in the decision.
Clearly they don't think he had much chance of helping.

 

Agree to disagree all you want, a rookie relief pitcher who has 15 straight bad appearances isn't a prospect.  Within those 15 appearances you can very readily determine if the is NOT going to be a major league level pitcher.  You might not be able to tell if he is going to be a contributor, but you can tell that if he isn't much more quickly.

 

As far as your second point, sorry, if this is what the new FO is doing then they are missing something.  If they have a bias (and it appears they do) against prospects and/or players selected by the previous regime this will hurt the team.

[jorgenswest]

I sure hope the front office was pretty confident he wasn’t ready when he didn’t get an opportunity last year. They see him everyday. They know his command, velocity, spin rate, consistency... They know how his arm reponds the day following an appearance. The skilled staff watching him in the minors is very capable of making that assessment.

[drjim]

I sure hope the front office was pretty confident he wasn’t ready when he didn’t get an opportunity last year. They see him everyday. They know his command, velocity, spin rate, consistency... They know how his arm reponds the day following an appearance. The skilled staff watching him in the minors is very capable of making that assessment.

Exactly. And it wasn't like there wasn't need last year either. Once he wasn't called up, it was pretty obvious what they thought of him.

 

The front office could be wrong in their evaluation, but a handful of games in the majors wouldn't have made a difference.

[sploorp]

 

I was not a fan of them exposing so many quality guys to the rule V but told myself that they had redundant reliever options so letting a few of them go wouldn't hurt anything especially if they picked up vets with the four remaining spots.  They used one spot on Pineda and another on Kinley two players that likely can't help the team this year.  Another on a veteran reliever.  So two spots wasted for this year and only one left for a starting pitcher before they would have to take someone off the 40 man.  Someone who is likely better than Kinley. I don;t get it.

How has two spots been wasted?  Pineda goes on the 40 man the second the season starts and the spot opens up.  The team can still sign a player to a minor league deal with the stipulation that they get added to the major league roster opening day.

 

The team is also under no obligation to Kinley what so ever.  If they need his spot, he's gone.

 

Lastly, there is still the possibility of a trade (or trades) that may be looming.  If that happens another spot or two is bound to open up.  There is still a lot flexibility left and plenty of time to pull something off.

[sploorp]

 

Yeah, Burdi I can understand, but Bard? That's kind of crazy given his numbers last year.

It would be one thing if the Angels were rebuilding, but Bard has to stick for a whole season with a team that fully expects to be in the hunt for a play off spot.  He will probably be back.

[sploorp]

 

Every year people freak out about the rule 5 and every year we realize it was just a bunch of handringing for nothing.

This just might be the single most intelligent post on this thread.

[sploorp]

 

And if needing his 40-man spot was a concern, why draft Kinley? Kinley is effectively locked into a spot through March now.

Kinley isn't locked into anything.  The team can send him back anytime they want.  If they need his spot, he's gone.

[Mr. Brooks]

Agree to disagree all you want, a rookie relief pitcher who has 15 straight bad appearances isn't a prospect. Within those 15 appearances you can very readily determine if the is NOT going to be a major league level pitcher. You might not be able to tell if he is going to be a contributor, but you can tell that if he isn't much more quickly.

 

As far as your second point, sorry, if this is what the new FO is doing then they are missing something. If they have a bias (and it appears they do) against prospects and/or players selected by the previous regime this will hurt the team.

My whole point is that they shouldn't have a bias. Saying they should give internal prospects a shot over outside players is the argument that seems biased to me. Simply being "our" prospect shouldn't carry any additional weight when evaluating whether a guy can contribute or not.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Kinley isn't locked into anything. They team can send him back anytime they want. If they need his spot, he's gone.

Name a Rule 5 pick who has been sent back before March. Technically possible, but it literally never happens. Not a huge deal, but they will cut or trade someone else this winter if they need a spot.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

How often did the Twins put Adrianza in the outfield, Gimenez at first, or go without an extra pinch hitter or pinch runner last year, because Haley was taking a Rule 5 roster spot and only pitching in a handful of games? Asking for a friend.

[snepp]

 

How often did the Twins put Adrianza in the outfield, Gimenez at first, or go without an extra pinch hitter or pinch runner last year, because Haley was taking a Rule 5 roster spot and only pitching in a handful of games? Asking for a friend.

 

Answer, from a friend of mine...

 

 

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too often."

Edited December 25, 2017 by snepp
Language