Article: The Time to Trade Kyle Gibson Is Now

[Major League Ready]

 

Who has determined that one WAR is worth $8 mil?

The Twins last year had a total WAR of about 36. Payroll wasn’t $280 mil.

The Yankees, by way of comparison had a total WAR of 52. I’m pretty sure their payroll wasn’t $400 mil.

$8 mil per 1 WAR sounds like something made up by an agent to me.

I have not read the Fangraphs article but I think the $8M/WAR is the average cost of acquiring 1 WAR though free agency. This is used by many as a measure of value. Your post demonstrates that 1 WAR is not worth $8M. What this really tells us is that building through free agents has been a relatively poor strategy. Of course, there are some free agents (like Lester) that provide the final pieces to a contender. Let's hope the Twins spend the available money wisely and outperform the $8M/WAR productivity measure.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Was Jaime Garcia not a "decent 4/5 type guy"? I just listed what he fetched last year, and his ERA at the time was over a run lower than Lynn's now, and he was averaging an extra inning-plus per start too.

 

Garcia was an interesting case. He was acquired with a high risk/decent reward prospect and traded for a much better one plus a 40 man cast off. It was an odd market, but I still think you could get something similar to what we gave to get Odorizzi. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Lynn gets something. You also have to agree that Lynn's sample is a bad April after no ST. That has to factor into anything.

[Blackjack]

Interesting reading the different opinions on who the Twins should sell.  Most agree that the Twins won't get much for the players with expiring contracts, Lynn, Morrison, Dozier, etc.  Then others want to get rid of any player with additional value not names Berrios, the Escobars, Gibsons, etc.  Then there is the differing opinions on how far are the Twins from contention, that determines who you sell and who you keep. 

 

My opinion is that you need to see how Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Polanco, Berrios, do between now and July 15, 2019.  They still all have great potential to be a winning core.  If you believe that, and I do, then you need to keep the players with longer contracts that can help you, Gibson, Odorrizi, Reed, and try your best to sign Escobar.

[Mike Sixel]

Interesting reading the different opinions on who the Twins should sell. Most agree that the Twins won't get much for the players with expiring contracts, Lynn, Morrison, Dozier, etc. Then others want to get rid of any player with additional value not names Berrios, the Escobars, Gibsons, etc. Then there is the differing opinions on how far are the Twins from contention, that determines who you sell and who you keep.

 

My opinion is that you need to see how Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Polanco, Berrios, do between now and July 15, 2019. They still all have great potential to be a winning core. If you believe that, and I do, then you need to keep the players with longer contracts that can help you, Gibson, Odorrizi, Reed, and try your best to sign Escobar.

So, bring back the same team, but without Mauer and Dozier? I don't understand how people think that will work.

[Jham]

For starters, keep in mind the point I was countering was that "prospects are fools gold". The focal point of my post was that NY, Boston, Houston and Cleveland are built primarily around prospects. It would appear you assumed I meant the prospects primarily came from trades which was not remotely close to the intended message. You apparently assumed when I said "I would add" there was a sell off component to rebuilding that meant it was the primary catalyst. I used KC as a specific example and the players netted in the Greinke trade. I am not sure how that indicates all the draft picks and international free agents were not the most important aspect of their rebuild.

 

When you have our budget, draft or trading for prospects and developing them is crucial to being able to afford to retain them when we are in a window. It also provides the payroll room like we have next year to add free agents. People complained when we let Cuddyer go too. That compensation pick resulted in Berrios. It's easy to figure how to put the best possible team on the field next year which is often the focus of fans. Unfortunately, building a contender requires a long-term approach and the short-term focus of most fans is often detrimental to sustained success.

I understand exactly what you're suggesting. I'm just saying that I don't think your argument that we should trade for prospects is particularly well supported in fact. The comp pick rule you cited doesn't even exist anymore and didn't involve trading.

 

I'm saying that the idea that you can trade expiring contracts for legitimate pieces sounds nice but rarely works. You tend to get cast-off prospects who eat up roster flexibility.

 

If we were hopelessly years away, with no assets, then trade away and reset the clock. Who could we trade that would bring back franchise changing prospects? Probably just Berrios who would bring a pile. Maybe Sano, Buxton, Rosario, or Kepler? But all of those guys could be part of a winner as soon as next year.

 

If we're gonna tear down and rebuild, do it right and go get some actual prospects with all-star level ceilings. Gibby, Rodney, Esco don't do that. so what's the point? We assume that guys like Dozier and Lynn can't be resigned (not saying we should) but what has either done this year to suggest they're going to get nice deals rather than 1 year prove its?

 

I said before the year that I wanted to give this core a year to prove they could win. We brought in tons of support, and they failed miserably. Now I want to give them 1 more season for some reason. But if not, we need to trade our most valuable players. At this point, Probably Berrios which we'd never do. Then I wonder if teams prefer Sano or Buxton or Kep or Rosario. If you're not willing to part with valuable pieces, why would you expect valuable prospects in return? And if you're not getting vale in return, then what difference does it make?

[Kelly Vance]

 

That's why we have a lot of them. How is this relevant. Have you somehow come to the conclusion that all of the best teams are not built around prospects or do you think it was just luck? I am really curious to hear how you look at the construction of NY, Boston, Houston, and Cleveland and not conclude drafting and development or trades acquiring prospects without giving up key talent (Indians / NY) are the most important aspects of building a contender, especially for teams outside the top 10 in revenue.

I was merely making an observation.Most prospects don't make the show. I'm not saying we waive all our draft picks or don't spend time on development. But the teams that you mentioned have done a super job of handling young players. They are the exception, not the rule. Houston basically wiped the slate clean. Of course, getting Correa and Altuve didn't hurt in a quick bounce back. And I don't think it is unfair to say the Twins have had mixed success at best in developing young talent. Seems to me that,  by the time you get a shot at the show, there shouldn't be holes in your game. We have brought up good players, but gee whiz, Buck doesn't even know how to bunt. 

 

Proven players are the bird in the hand. Prospects are the proverbial two in the bush. And a player that is a starter now, being traded for two mid range prospects means two things. A current hole in the roster and two or three years until we get our value back from the trade. The trade for prospects strategy works best when a team is a few years away from contending. When you are close, which the Twins were coming into the year, you need to get more or less MLB ready guys in return. There are many posters who talk like sending away a proven player for two in the bush is always the answer. I don't think so. Of course there are some trades that work, like AJ for Nathan and Boof and Frankie. But here again, these are the exceptions, not the rule.

 

And the personality and drive of the player is the single greatest indicator of success. 

 

 

[Kelly Vance]

 

I'd hope we trust the front office not to trade for guys ranked around 500th....

How do people think this team competes, if it won't trade impending free agents? This team is not a serious contender next year. Imo

You don't prove a point by giving an absurd example. And the exception does not disprove the rule.

 

I think we should send out feelers on Dozier, Lynn, Rodney, Reed and Rogers maybe, but I think Joe, EE and Gibby stay. They will never trade Mauer. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Kelly Vance

[Mike Sixel]

 

You don't prove a point by giving an absurd example. And the exception does not disprove the rule.

 

I think we should send out feelers on Dozier, Lynn, Rodney, Reed and Rogers maybe, but I think Joe, EE and Gibby stay. They will never trade Mauer. 

 

No one is suggesting trading Mauer.....and, top 100 prospects make the show way more often than "20%" of the time, that was my point.....so do top 200 prospects, and probably top 300 prospects. So, that 80% fail number you posted didn't take into account the type of prospect they will get back in trade. IMO, of course.

[Kelly Vance]

 

Gibson has a fairly fresh arm for a 30 year old, and he keeps himself in shape. 

 

The odds of him having another 5 good years is >> than the chance any prospect you trade him for will ever be close to what he is now.

 

Getting rid of every decent player, which is all Gibson is, how can you develop a team with that as your mantra?

 

All decent players of Gibson's stature get are hit/miss prospects.

 

We can plug up the system with Palkas, Littells and Moyas until there is no room for any more. 

 

Treadmill.

 

Get rid of the chaff - keep decent MLB level players like Escobar and Gibson and build around them.

Exactly right. The theoretical two birds in the bush appeals to a lot of posters. But more often than not, you are better off with the bird in the hand. That is so true ........that is why there is a proverb about it. 

[Kelly Vance]

 

No one is suggesting trading Mauer.....and, top 100 prospects make the show way more often than "20%" of the time, that was my point.....so do top 200 prospects, and probably top 300 prospects. So, that 80% fail number you posted didn't take into account the type of prospect they will get back in trade. IMO, of course.

How many minor leaguers are there?   Way more than 100. So the 100 are among the 20 percent. 

But nobody is going to trade you a top 100 guy for the people that are being mentioned as trade bait.

 

The 80 percent figure was just a WAG. But there are only so many spots in MLB and the guys laboring in the minors are mostly not gonna make it. So I don't trade an established guy for a handful of magic beans.  

[Blackjack]

 

So, bring back the same team, but without Mauer and Dozier? I don't understand how people think that will work.

 

It works if the young players finally start reaching their potential. Trust me, I'm not a big fan of either the hefty Sano or the wall-crashing Buxton but for the Twins to be a contender anytime sooner than 2021, one or both of them needs to perform.  Along with the other young players that I mentioned that still have a lot of upside - Kepler, Berrios, Rosario, Polanco.  And Gordon is right around the corner.

 

And its not the same team if you shed Mauer, Dozier, LoMo, Santana, Lynn, Rodney. It opens up first base/DH for Sano. It opens up a couple of starting pitcher and bullpen spots.

 

Not to mention the payroll flexibility that the Twins have to spend on free agents (a catcher?) this winter or make a trade in July 2019.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Garcia was an interesting case. He was acquired with a high risk/decent reward prospect and traded for a much better one plus a 40 man cast off. It was an odd market, but I still think you could get something similar to what we gave to get Odorizzi. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Lynn gets something. You also have to agree that Lynn's sample is a bad April after no ST. That has to factor into anything.

I think many overrated the quality difference between Ynoa and Littell. Fangraphs had them both at 40 FV, it is just that Littell was closer to the majors. But that also meant he required a 40 man spot almost immediately (as did Enns), while the Braves have at least until after the 2019 season to make that decision on Ynoa.

 

Palacios was also a 40 FV prospect. That's pretty much equivalent to Ynoa and Littell territory. Obviously the Twins will have different evaluations, but of course those evaluations can be wrong too. Right now, still early, but it looks like we possibly lost the Littell move, given we paid $4 mil to get him and are stuck trying to evaluate him and break him into MLB at the same time as Romero, Gonsalves, Slegers, etc. Can Stewart re-join that group? Will it also cost us Felix Jorge? Etc.

 

I don't think teams have a whole lot of reason to be forgiving of Lynn's poor start. First of all, teams were already wary of him, given his offseason market. Second, he hasn't been that great since then either -- still hasn't completed 7 innings in a start this year, and he's coming off consecutive suspect starts going into July. Hence why I think the rest of July is going to be important for him, just to see if anyone will bite at that 40 FV prospect level, and/or take on his remaining salary.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

 

Get rid of the chaff - keep decent MLB level players like Escobar and Gibson and build around them.

 

Chaff gets you low value returns.  Gibson, Esco, Dozier, and Rodney are the only players with a real chance of landing prospects that could help.

 

Baseball players, cruel as it is, are diminishing assets as their age increases and team control expires.  Gibson makes a poor bet to extend, likewise the others.

 

If the concern is acquiring decent players for 2019, the team has ample means to do so in the offseason.  And they'll have any traded-for assets in addition.

[Major League Ready]

 

I was merely making an observation.Most prospects don't make the show. I'm not saying we waive all our draft picks or don't spend time on development. But the teams that you mentioned have done a super job of handling young players. They are the exception, not the rule. Houston basically wiped the slate clean. Of course, getting Correa and Altuve didn't hurt in a quick bounce back. And I don't think it is unfair to say the Twins have had mixed success at best in developing young talent. Seems to me that,  by the time you get a shot at the show, there shouldn't be holes in your game. We have brought up good players, but gee whiz, Buck doesn't even know how to bunt. 

 

Proven players are the bird in the hand. Prospects are the proverbial two in the bush. And a player that is a starter now, being traded for two mid range prospects means two things. A current hole in the roster and two or three years until we get our value back from the trade. The trade for prospects strategy works best when a team is a few years away from contending. When you are close, which the Twins were coming into the year, you need to get more or less MLB ready guys in return. There are many posters who talk like sending away a proven player for two in the bush is always the answer. I don't think so. Of course there are some trades that work, like AJ for Nathan and Boof and Frankie. But here again, these are the exceptions, not the rule.

 

And the personality and drive of the player is the single greatest indicator of success. 

We are not as far apart as it may seem. My primary point is that the answer is getting better at acquisition and development of young talent. The secondary point is that short-term assets like Gibson can't possibly factor in to long-term success. They are gone after next season.  If there is a 3rd point to be made here that would be the financial realities of being a mid market team. Fielding young talent is essential to the ability to retain talent and extend a winning window or to have the capacity to add free agents. You don't resign Escobar when you have Gordon ready to take his place. Assuming you pay market value, you fill that role with a league minimum player and add a player of equal value to Escobar that fills a need. 

 

Then, the next question is what do we get for Gibby. I think he has proven he is a different player starting the 2nd half of last year. Maybe the market won't see it that way. I am with you if that's the case. Why trade him for a guy who projects to be a back of the rotation SP. We have quite a few of those guys. If you can get a guy like Sheffield or better, that trade should contribute to winning for several years. It's not a good idea to pass on the chance to add that type of asset because we want so badly for next year 's team to be better. That's a good way to remain bad.

 

We are also caught in a wait and see mode. We have a number of pieces that COULD come together but that's a lot of "ifs". So, it does not make sense to press reset but I suggest we take advantage of any opportunities to add assets while we wait to see what happens with Buxton, Sano, and even Romero. Will Rooker become part of the solution in the next year? Will Gordon prove to be part of the solution. Is Polanco the player we saw the last half of 2017 or was that aided by PEDs. That's alot to figure out so let's not forego opportunities to add more long-term help because if all the stars and moon aligh, we can be  fringe contender next year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It works if the young players finally start reaching their potential. Trust me, I'm not a big fan of either the hefty Sano or the wall-crashing Buxton but for the Twins to be a contender anytime sooner than 2021, one or both of them needs to perform.  Along with the other young players that I mentioned that still have a lot of upside - Kepler, Berrios, Rosario, Polanco.  And Gordon is right around the corner.

 

And its not the same team if you shed Mauer, Dozier, LoMo, Santana, Lynn, Rodney. It opens up first base/DH for Sano. It opens up a couple of starting pitcher and bullpen spots.

 

Not to mention the payroll flexibility that the Twins have to spend on free agents (a catcher?) this winter or make a trade in July 2019.

 

No good FA catchers out there.....indeed, the list of difference maker FA is quite small....

[Twins33]

I've been going back and forth on this. Finally just caught up on the thread and feel like I'm leaning towards trading him.

 

The rotation next year will be Berrios, Odo if he's here, Pineda, and two of Gonsalves/Mejia/Littell/Romero. May maybe too, but I prefer him as a RP.

 

Even if you add Gibson to that list, I'm not sure that's a rotation that can even compete for the WC. There are a bunch of teams ahead of them this year that would probably still be ahead of them next year, with or without Gibson.

 

From what I recall, the free agent pitching market is not great. Expecting two of the prospects to hit the ground running plus a guy who's coming back from TJ...seems like a big uphill battle already. It feels like they're already out of the 2019 race. That sucks to think about. Wasting more of the years of the young players, some in part because they've stumbled themselves.

 

It goes without saying, but it obviously depends on the return. If they can get Sheffield you say yes. I would have a hard time wanting to trade him if they'd be getting back a significantly lesser prospect than that.

[Doomtints]

 

Nah, Griffith started trading his stars after the advent of free agency in the 1970's. Several things conspired to derail the 1965 team in the following years. Age was starting to claim Battey, Allison and Pascual. Performance decline from Grant, Hall and Versalles. Injuries to Harmon in 1968 and Chance in 1969 (and later to Oliva, Kaat and Boswell) impacted the team as well. That being said, they were so close in 1967, 1969 and 1970. Without a couple of these issues and Baltimore's staff a bit less dominant, things may have been turned out differently.

 

I know this is a little off topic, but I like talking about it.

 

The Twins were built to have a dynasty in the late 60s which never materialized, but they were close. In today's playoff format they would have probably won a championship or two.

 

The Twins weren't bad throughout most of the 70s. If Griffith were alive today, he would tell you there were three things that killed his ability to run the team:

 

- The AL adopting the DH rule. Griffith said the stats used to sell the DH rule were bunk, but he only figured that out later. Griffith later contended that the DH rule hurt more teams than it helped and he regretted casting the deciding vote.

- Leaving the Old Met to go into the Metrodome.

- Free Agency.

 

I would throw in the following:

 

- The player's strike in 1981, which sank attendance until 1984, the year he sold the team.

- A weird loyalty to Billy Gardner, a terrible manager who could not manage relief pitchers.

- Griffith was masterful at building teams with top tier infield defenses which became worthless after moving into the dome, especially with the original turf. (The Twins, particularly Hrbek, figured this out, and began hitting balls directly to the ground, 10 feet in front of them, and watching the balls sail another 200 feet over the heads of the middle infielders after the bounce. However, this took a couple of years to figure out and exploit.)

 

What sank the team under Griffith? The dome. Griffith didn't like free agency, but FA was one of the minor factors. The Twins held on nicely throughout the 70s until they moved into the dome in 1982. Griffith is on record as not liking free agency so people focus on it, but the reality is that the Twins went from a "Near Dynasty" to simply "A bit above average (in an era of some VERY good teams)." The team didn't sink down to nothing until leaving Met Stadium a dozen years after their last year in the playoffs.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Doomtints

[Rigby]

 

The Twins weren't bad throughout most of the 70s. If Griffith were alive today, he would tell you there were three things that killed his ability to run the team:

 

- The AL adopting the DH rule. Griffith said the stats used to sell the DH rule were bunk, but he only figured that out later. Griffith later contended that the DH rule hurt more teams than it helped and he regretted casting the deciding vote.

- Leaving the Old Met to go into the Metrodome.

- Free Agency.

 

I would throw in the following:

 

- The player's strike in 1981, which sank attendance until 1984, the year he sold the team.

- A weird loyalty to Billy Gardner, a terrible manager who could not manage relief pitchers.

- Griffith was masterful at building teams with top tier infield defenses which became worthless after moving into the dome, especially with the original turf. (The Twins, particularly Hrbek, figured this out, and began hitting balls directly to the ground in front of them and watching the balls sail over the heads of the infielders after the bounce. However, this took a couple of years to figure out and exploit.)

 

What sank the team under Griffith? The dome. He didn't like free agency, but it was one of the minor factors that sank the team. The Twins held on nicely throughout the 70s until they moved into the dome in 1982. Griffith is on record as not liking free agency so people focus on it.

Valid points but we'll have to disagree on the import of free agency and it's effects on the Twins' ability to compete in the 1970's. They were sub .500 from 1971-1979 (excluding of course the previously discussed 1970 playoff season.) Along with Griffith's inability / reluctance to participate in free agency, I would consider a flagging farm system as the other primary reason for a mediocre decade. Two studs were produced (Blyleven & Bostock) and three others were successes to varying degrees (Goltz, Campbell & Wynegar.) Throw in Tom Johnson and Steve Braun if you wish. The revitalization of the farm led to the successes of the mid to late 80's. Free agency cost them Bostock, Hisle, Campbell and Goltz among others, but also forced the trades of Carew and Blyleven. Just one man's opinion.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I think many overrated the quality difference between Ynoa and Littell. Fangraphs had them both at 40 FV, it is just that Littell was closer to the majors. But that also meant he required a 40 man spot almost immediately (as did Enns), while the Braves have at least until after the 2019 season to make that decision on Ynoa.

Palacios was also a 40 FV prospect. That's pretty much equivalent to Ynoa and Littell territory. Obviously the Twins will have different evaluations, but of course those evaluations can be wrong too. Right now, still early, but it looks like we possibly lost the Littell move, given we paid $4 mil to get him and are stuck trying to evaluate him and break him into MLB at the same time as Romero, Gonsalves, Slegers, etc. Can Stewart re-join that group? Will it also cost us Felix Jorge? Etc.

I don't think teams have a whole lot of reason to be forgiving of Lynn's poor start. First of all, teams were already wary of him, given his offseason market. Second, he hasn't been that great since then either -- still hasn't completed 7 innings in a start this year, and he's coming off consecutive suspect starts going into July. Hence why I think the rest of July is going to be important for him, just to see if anyone will bite at that 40 FV prospect level, and/or take on his remaining salary.

 

That's a fair take. I'm a bit surprised though that Ynoa and Littell are (from an FV standpoint) similar. One wasn't doing well in rookie ball, and one was dominating AA (albeit after being rather pedestrian in his seasons prior). I thought the FO did a great job turning a high risk piece into a controllable asset that should be in the majors for at least some time, and could have a decent ceiling in the process.

 

I guess I'm saying that not all FV prospects are created equal. 

 

I'm not expecting a Justus Sheffield for a guy like Lynn (and if that is truly an option for Gibby, I'd probably do it), but I do think a FO that wants a competent start at the 5 spot in the rotation would give up something for Lynn. You may be right, last year was a bit different in that there really weren't many buyers (though you could argue that Falvine did a great job taking advantage of the time discrepancy/inefficiency of the market). But prospects like Ynoa or Palacios are a dime a dozen. Most teams have a bunch, and I'd think you could get something like that for Lynn.

[Otto von Ballpark]

That's a fair take. I'm a bit surprised though that Ynoa and Littell are (from an FV standpoint) similar. One wasn't doing well in rookie ball, and one was dominating AA (albeit after being rather pedestrian in his seasons prior). I thought the FO did a great job turning a high risk piece into a controllable asset that should be in the majors for at least some time, and could have a decent ceiling in the process.

 

I guess I'm saying that not all FV prospects are created equal.

 

I definitely agree about FV. But still it isn't hard to make a case that the upgrade from Ynoa to Littell wasn't worth $4 mil, especially to the 2017 Twins who were already looking at a glut of AAA starters and were just about to sign 2 more MLB SP too. (Note that at the time of the trade, Littell's AA dominance was for 7 starts, and Ynoa's rookie league scuffles had lasted 6 starts.)

 

FWIW, Littell's walk rate and ground ball rate have both gotten worse since he came over to the Twins org. Not clear if that's Littell's true colors or the Twins vaunted player development machine at work.

[jorgenswest]

FWIW, Littell's walk rate and ground ball rate have both gotten worse since he came over to the Twins org. Not clear if that's Littell's true colors or the Twins vaunted player development machine at work.

Low walk rates for pitchers in the minors doesn’t translate well to the majors. It often is an indicator that the pitcher isn’t missing a lot of bats. Missing bats leads to longer counts and more walks. If the change in those measures is driven by more missed bats it is a positive step towards being useful in the majors.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Low walk rates for pitchers in the minors doesn’t translate well to the majors. It often is an indicator that the pitcher isn’t missing a lot of bats. Missing bats leads to longer counts and more walks. If the change in those measures is driven by more missed bats it is a positive step towards being useful in the majors.

Littell's K% has not generally improved, no.

[jorgenswest]

Littell's K% has not generally improved, no.

His AA strike out with the Twins this year was 31.7% (101 batters) vs his AA rate of 29.7% (175 batters) with the Yankees. I am not sure how to compare AA with AAA. His walk rate in AA was also greater compared to the Yankees.

 

I am not very hopeful but I do think missing more bats is the key to his usefulness in the majors.

[jimmer]

Isn't this thread about Kyle Gibson? :-)

[Otto von Ballpark]

His AA strike out with the Twins this year was 31.7% (101 batters) vs his AA rate of 29.7% (175 batters) with the Yankees. I am not sure how to compare AA with AAA. His walk rate in AA was also greater compared to the Yankees.

 

I am not very hopeful but I do think missing more bats is the key to his usefulness in the majors.

What kind of sample size is 23 inning pitched? Seems small. His overall rate with the Twins certainly hasn't improved meaningfully, across AA last year and AA/AAA/MLB this year.

 

Also remember minor league K rates are rising just like their MLB counterparts. These kind of rates aren't all that impressive by themselves anymore.

[Doomtints]

 

They were sub .500 from 1971-1979 (excluding of course the previously discussed 1970 playoff season.)

 

Nah!

 

1972: 77-77

1973: 81-81

1974: 82-80

1976: 85-77

1977: 84-77

1979: 82-80

[Rigby]

 

Nah!

 

1972: 77-77

1973: 81-81

1974: 82-80

1976: 85-77

1977: 84-77

1979: 82-80

You missed a couple.

 

1971 : 74-86

1975 : 76-83

1978 : 73-89

 

My limited math skills count that as 16 games under .500 for the 1971-1979 era. 

[Doomtints]

 

You missed a couple.

 

1971 : 74-86

1975 : 76-83

1978 : 73-89

 

My limited math skills count that as 16 games under .500 for the 1971-1979 era. 

 

But baseball "eras" aren't defined like that. And if they were:

 

- You had to omit one year in the 70s to get that result (cherry picking).

- If you want to omit the best season in the 70s, lets omit the worst one too. After doing that, the team is .500 for the 70s.

- Without cherry picking any years, the Twins were under .500 in the 80s, 90s, and 2010s (so far), with the 2010s being on pace to be the worst decade of the franchise in MN (and it's not close).

- Overall, the Minnesota Twins are under .500 since 1961. If we can roll W-L totals into arbitrary decades, we can roll up the entire shebang too. 

 

In any case, the Twins were at .500 or above six times between 1971-1979. That is *not* a bad "era." The actual bad eras are:

 

- 1981 - 1986 (High water mark: .500 (once))

- 1993 - 2000 (High water mark: .481)

- 2011 - Present (High water mark: .525 (at or over .500 once))

Edited July 6, 2018 by Doomtints

[Otto von Ballpark]

Super small sample, but apparently Happ and Hamels had poor starts today, while Gibson was pretty good (albeit against Baltimore).

[yarnivek1972]

So, bring back the same team, but without Mauer and Dozier? I don't understand how people think that will work.

It works if Sano and Buxton produce. If they don’t, the Twins are probably looking at building around Berrios, Romero, Rooker, Gordon and maybe Rosario.